Hibernia Oil and Gas Production and Development Drilling Project

Transcription

Hibernia Oil and Gas
Production and Development
Drilling Project Environmental
Effects Monitoring Plan
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
607 Torbay Road
St. John’s, NL A1A 4Y6
Tel: (709) 576-1458
Fax: (709) 576-2126
Prepared for
Hibernia Management
Development Corporation
Suite 1000, Cabot Place
100 New Gower Street
St. John’s, NL A1C 6K3
Final Report
File No. 121510634
Date: November 18, 2013
HIBERNIA OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT DRILLING PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As part of the planning process for the production phase of the Hibernia offshore oil project, and
in accordance with one of the conditions of project approval established by the CanadaNewfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB), Hibernia Management and
Development Company Ltd. (HMDC) has developed an Environmental Effects Monitoring
(EEM) Program. The goal of the EEM Program is to assess the effects of Platform operations
on the marine environment.
The EEM program provides the means by which project-induced changes in the surrounding
receiving environment are assessed and quantified. The Hibernia EEM program builds upon the
earlier stages of environmental planning, including the results of the 1994 baseline EEM survey,
which was submitted in 1995 (JWE 1995). The Hibernia Development Project Production Phase
Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan (HMDC 2002) was updated in June 2002 to reflect
changes and modifications to the Hibernia EEM program that have been incorporated since
1996.
The design of EEM programs is an iterative process in which there is opportunity to review the
design on an ongoing basis over the life of the project to address project changes, address
regulatory revisions, and to reflect and incorporate new technologies and methodologies that
are deemed necessary. Operational modifications on Hibernia drilling operations in 2001 and
2002 have significantly changed the environmental aspects of the project. The net result has
been a clearly identifiable improvement in the receiving environment surrounding the Hibernia
production Platform.
Partial reinjection of synthetic-based mud (SBM) drilling wastes commenced in March 2001,
with greater than 95 percent reinjection capability achieved in September 2002. The operational
changes instituted by Hibernia, coupled with the results of the 2002, 2004, 2007 and 2009
Hibernia EEM programs (HMDC 2003, 2005, 2009, 2011), indicated that a review of the
Hibernia EEM program design was timely and relevant. This review has resulted in suggested
revisions and refinements that are contained within this document and builds upon the Hibernia
Development Project Production Phase Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan (HDMC 2002).
In Decision Report 2010.02, the C-NLOPB approved an application for an amendment to the
Hibernia Development Plan, which included Hibernia’s first subsea development, the Hibernia
Southern Extension (HSE). This EEM Plan update also reflects this significant change in
Hibernia’s operation.
i
November 18, 2013
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
1.1
Project Setting ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2
Project Commitments .................................................................................................. 2
1.3
EEM Program Objectives ............................................................................................ 6
1.4
Hibernia EEM Programs.............................................................................................. 7
2.0 MONITORING STRATEGY OVERVIEW ............................................................................. 9
2.1
Sediment Quality .......................................................................................................10
2.1.1
Sediment Chemistry ......................................................................................10
2.1.2
Sediment Toxicity ..........................................................................................12
2.2
Water Column Program.............................................................................................13
2.3
Commercial Fish .......................................................................................................14
2.3.1
Tissue Chemical Profiles ...............................................................................15
2.3.2
Sensory Evaluations (Taint Assessments) ....................................................16
2.3.3
Fish Health Indicators....................................................................................16
3.0 PROGRAM SCOPE ...........................................................................................................17
3.1
Sediment Quality .......................................................................................................17
3.1.1
Initial Sample Grid Design .............................................................................18
3.1.2
Revised Sediment Sample Grid Design – Post-2002 EEM Program ............20
3.1.3
Sediment Collection Method..........................................................................26
3.1.4
Sample Analysis Methods .............................................................................28
3.1.5
3.2
3.1.4.1
Sediment Chemistry .......................................................................28
3.1.4.2
Sediment Toxicity ...........................................................................30
Sediment Program QA/QC ............................................................................34
Water Column Program.............................................................................................35
3.2.1
Pilot Water Column Program 2004................................................................35
3.2.2
Water Column Program 2007........................................................................37
3.2.3
Water Column Programs ...............................................................................40
3.2.4
Sample Analysis Methods .............................................................................41
ii
November 18, 2013
3.2.5
3.3
Biological Quality.......................................................................................................42
3.3.1
Sample Locations ..........................................................................................42
3.3.2
Sample Collection Method.............................................................................44
3.3.3
Sample Analyses...........................................................................................44
3.3.4
3.4
Quality Assurance .........................................................................................41
3.3.3.1
Tissue Chemical Profiles ................................................................44
3.3.3.2
Sensory Evaluations (Taint Testing)...............................................45
3.3.3.3
Fish Health Indicators.....................................................................50
Quality Assurance .........................................................................................53
Health and Safety......................................................................................................53
4.0 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION........................................................................................55
4.1
Sampling Platforms ...................................................................................................55
4.2
EEM Survey Schedule ..............................................................................................55
4.3
Documentation ..........................................................................................................55
4.3.1
Hazard Assessment and Safety Considerations ...........................................55
4.3.2
Cruise Plan ....................................................................................................57
4.3.3
Cruise Report ................................................................................................57
5.0 CORE EEM REPORTING AND REVIEW ..........................................................................58
5.1
Statistical Design.......................................................................................................58
5.1.1
Hypotheses....................................................................................................58
5.1.2
Sediment Chemistry Statistical Analyses ......................................................60
5.1.3
Sediment Toxicity Statistical Analyses ..........................................................64
5.1.3.1
Microtox Interpretation Guidelines..................................................65
5.1.3.2
Amphipod Survival Interpretation Guidelines ................................. 66
5.1.3.3
Juvenile Polychaete Growth Interpretation Guidelines...................66
5.1.4
Water Quality Statistical Analyses................................................................. 66
5.1.5
Statistical Analyses of Tissue Chemistry Profiles..........................................67
5.1.6
Statistical Analyses for Sensory Evaluations (Taint Testing) ........................67
5.1.7
5.1.6.1
Triangle Test...................................................................................67
5.1.6.2
Hedonic Scaling..............................................................................69
Statistical Analyses of Fish Health Indicators................................................69
iii
November 18, 2013
5.1.7.1
Mixed Function Oxygenase Induction ............................................69
5.1.7.2
Haematology ..................................................................................69
5.1.7.3
Tissue Histopathology ....................................................................69
5.2
Reporting...................................................................................................................70
5.3
Decision Making ........................................................................................................71
5.4
EEM Program Review ...............................................................................................71
6.0 HIBERNIA SOUTHERN EXTENSION EEM.......................................................................72
6.1
HSE EEM Program Components ..............................................................................72
6.2
Sampling Platforms ...................................................................................................72
6.3
EEM Survey Schedule ..............................................................................................72
6.4
Sediment Component................................................................................................73
6.5
Sample Locations......................................................................................................73
6.6
6.5.1
Sediment Chemistry ......................................................................................76
6.5.2
Sediment Toxicity ..........................................................................................76
Commercial Fish Component....................................................................................76
6.6.1
Sample Locations ..........................................................................................76
6.6.2
Sample Collection..........................................................................................79
6.6.3
Sample Analyses...........................................................................................79
6.7
Field Quality Assurance ............................................................................................79
6.8
Field Heath and Safety..............................................................................................79
6.9
Field Program Reports ..............................................................................................79
6.10 HSE EEM Report ......................................................................................................79
6.10.1 Hypotheses....................................................................................................79
6.10.2 Sediment Chemistry Statistical Analyses ......................................................80
6.10.3 Sediment Toxicity Statistical Analyses ..........................................................80
6.10.3.1 Microtox Interpretation Guidelines..................................................80
6.10.3.2 Amphipod and Juvenile Polychaete Guidelines .............................81
6.10.4 Statistical Analyses of Tissue Chemistry Profiles..........................................81
6.10.5 Statistical Analyses for Sensory Evaluations.................................................81
6.10.6 Statistical Analyses of Fish Health Indicators................................................81
6.10.7 Report Format ...............................................................................................81
iv
November 18, 2013
6.11 EEM Program Review ...............................................................................................81
7.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS...................................................82
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
Sediment Chemistry Methods
Sediment Toxicity Methods
Seabird 25 Capabilities
Water Chemistry Methods
Biota Chemistry Methods
Fish Health Indicator Descriptions
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.3
Figure 2.1
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.5
Figure 3.6
Figure 3.7
Figure 3.8
Figure 3.9
Figure 3.10
Figure 3.11
Figure 5.1
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.2
Figure 6.3
Location of the Hibernia Oilfield....................................................................... 1
Hibernia Platform Cross-sectional Seawater Inlet and Discharge
Locations .........................................................................................................4
Hibernia Platform Seawater Inlet and Discharge Locations ............................ 5
Environmental Effects Monitoring Components .............................................. 9
Hibernia Sample Grid Used for the 1999, 2000 and 2002 EEM
Programs .......................................................................................................18
2004, 2007, 2009 and Future Core EEM Sediment Sample Grid ................. 24
Model II Pouliot Box Corer Schematic View .................................................. 27
Hibernia Sediment Sampling Strategy........................................................... 28
Hibernia EEM Program Sediment Toxicity Testing Strategy ......................... 31
Water Quality Station Locations Hibernia 2004 EEM Program ..................... 36
Water Sampling Locations 2009 EEM........................................................... 38
Graphic Display of Representative CTD Profiles at Near-field (W1 and
W6), Mid-field (W50) and Far-field (WR1 – 16,000) Sampling Stations ........ 39
Hibernia EEM Target Fishing Zone ............................................................... 43
Sample Questionnaire for Sensory Evaluation by Traingle Test ................... 48
Sample Questionnaire for Sensory Evaluation by Hedonic Scaling .............. 49
Example of a Two-dimensional Surface Plot: Average Sand Content in
Hibernia Sediment for 2000 and 2002 Data .................................................. 62
Environmental Effects Monitoring Components ............................................ 73
Sediment Sampling Grid for the Hibernia Southern Extension Program ....... 74
Proposed Fish Sampling Transects............................................................... 78
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1
Table 1.2
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Hibernia EEM Programs Sediment and Biological Survey Schedules ............ 7
Hibernia EEM Program Modification History ................................................... 8
Original Sediment Trace Metal Parameters .................................................. 10
Recommended Sediment Trace Metal Parameters (Total Metals)................ 11
v
November 18, 2013
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 2.5
Table 2.6
Table 2.7
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 5.1
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Sediment Petroleum Hydrocarbon Monitoring Parameters ........................... 11
Water Quality Parameters to be Analyzed during Core EEM Programs ....... 14
Biota Trace Metal Parameters....................................................................... 15
Biota Petroleum Hydrocarbon Monitoring Parameters .................................. 15
Fish Health Indicators.................................................................................... 16
Hibernia EEM Sediment Station Locations (NAD 27, Zone 22 UTM
Coordinates) Used for the 1999, 2000 and 2002 Core EEM Programs ........ 19
Cri
.................................................................... 22
Degrees of Freedom Available for Sediment Statistical Analysis, 2002
Hibernia EEM Program.................................................................................. 22
Coordinates) for 2004, 2007, 2009 and Future Core EEM Programs ........... 25
Sediment Toxicity Test Particulars ................................................................ 32
Centre Points of Biological Sampling Areas .................................................. 42
Triangle Test, Difference Analyses................................................................ 68
Planned Anchor Locations............................................................................. 75
HSE Baseline Sediment Station Locations (NAD 83, Zone 22 UTM
Coordinates) .................................................................................................. 75
HSE and Reference site Fishing Coordinates ............................................... 77
LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo 1:
Photo 2:
Photo 3:
Photo 4:
Photo 5:
Photo 6:
Photo 7:
Photo 8:
Photo 9:
Photo 10:
Photo 11:
Photo 12:
Photo 13:
Photo 14:
Hibernia Gravity-based Structure .................................................................... 1
Model II Pouliot Box Corer in Operation (Hibernia 2007 EEM Program)....... 26
Sample Collection for Sediment Chemistry and Toxicity ............................... 27
Microtox Analyzer (M500).............................................................................. 32
Amphipod Bioassay in Progress.................................................................... 33
Juvenile Polychaete Sediment Toxicity Test in progress .............................. 34
CTD Profiler in Operation during 2007 EEM ................................................. 40
Niskin Water Sampler in Operation during 2007 EEM .................................. 41
Campellan Trawl in use during 2007 EEM .................................................... 44
Representative Catch during 2007 EEM ....................................................... 44
Presentation of Samples during 2007 Triangle Test ..................................... 46
Fish Measuring, Weighing and Visual Assessment....................................... 50
Blood Extraction from American Plaice ......................................................... 50
Otolith Extraction from American Plaice ........................................................ 50
vi
November 18, 2013
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Project Setting
Hibernia is located near the northeast corner of the Grand Banks, approximately 315 km eastsoutheast of St. John’s, Newfoundland, and approximately 35 km northwest of the Terra Nova
Oil Field. The White Rose site is located approximately 50 km east-northeast of the Hibernia
Platform (Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1
Location of the Hibernia Oilfield
The Hibernia field was discovered in late 1979.
Following construction of the Hibernia Platform at Bull
Arm, Newfoundland and Labrador, from 1990 to 1997,
tow out to the Grand Banks occurred in May 1997.
The Platform was installed on the seafloor and drilling
commenced in June 1997. Throughout the summer of
1997, additional subsea infrastructure (the Offshore
Loading System (OLS)) was installed. First oil
occurred on November 17, 1997.
Hibernia uses a single fixed Platform, or gravity-based
structure (GBS) (Photo 1), to complete drilling of at
Photo 1: Hibernia Gravity-based Structure
1
November 18, 2013
least 64 wells that will be required during the life of the project. In 2013, drilling commenced at
the first subsea development; the Hibernia Southern Extension (HSE) which is located
approximately 7 km south of the GBS and consists of a subsea water injection flow line running
from the GBS to the excavated drill centre (EDC) where water is injected via a manifold into
several water injection wells. The subsea wells are drilled using a mobile offshore drilling unit or
MODU. Hibernia crude is shipped from the Platform to the IMTT Transshipment Terminal at
Whiffen Head, Placentia Bay, NL, by the purpose-built shuttle-tankers, the Kometik, Mattea and
Vinland. The tankers and the transshipment terminal are completely independent of the Hibernia
drilling and production operation.
Regulated discharges to the marine environment during production and drilling operations on
the GBS include liquid discharges (produced water, storage displacement water, platform
drainage water, seawater return and sanitary and domestic wastes), drill cuttings and drilling
muds, as well as other approved discharges that may occur on occasion. The locations of
discharge points on the GBS for regulated discharges are shown in Figures 1.2 and 1.3.
Regulated discharges associated with the HSE MODU include water based drill mud and water
and synthetic oil based cuttings, bilge water, untreated cooling water, as well as sanitary and
domestic waste. Mud and cuttings are released via the forward side of port aft column 4 m
below the surface when drilling. Both bilge and sanitary/domestic wastes are discharged via the
port forward drain collector 15 m below surface.
On average, water-based muds (WBMs) are used for the first 300 to 400 m of the well depths,
and the remainder of wells are drilled using a synthetic-based mud (SBM) system due to
challenges posed in extended reach and directional drilling.
1.2
Project Commitments
In the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the Hibernia project (Mobil 1985),
a commitment was made by the Hibernia partners to undertake environmental effects
monitoring (EEM). In submitting its Development Plan for the Hibernia project in 1985, Mobil Oil,
on behalf of Hibernia, stated:
“Effects monitoring will be under taken to detect changes in the environment
surrounding the project that can be attributed to the project.”
The Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NOPB) approval of the Hibernia
Development Plan was announced in June 1986. This project approval was subject to a number
of conditions, including:
Condition 12
“It is a condition of the approval of the Hibernia Development Plan that prior to
production, the Proponent submit, for the Board’s approval, its plans for
environmental compliance and effects monitoring programs.”
2
November 18, 2013
The EEM Plan for the Hibernia Development Project’s production phase was submitted to the
C-NOPB by Hibernia Management Development Corporation (HMDC) in April 1996 (HMDC
1996). Final approval of the EEM Plan by the C-NOPB was obtained in June 1996. The Plan
was subsequently revised in response to the 2002 Hibernia (core) EEM results, which revealed
a significant overall improvement in the environment surrounding the Hibernia Platform. The
operational changes instituted by Hibernia, coupled with the EEM results, indicated that a
review of the Hibernia EEM Plan was timely and relevant. In addition, an update to the EEM
Plan was necessary to outline the effects monitoring effort associated with the first subsea
development tieback, the Hibernia Southern Extension.
3
November 18, 2013
R = 55.4 m
TIP TO TIP
R = 50.4 m
11
SEAWATER
LIFT INLET
10
15
16
9
1
8
7
SHALE
CHUTES
6
3
SEAWATER
LIFT INLET
PURE WATER
INLET
5
4
4
Tr
u
e
N
or
th
45
SEABED
84.72 m
NOTE:
* NOT ONE OUTLET BUT 3 SEPARATE OUTLETS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY
AS ILLUSTRATED IN BREAKOUT DIAGRAM.
Outlet EL. + 40
Seawater Return 36''
EL. + 58.75
Ballast Overflow 20''
+ Sewage Treatment Package EL. + 62
Produced water 12''
EL. + 65.2
Tooth 7
Produced water, ballast overflow and seawater return lines exit
the GBS wall at + 65.2, + 62 and + 58.75 m respectively. All lines
terminate at EL = + 40.0 in a vertical orientation.
PRODUCED WATER OUTLET, BALLAST WATER
OVERFLOW AND SEAWATER RETURN LINE*
2
SEAWATER
CIRCULATION
OUTLET
November 18, 2013
Hibernia Platform Cross-sectional Seawater Inlet and Discharge Locations
SEAWATER
CIRCULATION
(INLET AND OUTLET)
SEAWATER
CIRCULATION
OUTLET
Figure 1.2
12
13
14
SHALE
CHUTES
FLARE Platform North
Platform North
Figure 1.3
Hibernia Platform Seawater Inlet and Discharge Locations
5
November 18, 2013
In 2009, the HSE Environmental Assessment was completed. The completion of the HSE
Environmental Assessment and planned schedule of work activities in support of HSE
necessitates the development of an EEM program to monitor and measure potential
environmental effects associated with the HSE. Details on the HSE EEM program are presented
in Section 6 and builds upon the existing core EEM program, using the same methods, analyses
and interpretation philosophy.
The EEM program is one of a series of environmental protection initiatives outlined in the HMDC
Operational Plan, which forms an integral part of production operations, including environmental
compliance monitoring and emergency response management. Environmental compliance
monitoring characterizes effluent to ensure conformance to the discharge limits adopted in the
project Environmental Protection Plan(s).
The EEM program is a sampling, analysis and reporting program which is intended to detect
effects in the receiving environment resulting from project activities. In addition, it serves to
confirm the effectiveness of discharge limits adopted in the project Environmental Protection
Plan(s).
1.3
EEM Program Objectives
HMDC established a set of specific objectives to be met in the development and application of
its EEM plan (HMDC 1996). These objectives are:
fulfill regulatory information requirements and address legitimate public concerns;
provide early warning of potential project-induced environmental effects;
meet the Project needs;
be scientifically defensible;
be cost-effective, making optimal use of personnel, technology and equipment;
use the data that will be collected for assessment and, where necessary, to modify
operational practices and procedures; and
analyze and interpret data so that the results are understandable both to the public and
non-scientists.
The United Nations Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection
(GESAMP) recognizes the term contamination to refer to elevated levels of a chemical as
compared to background levels (GESAMP 1993). They also recognize the term pollution to refer
to the effects of the contamination on the biota. The term contamination and the derivation
contaminant will be used as per the GESAMP definition in Hibernia’s effect monitoring program.
The definitions for contamination and pollution as recognized by GESAMP (1993) clearly
demonstrate that contamination (i.e., levels elevated as compared to background levels) does
not necessarily indicate that an ecological effect has occurred.
Biological effects on marine life would be the principle concern associated with platform effluent
discharge. Such effects may be either biological or physical in nature and can be direct or
6
November 18, 2013
indirect. For example, biological effects may occur when marine life is exposed to contaminated
water or sediment, however the magnitude of the resulting effect is dependent upon such
factors as the nature of the contaminant, its concentration in the marine environment, and the
degree of exposure (i.e., related to dose/response).
The EEM program is designed to provide the primary means to determine and quantify projectinduced changes in the surrounding environment as it relates to normal operations. Where such
changes occur, the EEM program results will provide the basis to determine if environmental
assessment predictions are accurate. Where EEM program results contradict environmental
assessment predictions, the results will be used to modify this EEM plan and may be used to
assist in identifying operational modifications or mitigations when effects are considered
significant and unacceptable.
In the event of a large oil spill, an Oil Spill EEM that uses similar monitoring tools will be
implemented over the potentially affected area.
1.4
Hibernia EEM Programs
The Hibernia Project began production in November 1997 and the first Production Phase EEM
Program was initiated in the summer of 1998. The scheduling of the Hibernia EEM surveys is
provided in Table 1.1. The change in the scheduling of the biological cruise was initiated in 1999
based on the advice of the DFO fishing crews in an attempt to collect a larger sample size of
American plaice.
Table 1.1
Hibernia EEM Programs Sediment and Biological Survey Schedules
EEM Program (Year)
1994
1998
1999
2000
2002
2004
2007
2009
2011
*The 1999 sediment survey
equipment.
Sediment Survey Dates
Biological Survey Dates
August 31 – September 10
December 4 – 6
August 26 – September 1
December 16 – 23
July 25 – 30 and September 1 – October 4*
June 8 –10
July 8 –18
July 5-6
July 06 –14
June 29 – July 01
August 22 - 28
July 13 - 14
August 17 - 29
July 13 - 14
July 30 – August 4
June 30 – July 3
August 1-6
July 6-12
was split into two surveys due to equipment losses and manufacturing of new
The Hibernia Development Project Production Phase Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan
(HMDC 1996) built upon data and information collected during the Hibernia Baseline EEM
Program (HMDC 1995). The development and design of the Hibernia Baseline EEM Program
was finalized after extensive consultation with regulatory agencies and regional, national and
international experts in the offshore oil EEM programs.
The design of an EEM program depends upon the specific objectives of the program. Program
objectives can change over time in response to evolving knowledge about the project, and its
potential or observed interactions with the environment. Therefore, it is reasonable that the EEM
program design should evolve or change over time, in keeping with the priorities and objectives
7
November 18, 2013
of the program. The proposed components for future EEM programs are outlined in Section 2.
The modifications that have been incorporated to the Hibernia EEM program are provided in
Table 1.2.
Table 1.2
Year
1994
1998
1999
2000
2002
2004
Hibernia EEM Program Modification History
2007
2009
2011
2014
Hibernia EEM Program Modifications
Benthic habitat assessments removed.
Suite of sediment toxicity bioassays added.
Echinoid fertilization bioassays removed.
Juvenile polychaete growth bioassays added.
More intense sampling conducted within 1000 m (sampling along all 8 radials at
500, 750 and 1000 m conducted resulting in the addition of 12 stations).
Iceland scallops removed due to absence in area
Biological survey changed from winter to summer sampling.
32 Km stations added along radial 1 and 7
32 km stations discontinued.
Chemical analyses on sediment for sulphides and ammonia added.
Fish health pilot program conducted.
Sediment sample grid revised focusing on near field stations and limited to 4
radials outside of 1000 m.
Replicate sampling at each station (pre 2004 there were 3 samples per station)
discontinued.
Fish health added as a permanent component of Hibernia EEM program.
Sampling focused on select metals and TPH hydrocarbons in sediment.
Pilot water quality program conducted.
Water quality program added as a permanent component of Hibernia EEM
program.
Advanced statistical analyses conducted on parameters only when differences
between baseline, 2002 and 2004 data are detected.
Water quality sampling to be conducted at fixed stations at 50, 100 and 200 m
from produced water discharge.
Three samples are to be collected per water column station (one from near
surface, one from within the plume location and one near bottom).
Due to the fluid nature of the produced water plume, predetermined sample
locations within 50 m of the discharge point should not be imposed, rather these
sample locations be directed by the CTD Profiles.
When logistically feasible, produced water sampling (including toxicity testing) for
Environmental Protection Plan be conducted concurrently with the water column
program.
Due to the fluid nature of the produced water plume predetermined water quality
sample locations within 50 metres of the discharge point not be imposed. Sample
locations for each program year be directed by the CTD profiles and safety risk
management.
Baseline effects monitoring data collected for Hibernia Southern Extension subsea
development
First operational effects monitoring program surrounding the HSE drill centre.
8
November 18, 2013
2.0
MONITORING STRATEGY OVERVIEW
The EEM program is designed around the monitoring of the critical elements of the receiving
environment that have provided the most beneficial and timeliest information on potential
deleterious effects to the receiving environment. It builds upon requests and recommendations
provided from regulatory review and experience gained from previous Hibernia EEM programs.
Specifically, data will be collected on sediment quality, water column chemistry and a
commercial fish species. Data will also be collected on raw produced water to enable
verification of predicted dispersion factors.
Data on sediment quality and commercial fish species have been collected in each EEM
monitoring year. Fish health indicators were included as part of the commercial fish program in
2002. Water column chemistry monitoring associated with produced water was initially
incorporated as a pilot program in conjunction with the 2004 Hibernia EEM program. The water
column chemistry program was completed again during the 2007 and 2009 EEM programs and
is now included as a fixed monitoring component in the core EEM program. The EEM
components and target parameters are summarized in Figure 2.1 and Figure 6.1. Details of
each component are provided in the following sections and additional details specific to the HSE
development are contained in Section 6.
SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY
Particle size, organic and inorganic carbon, metal and
hydrocarbon concentrations
SEDIMENT QUALITY
SEDIMENT
SEDIMENT TOXICITY
Bacterial Bioluminescence (Microtox), Amphipod survival,
Polychaete Growth and Survival
CTD
Oxygen, temperature, salinity and pH profiles
WATER COLUMN
WATER
WATER CHEMISTRY
Metals, Hydrocarbons, Nutrients, TSS, Clorophyll a,
Phaeophytin, and Radionucliotides
TISSUE CHEMICAL PROFILES
SENSORY EVALUATION
(Taint)
COMMERCIAL FISH
AMERICAN PLAICE
HEALTH INDICATORS
Haematology, Histopathology, Mixed Function Oxygenase
MORPHOMETRICS AND LIFE HISTORY
CHARACTERISTICS
Figure 2.1
Environmental Effects Monitoring Components
9
November 18, 2013
2.1
Sediment Quality
Methods used to assess environmental effects of an activity have evolved from the basic
chemical analyses to more exhaustive studies that integrate physical, chemical and biological
testing. This type of approach is an integrative weight-of-evidence approach to the assessment
of environmental effects, examining multiple factors and trophic levels. The integrative
assessment or weight-of-evidence approach provides more information on spatial extent, the
magnitude of contamination and biological effects associated with the contamination than any
one single component.
Particulate matter and the associated contaminants that form a part of the development and
production discharges is predicted to settle out around the Hibernia Platform, as modelled by
Seaconsult (1994), with chemical constituents being chemically sorbed by particulate matter.
This net accumulation in the sediment may alter the sediment toxicity over time and can be
incorporated into the food web via bottom-feeding fish and filter-feeding bivalves. Sampling and
analysis of the sediments surrounding the Hibernia Platform provide a mechanism for
determining the trend in change in concentrations that could be associated with biological
effects due to operational discharges. More details on the sediment quality program can be
found in Sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 3.1.
2.1.1
Sediment Chemistry
The original EEM program design incorporated sediment chemical parameters based upon the
PARCOM (1989) guidelines, with appropriate modifications recommended by Dr. S. MacKnight
(1994). The metals listed in Table 2.1 represent the original (minimum) recommended metals for
the program. The standard metal analyses are conducted by ICP-MS (except for mercury which
is analysed by CVAA) and the suite of metals currently offered by analytical laboratories
contains more metals than listed in Table 2.1. A standard suite of 23 metals has been
conducted for all EEM programs, as it offered the best value and provided additional information
on Grand Banks sediment chemical profiles.
Table 2.1
Original Sediment Trace Metal Parameters
Original Sediment Trace Metal Parameters
Barium
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Chromium
Aluminium
Lithium
Iron
Mercury
A review of the sediment chemistry collected since 1994 baseline indicates that the chemical
parameters of concern, or those that have changed over the course of the project, are limited to
10
November 18, 2013
total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) and barium. The data collected since 1994 for metals
(a suite of 23 metals) provide a solid base of information on the geochemical characterization
for the Hibernia surface sediments and essentially serves as a baseline that has been collected
over an extended period. Although a review of the data indicates that the full suite of metal
analyses is not required to assess environmental effects associated with the Hibernia waste
streams, for completeness, the full suite of metals outlined in Table 2.2 will be analyzed in
subsequent EEM programs. An analysis for weak acid leachable barium will also be conducted.
Data on metals contained within the standard suite analyzed but not reflected in Table 2.1 will
be retained and archived for reference only and not subject to analyses or discussion. However,
data on all metals analyzed will be reported in a Data Appendix.
In addition to the metal analyses, TPH analysis will be conducted. There has been no detection
of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the marine sediments at Hibernia over the life of
the monitoring program. However, in recognition of the risks associated with PAHs as
environmental contaminants, PAH sampling and analyses will be conducted. The list of
hydrocarbon parameters to be included in the hydrocarbon analysis is provided in Table 2.3.
Table 2.2
Recommended Sediment Trace Metal Parameters (Total Metals)
Recommended Sediment Trace Metal Parameters (Total Metals)
Aluminum
Lithium
Antimony
Manganese
Arsenic
Mercury
Barium
Molybdenum
Weak Acid Ext. Barium
Nickel
Beryllium
Selenium
Cadmium
Strontium
Chromium
Thallium
Cobalt
Tin
Copper
Uranium
Iron
Vanadium
Lead
Zinc
Table 2.3
Sediment Petroleum Hydrocarbon Monitoring Parameters
Sediment Petroleum Hydrocarbon Parameters
BTEX
C6-C10 (less BTEX)
C10-C21 (Fuel Range)
C21-C32 (Lube Range)
1-Chloronaphthalene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
C1 – Dibenzothiophenes
C1 – Phenanthrenes
11
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a, h)anthracene
Dibenzothiophenes
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
November 18, 2013
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Sediment Petroleum Hydrocarbon Parameters
Naphthalene
Perylene
C1 – Naphthalenes
Phenanthrene
C2 – Naphthalenes
Pyrene
C3 – Naphthalenes
In addition to the metal and hydrocarbon analyses, ancillary parameters that are necessary for
data interpretation and integrative assessment will be maintained. These parameters are
particle size characterization, organic carbon, inorganic carbon, ammonia and sulphide
analyses.
This description of the sediment chemistry component is applicable to the core EEM program as
well as the HSE EEM program as described in Section 6.
2.1.2
Sediment Toxicity
Sediments serve as an effective “sink” or reservoir for particulate matter and many of the
chemical constituents associated with the Platform discharges. Sediment toxicity assays have
been used to assess the biological significance of project related contamination in sediment
samples collected from the receiving environment adjacent to the Hibernia Platform since 1994.
The rationale of this approach is non-toxic sediments are able to support diverse and abundant
benthic communities, whereas toxic sediments are unable to. The toxicity assays used for the
Hibernia EEM program employ a variety of organisms from several trophic levels, produce
conclusive data in a short time frame (one hour to 20 days), and monitor both lethal and
sublethal effects. The toxicity assays used for the Hibernia EEM program are:
Microtox Solid Phase Assay (luminescent bacteria assay);
Amphipod Survival Assay; and
Juvenile Polychaete Growth.
The luminescent bacterial bioassay (Microtox) toxic/non-toxic interpretation guideline
established for Hibernia sediment samples was an IC50 response of <40,000 mg/L, which was
considered to be toxic. For recent and future EEM programs, the Microtox test method will use a
large volume sample size (as described in Environment Canada’s (2002) reference method
(EPS 1/RM/42)), as well as the original value of <40,000 mg/L used to determine a toxic/nontoxic response. The <40,000 mg/L value was derived using similar principles that are the basis
of the Environment Canada (2002) reference method for solid phase Microtox. Therefore, it is
felt that the current value of <40,000 mg/L toxic/non-toxic interpretation guideline is still relevant
and applicable even when using the large volume sample size.
Amphipod lethality and juvenile polychaete growth bioassays will be conducted for stations
within 500 m and at stations with Microtox failures beyond 500 m. The full suite of toxicity test
would be conducted for the references stations.
12
November 18, 2013
This description of the sediment toxicity component is applicable to the core EEM program as
well as the HSE EEM program as described in Section 6.
2.2
Water Column Program
Produced water is defined as “all water separated from crude oil or gas during the primary
processing of oil and gas on offshore production platforms” (Environment Canada 1990) and
consists of both injected seawater and formation water. This definition encompasses formation
water, condensed water (from gas compression), injection water (seawater injected to enhance
oil recovery) and approved production and injection water treatment chemicals (HMDC 1994).
Produced water has elevated levels of total dissolved solids, ammonia and hardness. It contains
a variety of hydrocarbon fractions, including selected PAHs.
Discharged produced water contains a variety of chemical constituents that have a range of
fates within the receiving environment. Most chemical constituents are rapidly diluted,
dispersed, volatized to the atmosphere, absorbed to naturally occurring particles and settled to
the bottom, metabolized by bacteria and marine organisms, and are subject to chemical process
such as chemical oxidation and photo-oxidation, as well as biodegradation.
The two primary components of produced water that are of environmental concern are the low
molecular weight PAHs (particular naphthalene) and the benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and
xylene (BTEX) fraction of TPH analysis, particularly benzene (Berry and Wells 2004). BTEX is
soluble in seawater and highly toxic to marine organisms. PAHs tend to be less soluble but
more persistent in the environment (Holdway and Heggie, 2000).
Metals most frequently found at elevated concentration in produced water as compared to the
receiving environment tend to be barium, iron, manganese, mercury and zinc with Hibernia’s
produced water having barium, iron and manganese concentrations higher than the receiving
environment (Neff et al 2011). Yeats et al. (2011) studies conducted in 2005 and 2006 indicate
that particulate barium is the strongest indicator of a produced water tracer at Hibernia.
A water quality pilot study was undertaken during the 2004 EEM program to assess the
effectiveness of using conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) profiles to identify the location of
the produced water plume and to use water chemistry results to validate the predictions of the
Hibernia produced water dispersion model (Lorax Environmental 2004). The chemical analyses
focused on TPH, PAH and select metals. Information contained within the Hibernia EIS (Mobil
1985) indicated worst case dilutions of 1:1,000 would be achieved within 1 km and dilutions of
1:10,000 within 8 km. Dilution ratios as predicted by the Hibernia produced water model (Lorax
Environmental 2004) are 1:100 to 1:3,000 within 50 m from the discharge point, depending upon
flow rates. Dilutions of 1:10,000 are predicted to be achieved beyond 750 m regardless of flow
rates.
Based on the success of the 2004 pilot program to measure chemical constituents attributed to
produced water discharges, a water column chemistry program was included as a separate
monitoring component in the 2007 and 2009 EEM programs and is now included as a fixed
monitoring component in the core EEM program. The purpose of the water column chemistry
13
November 18, 2013
program was to determine estimates of dispersion factors to validate dispersion modelling and
to predict a zone of potential effects based upon available toxicity data. As in 2004, 2007 and
2009 sample locations were directed by the results of CTD scans. The 2007 and 2009 water
column chemistry programs validated dilution ratios that were predicted to occur within 50 m of
the discharge point as per produced water modelling (Lorax Environmental 2004). This concurs
with dispersion modelling studies conducted world-wide that all predict a rapid dilution in the
range of 30- to 100-fold within the first tens of metres of the discharge point (Terrens and Tait
1993; Brandsma and Smith 1996; Neff 2002). Therefore, the model predictions in the EIS with
respect to produced water are very conservative and will most likely be achieved much closer to
the discharge points than those noted in the EIS (Mobil 1985).
A water quality program as described previously will be incorporated as a component of core
EEM program but is not intended for inclusion in the HSE EEM program. Water quality
parameters to be analyzed are included in Table 2.4. More details on the water quality
component can be found in Section 3.2.
Based on the measured concentration of these parameters, some will be used in conjunction
with raw produced water data to provided estimates of dispersion factors. The dispersion factors
will then be used to predict potential zones of influence associated with raw produced water
data.
Table 2.4
Water Quality Parameters to be Analyzed during Core EEM Programs
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Strontium
Zinc
Mercury
Other
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Oil and Grease
Chlorophyll a
Phaeophytin a
Hydrocarbons
BTEX
C6 to C10 (less BTEX)
>C10 to C21
>C21-C32
Nutrients
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Total Organic Carbon
Radionulciotides
(radium 226, 228 and
Lead 210)
1-Chloronaphthalene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
2.3
PAHs
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
C1 - Phenanthrenes
C2 - Phenanthrenes
C3 - Phenanthrenes
C1 - Naphthalenes
C2 - Naphthalenes
C3 - Naphthalenes
Dibenzothiophenes
Commercial Fish
The regulators and public have always expressed concern regarding the potential for offshore
development projects to produce effects on fish and the fishery. These concerns are based
primarily on approved discharges of:
14
November 18, 2013
SBM cuttings; and
Platform produced water.
The effects associated with SBM cuttings have been essentially eliminated due to the
achievement of greater than 95 percent cuttings reinjection; however, there remains a need of
fully understanding the remaining waste streams. Potential environmental effects on biota from
these discharges are hydrocarbon and/or trace metal bioaccumulation, tainting and effects on
fish health.
2.3.1
Tissue Chemical Profiles
Fish muscle tissue (dorsal fillet) and liver samples will be obtained from American plaice
collected at the core EEM area and a Reference site as per earlier Hibernia EEM programs, as
well as the HSE drill centre. Ten samples for each tissue type will be collected from the Hibernia
and Reference sites, and will be analyzed for metals, TPH and PAHs. Method details are
provided in Section 3.2.
A list of metal parameters that will be examined in muscle and liver tissues for American plaice
is provided in Table 2.5. This list of parameters is essentially the same as the minimum
recommended metals for the original Hibernia EEM program design, with the exception of
lithium. Lithium has been removed from the list of parameters as it has been below detection
limits for all of the Hibernia EEM programs to date. The hydrocarbons that will be analyzed are
listed in Table 2.6.
Table 2.5
Biota Trace Metal Parameters
Biota Trace Metal Parameters
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Selenium
Zinc
Table 2.6
Biota Petroleum Hydrocarbon Monitoring Parameters
Biota Petroleum Hydrocarbon Parameters
TPH (C6 - C32)
C1 - Phenanthrenes
C10-C21 (Fuel Range)
C2 - Phenanthrenes
C21-C32 (Lube Range)
C3 - Phenanthrenes
PAHs
C1 - Naphthalenes
Acenaphthene
C2 - Naphthalenes
15
November 18, 2013
Biota Petroleum Hydrocarbon Parameters
Acenaphthylene
C3 - Naphthalenes
Anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Dibenzo(a, h)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1-Chloronaphthalene
1-Methylnaphthalene
Dibenzothiophenes
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
2.3.2
Sensory Evaluations (Taint Assessments)
The sensory evaluations or taint assessments will be conducted using the ventral fillets of
American plaice. The sensory evaluations will be conducted by taste panels using the triangle
test; hedonic scaling assessment will be used only in the event of a positive triangle test result.
Details on the sensory evaluation testing protocols can be found in Section 3.3.3.2.
2.3.3
Fish Health Indicators
Fish health indicators will be examined from 50 fish collected from the Hibernia Platform, HSE
drill centre (exposure) and Reference site. Fish health indicators include the parameters and
indices listed in Table 2.7. Additional detail on the fish health indicator testing protocols can be
found in Section 3.3.3.3.
Table 2.7
Physical characteristics and Condition Indices
Total body weight
Gutted body weight
Length
Liver weight
Gonad weight
Age
Condition index (gutted weight)
Condition index (total weight)
Hepato-somatic index (HIS)
Gonado-somatic index (GSI)
Mixed Function Oxygenase activity
Gross pathology
Haemotology
Lymphocytes
Neutrophils
Thrombocytes
Liver histopathology
Nuclear pleomorphism
Megalocytic hepatosis
Eosinophilic foci
Basophilic foci
Clear cell foci
Carcinoma
Cholangioma
Cholangiofibrosis
Increase in mitotic activity
Macrophage aggregation
Hydropic vacuolation
Parasite infection of biliary system
Gill histopathology
Thin lamellae
Distil hyperplasia
Epithelial lifting
Clubbing with tip hyperplasia
Clubbing with telangiectasis
Basal hyperplasia
Fusion
Oedema condition
16
November 18, 2013
3.0
PROGRAM SCOPE
This section provides the program design by which the sediment quality, water column
chemistry and commercial fish samples will be collected, stored and handled during the
surveys. Appropriate quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures are discussed.
This section is intended to apply to both the existing or core program as well as the new HSE
EEM program with the exception of the water quality component which is not a monitoring
component for HSE. Additional details on the HSE sediment and commercial fish components
are contained in Section 6.
3.1
Sediment Quality
The purpose of the sediment survey is to evaluate changes in sediment characteristics and
properties as they may relate to effects of discharges from the Hibernia field development and
production on the existing environmental environment of the Grand Banks. The survey can be
divided into three elements:
the assessment of the fate of contaminants associated with the drill cuttings discharge;
the assessment of the effects of the contaminants associated with the drill cuttings
discharge; and
to assess the potential effect of produced water on the sediments as a result of
sedimentation and flocculation.
It is important to note that as of September 2002, Hibernia no longer discharged SBM cuttings.
HMDC states that greater than 95 percent of SBM cuttings are reinjected. In fact, when cuttings
reinjection is fully functional, 100 percent of SBM cuttings are reinjected. SBM cuttings will be
discharged only in the event of a Cuttings Reinjection System malfunction and such a discharge
will be of short duration. Thus, the primary source of synthetic-based fluid is the two cuttings
piles located below the shale chutes reflected in Figure 1.3.
To address the fate of contaminants including sedimentation and flocculation from produced
water, sediment samples will be collected from sampling stations reflected in Figure 3.2 (and
Figure 6.2) and the concentrations of select trace metals and trace organic contaminants
(TPH and PAHs) will be determined (see Tables 2.2 and 2.3). To assist in the evaluation of the
distribution of contaminants, various sediment properties will also be determined (particle size
distribution, total organic/inorganic carbon, redox potential, ammonia and sulphides). As part of
the evaluation of effects, the sediment samples will also be used in a suite of bioassay tests
(described in Section 3.1.4.2) to determine the acute lethality and chronic sub-lethality.
17
November 18, 2013
3.1.1
Initial Sample Grid Design
The original EEM program sample design was a gradient-to-background approach with
geometric increase in station distance from the Platform. It was designed to test for the extent
and magnitude of occurrence of chemicals associated with the waste streams from the Platform.
The original sampling grid (Figure 3.1; Table 3.1) consisted of eight radials based on compass
directions, with a geometric progression of concentric circles selected to represent zones of
influences as described in the Seaconsult model (1994). The sample grid design used for 1999,
2000 and 2002 had 56 stations located on the sampling grid within an assumed maximum
contaminant migration distance of 8 km and two Reference sites at 16 km on the north and west
radials, for a total of 60 stations (see Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1
Hibernia Sample Grid Used for the 1999, 2000 and 2002 EEM Programs
18
November 18, 2013
Table 3.1
Coordinates) Used for the 1999, 2000 and 2002 Core EEM Programs
Station ID
1-500
1-750
1-1000
1-2000
1-3000
1-6000
1-8000
1-16000 (a,b)
2-250
2-500
2-750
2-1000
2-1500
2-2500
2-4000
3-500
3-750
3-1000
3-2000
3-3000
3-6000
3-8000
4-250
4-500
4-750
4-1000
4-1500
4-2500
4-4000
5-500
5-750
5-1000
5-2000
5-3000
5-6000
5-8000
6-250
6-500
6-750
6-1000
6-1500
6-2500
6-4000
7-500
7-750
Target Northing
5180104
5180354
5180598
5181603
5182603
5185602
5187601
5195597
5179786
5179936
5180149
5180331
5180694
5181421
5182511
5179618
5179626
5179632
5179661
5179689
5179773
5179830
5179389
5179260
5179089
5178917
5178574
5177887
5176857
5179104
5178855
5178599
5177605
5176606
5173607
5171608
5179423
5179136
5179059
5178877
5178514
5177787
5176697
5179590
5179583
19
Target Easting
669327
669319
669312
669284
669256
669172
669115
668889
669513
669680
669856
670028
670371
671058
672088
669841
670091
670337
671340
672340
675338
677337
669497
669705
669886
670068
670431
671158
672248
669355
669361
669369
669397
669425
669510
669566
669169
668993
668826
668654
668311
667624
666593
668841
668591
November 18, 2013
Station ID
7-1000
7-2000
7-3000
7-6000
7-8000
7-16000 (a,b)
8-250
8-500
8-750
8-1000
8-1500
8-2500
8-4000
Target Northing
5179576
5179548
5179520
5179435
5179379
5179153
5179776
5179946
5180119
5180291
5180634
5181321
5182352
Target Easting
668338
667342
666342
663344
661345
653348
669159
668979
668796
668614
668251
667524
666434
After each EEM survey, the sampling grid will be re-examined to determine its effectiveness and
to decide if it is necessary to delete or add sampling stations. The inner stations within the
1,000 m radius were expected to reveal biological effects in the production phase due to an
accumulation of drill cuttings. A review of the sediment sampling grid was undertaken during the
preparation of the 1998 Hibernia EEM Report (HMDC 1999), and a more intense sampling
program within the 1,000 m was initiated to aid in the definition of attenuation effects
(hydrocarbon and barium) observed within 500 m of the Platform. The 12 stations within
1,000 m are in addition to the original core program and were subject to annual review for
continued relevance and suitability.
As demonstrated by the results of the 2002, 2004, 2007 and 2009 Hibernia EEM programs, the
introduction of cuttings reinjection has resulted in improved sediment quality, with continued
improvement expected in the future. In part due to the improvements observed in sediment
quality, operational changes initiated by Hibernia, and based on recommendations from the
2002 Hibernia EEM program report (HMDC 2002), an in-depth review of the sampling grid
design was again initiated in 2003 to determine whether the current sediment design is still
relevant and suitable. Based on this review, the sediment sampling grid was revised for core
EEM programs.
3.1.2
Revised Sediment Sample Grid Design – Post-2002 EEM Program
The sampling grid design for core programs is a result of a detailed review of the data collected
during the course of the Hibernia EEM and baseline programs. The review was initiated
following completion of the 2002 Hibernia EEM program report (HMDC 2003). Modifications
proposed were consistent with EEM program objectives and the baseline recommendation
(Page 37 of the Hibernia Development Project Production Phase EEM Monitoring Plan (HMDC
2002)) that “the sample net as designed should be maintained and re-evaluated for
effectiveness after each successive EEM survey”. The resulting modifications to the core EEM
program focused on the following aspects:
statistical analysis;
20
November 18, 2013
appropriate levels of replication within stations;
stations to be sampled; and
analytical test groups to be maintained.
The statistical challenge that is presented by a monitoring program such as the Hibernia EEM
program is not insignificant. The EEM program must be designed to identify small chemical
changes in the sedimentary environment, against a background that is spatially variable, and
may be varying over time. This is an important point to emphasize, since most classical
statistical analysis is based upon the assumption that experimental units (in this case, sampling
locations) are initially uniform in characteristics or quality (the preferred condition). Failing that, it
may be determined that the experimental units can be put in order or grouped so that
treatments can be applied to “blocks” of units. At the very least, when the experimental units are
heterogeneous, it may be determined that treatments can be assigned randomly to the
experimental units, so that the initial conditions do not bias the outcome of the experiment.
However, in field monitoring designs, none of these preferred approaches may be possible to
apply. The environment is spatially variable, and can be expected to change over time. The
monitoring program is focused on a fixed point (the Hibernia Platform). As a result, it is likely
that the inherent variability between stations, upon which statistical analysis depends, increases
with each concentric step away from the Platform, or that there may be pre-existing patchiness
or gradients in environmental conditions throughout the study area.
The statistical analysis of sediment quality data collected as part of the Hibernia EEM program
has evolved over time. In the first round (baseline) of EEM (1994), the Hibernia Platform had not
yet been put in place, and there were only limited potential environmental effects in the study
area, related to exploration activities. As a result, data collected at that time were viewed as
baseline data. Statistical comparisons were only possible between different locations (no time
component yet existed) and, as a result, a high level of replication within stations was
considered important. A modest degree of spatial separation between replicate samples
collected near each sampling station was introduced in order to try to avoid pseudo-replication
of the field data.
As subsequent EEM surveys were carried out, the statistical evaluation changed in order to
consider differences over time, as well as spatially. In the analysis carried out for the 2002 EEM
program data, sampling stations were first divided into near-field (0 to 1 km), mid-field (1.5 to
3 km) and far-field (>3 km) groups. The data for all years were then analyzed as a function of
distance from the platform (Field), the year of the data (Time), and the Field X Time interaction.
Since this approach includes analysis of the baseline data, as well as all other monitoring years,
it is the Field X Time interaction term that is most likely to identify statistically significant
environmental effects of the Hibernia Platform.
After comparing near-field, mid-field and far-field for relatively “gross” spatial scales of effects,
the analysis in 2002, 2004 and 2007 then proceeded to examine the data for the near-field only,
testing for effects due to Distance (250, 500, 750 or 1,000 m from the platform), Time (1994,
1998, 1999, 2000 and 2002 surveys), and the Distance X Time interaction term. As before, it is
the interaction term that is considered most likely to identify the potential environmental effects
21
November 18, 2013
of activities at the Hibernia Platform. The distinction between this analysis and the previous
analysis is that underlying environmental gradients that may confound the analysis are expected
to be of minor importance as long as the spatial scale is kept small. In addition, the sensitivity to
detect effects may be higher (if the underlying natural variability or “noise” is smaller), and the
magnitude of effects is expected to be greatest near the Hibernia Platform.
In its most basic form, statistical power in an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) depends on the
! data, and the number of degrees of freedom that are available to determine the mean square
error. Since most of these factors are fixed, or at least cannot be manipulated by the
investigator, it is the number of samples that determines the available number of degrees of
freedom. The degrees of freedom in turn determine the critical “F” value that is used to judge
whether a difference is statistically significant or not. With few degrees of freedom, the critical F
value is large, and the statistical test has low power. With increasing sample size, the critical F
value decreases towards a lower end point. The effect of sample sizes on critical F values is
illustrated in Table 3.2. Gains in statistical power that can be achieved by increasing the sample
size and available degrees of freedom are largest with small sample sizes, and become
negligible when the sample size and degrees of freedom are already large.
Table 3.2
Critical F values Error Degrees of
Freedom
1
5
10
60
120
infinity
1
161
6.61
4.96
4.00
3.92
3.84
Treatment Degrees of Freedom
2
4
200
225
5.79
5.19
4.10
3.48
3.15
2.53
3.07
2.45
3.00
2.37
10
242
4.74
2.98
1.99
1.91
1.83
Since the statistical design that has been applied at Hibernia continues to carry all of the
stations and years of sampling as if they were statistically independent samples, the number of
degrees of freedom available becomes progressively very large. Replication within stations at
any given time is unnecessary, since replication is available spatially at any given time and over
time at any given station. As an illustration, the degrees of freedom available in the analysis of
barium data in 2002, which has progressively increased as a result of adding those for 2004,
2007 and 2009 is summarized in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3
Degrees of Freedom Available for Sediment Statistical Analysis, 2002
Hibernia EEM Program
All Data Combined
Source of Variation
Time
Field
Field X Time
Experimental Error
Near-Field Data Only
Degrees of
Source of Variation
Freedom
Time
4
Distance
3
Distance X Time
12
Experimental Error
96
Degrees of Freedom
4
2
8
241
22
November 18, 2013
The message conveyed by Table 3.3 is that the statistical power generated through the
available degrees of freedom is already very large, particularly for the critical comparison of
Field X Time (8 and 241 degrees of freedom) or Distance X Time (12 and 96 degrees of
freedom). The available degrees of freedom will continue to increase with subsequent rounds of
EEM, and this will result in small gains in the available statistical power. However, given the
statistical analysis that is carried out at Hibernia, the available degrees of freedom are large,
and in effect, this maximizes the statistical power that is available. Further gains in statistical
power that are available from increasing sampling effort would be marginal.
The statistical analysis of Hibernia EEM data in 2002 resulted in the detection of elevated
hydrocarbon and barium concentration in the near-field, but essentially no hydrocarbon or
barium changes above background levels were identified for distances greater than 1 km away
from the Platform (i.e., no increased hydrocarbon and barium concentrations were identified in
the mid- or far-field areas). The increased hydrocarbon and barium concentrations that were
identified in the near-field area were most pronounced close to the Hibernia Platform (i.e., at the
250-m distance), and were approaching background at a distance of 1 km from the Platform.
Therefore, future EEM programs will continue to place emphasis on sampling in the near-field,
but sampling effort in the mid- and far-field will be reduced. In addition, analysis of many of the
mid-field and far-field stations is essentially redundant because they represent a relatively large
number of stations, and adverse effects that extend to the far-field are not expected for routine
operations.
Therefore, the following recommendation, which was made post-2002 EEM and incorporated
into the 2004, 2007 and 2009 EEM programs, will be applied to all subsequent core EEM
programs:
maintain the sampling effort in the near-field of the Hibernia Platform (20 stations in
total). Beyond 1,000 m, reduce the number of concentric distances by sampling only at
2, 3 and 6 km on radials 1, 3, 5 and 7 only (12 stations in total).
The resulting total of 32 monitoring stations (Figure 3.2; Table 3.4) that are recommended to be
maintained, emphasize the detection of environmental effects in the near-field. The approach to
the statistical analysis described above will continue to carry all results that have been
generated to date for these stations, providing a high level of statistical power. It will remain
possible to detect environmental effects in the far-field, based upon comparisons that will be
made with the historical data.
23
November 18, 2013
Figure 3.2
2004, 2007, 2009 and Future Core EEM Sediment Sample Grid
24
November 18, 2013
Table 3.4
Coordinates) for 2004, 2007, 2009 and Future Core EEM Programs
Station ID
1-500
1-1000
1-2000
1-3000
1-6000
1-16000 (a,b)
2-250
2-500 QA/QC
2-1000
3-500
3-1000
3-2000
3-3000 QA/QC
3-6000
4-250
4-500 QA/QC
4-1000
5-500
5-1000
5-2000
5-3000
5-6000
6-250
6-500
6-1000
7-500
7-1000
7-2000
7-3000
7-6000
7-16000 (a,b)
8-250
8-500
8-1000
Target Northing
5180104
5180598
5181603
5182603
5185602
5195597
5179786
5179936
5180331
5179618
5179632
5179661
5179689
5179773
5179389
5179260
5178917
5179104
5178599
5177605
5176606
5173607
5179423
5179136
5178877
5179590
5179576
5179548
5179520
5179435
5179153
5179776
5179946
5180291
Target Easting
669327
669312
669284
669256
669172
668889
669513
669680
670028
669841
670337
671340
672340
675338
669497
669705
670068
669355
669369
669397
669425
669510
669169
668993
668654
668841
668338
667342
666342
663344
653348
669159
668979
668614
In previous Hibernia EEM surveys, a high level of emphasis was placed upon replication.
Replication within stations is not necessary for the primary statistical analysis that will be carried
out in future rounds of EEM. A 10 percent level of replication within stations will be required for
QA/QC purposes. Therefore, a reduction in the level of replication for post-2002 EEM programs
has been implemented (one grab per station). Three replicate samples will be conducted within
1000 m at the Core Hibernia EEM stations and two replicates samples will be conducted for the
HSE EEM stations.
For HSE, 14 stations will be sampled during the HSE EEM, 12 HSE stations and two Reference
sites that are shared with the core EEM program. Samples will be collected based on a radial
25
November 18, 2013
design similar to that of the core EEM program, with four radials extending North-South and
East-West. Samples will be collected at 250 m, 500 m and 1,000 m from the HSE centre along
each radial (North, South, East and West). As well, two Reference sites will be sampled at
1-16,000 and 7-16,000 (Figure 6.2). Target coordinates for the collection of sediment samples
are included in Table 6.2. See section 6.5 for additional information.
3.1.3
Sediment Collection Method
A Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) was and will continue to be used to ensure
accuracy of station positioning. Using robust L1 GPS technology combined with a network of
DGPS corrections stations (owned and operated by Fugro GeoSurveys Inc. (Fugro)) results in
the provision of precise differential positioning and navigation services. The GPS data from
several independent Trimble DSM GPS receivers and differential corrections stations are input
into Starfix.MRDGPS software (proprietary software owned and developed by Fugro).
Starfix.MRDGPS uses all available differential correction sources along with the raw GPS data
to calculate a weighted mean DPGS position. The accuracy of this position is ± 2.0 m.
Combining this position with the vessel’s gyrocompass heading, vessel navigation is controlled
using Fugro’s proprietary navigation software Starfix.Nav. The vessel’s position, heading,
course, speed, range and bearing from any number of site locations, etc., are continually
graphically and alphanumerically displayed. Multiple PC monitors are used for easy viewing of
vessel information, subsea assets and hazards on virtually any part of the vessel. Using this
display, the ship’s officers can keep the desired part of the vessel (i.e., crane, stern, etc.) within
the specified tolerance circle.
Each of the samples will be collected using the
HMDC Pouliot box corer (a modified Reineck box
corer) with a stainless steel sample box (Photo 2 and
Figure 3.3). Sediment chemistry samples will be
collected from an undisturbed 0 to 5 cm layer of
surficial sediment to obtain the required sample
volume size of 0.75 litres. Sediment toxicity samples
will be collected from an undisturbed 0 to 7.5 cm
layer of surficial sediment which allows for the
collection of the required sample size of 5 litres of
sediment.
Photo 2: Model II Pouliot Box Corer
26
November 18, 2013
Figure 3.3
Model II Pouliot Box Corer Schematic View
One grab sample will be collected at each of 34 stations (including field Reference sites).
Three stations (10 percent of stations) will be sampled twice for QA/QC purposes and each
Reference site will be sampled in duplicate. In total, 39 sediment grabs will be taken. All
samples will be collected within a 50-m radius of the designated sampling point.
Prior to sub-sampling, the thickness of the core will
be recorded and the redox potential and
temperature of the sample will be measured. From
each grab, a sediment sample will be collected for
chemistry, particle size, sulphide, archive and
toxicity (Photo 3). Sediment chemistry, particle
size, sulphide and archive samples will be
collected first, from the 0 to 5 cm layer. All
sediment samples for chemical testing will be
immediately stored in a freezer at -20C and
maintained at that temperature until transport to
Photo 3: Sample Collection for Sediment
the analytical laboratory. The remaining half of the
Chemistry and Toxicity
0 to 7.5 cm surface layer will be carefully removed
for bioassay testing using a clean stainless steel
spoon and placed in a new food-grade plastic bucket with an O-ring lid. A subsample consisting
27
November 18, 2013
of approximately 200 grams will be placed in a sterile bag for Microtox analyses. All toxicity
samples will be kept refrigerated at or near 4C in a dedicated freezer. The temperature of the
freezers will be monitored and recorded every three hours. All stations will be subject to the
same sub-sampling strategy, with the exception of toxicity and Microtox samples (not required
for QA/QC stations). The sediment sampling strategy for the core EEM sediment program is
illustrated in Figure 3.4.
3.1.4
Sample Analysis Methods
Analysis methods for sediment chemistry and sediment toxicity are outlined below.
3.1.4.1 Sediment Chemistry
The analytical methodologies are included in Appendix A.
Sample Preparation
Each sample will be held at -20C until required for analysis. Each sample will be thoroughly
homogenized before being divided into subsamples for particle size, total inorganic/organic
carbon, trace metals, petroleum hydrocarbons and PAH. All sediment chemistry samples will be
analyzed by a Standard Council of Canada (SCC) ISO17025-accredited laboratory.
Figure 3.4
Hibernia Sediment Sampling Strategy
28
November 18, 2013
Particle Size Analyses
Samples are to be heated to destroy any organic detritus. Samples and filters are dried at
~105°C for at least 1 hour. The samples are initially spread out and quartered in a pan. Quarters
with obviously large amounts and size of hash are not used for testing. Otherwise, all samples
are treated the same way and are differentiated based on the type of solids present. The shell
hash is limited to the “sand phase” of the particle size analyses.
Samples are to be wet sieved through a clean 64-micron stainless steel sieve, using de-ionized
water. Material retained on the sieve is to be dried and sieved through stainless steel sieves
mounted in a Ro-tap shaker to provide a range of separations from -4 to +4 phi by whole phi
units. The material passing through the wet sieve should be retained, and using the settling
jar/pipette withdrawal method, separation should be made of the +4 to +10 phi by whole phi
units. Materials collected for each size range should be weighed, with the accumulated weight
versus size range results placed on the cumulative frequency graph. Calculation of percent
content of gravel, sand, silt and clay is to be determined and reported.
Trace Metals
Samples, dried at 40°C ± 4°C overnight, are to be homogenized and divided to provide samples
for total metals and weak acid leachable determination (barium). Total metal determinations are
to be made by ICP/Mass Spectrometry (MS) after dissolution of the sample in the
hydrofluoric/aqua regia/perchloric acid mixture. Weak acid leachable metals are to be
determined after partial dissolution of the sample in an acetic acid/sodium acetate-buffered
solution. Sulphur, sulphides and ammonia analyses will be conducted in whole sediment as
well. These analyses will complement the sulphide and ammonia analyses conducted as part of
the toxicity bioassays and are a tool for ecotoxicity data interpretation.
Inorganic/Organic Carbon
A quantity of dried sample should be weighed into a LECO Carbon furnace or CHN Analyzer
boat and introduced into the determination instrument. The measurement made will represent
total carbon present. Another portion of the sample should be treated with concentrated
hydrochloric acid to destroy the inorganic (carbonate) carbon and the treated material should be
analyzed using the LECO Carbon or CHN Analyzer. This measurement will represent organic
carbon; the inorganic carbon is calculated by difference of the results.
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
The wet sample should be extracted with hexane and acetone after drying with anhydrous
sodium sulphate. The extract should be suitably cleaned up with silica gel to remove any
potential interference and analyzed using gas chromatography with flame ionization or mass
spectrometric detection. The determination should provide results for TPH and a detailed profile
for comparison to potential hydrocarbon sources of contamination. Hydrocarbon speciation, if
required, will be conducted by gas chromatography (GC-MS).
29
November 18, 2013
For PAH, a portion of wet sediment is spiked with five deuterated surrogate PAH compounds,
representing a range of volatilities, to monitor the efficiency of the sample preparation steps.
The sample is mixed with sodium sulphate until it becomes free flowing and is then extracted
with 75%/25% (v/v) n-pentane/methylene chloride. An aliquot of the extract is removed and
interfering compounds are eliminated using a silica gel column clean-up procedure. The extract
is then solvent exchanged into iso-octane and analyzed by GC/MS using selected ion
monitoring mode.
3.1.4.2 Sediment Toxicity
Stations will be sampled as per sediment chemistry field collection methodology (Section 3.1.3).
One sample per station will be collected including the two Reference sites at 16,000 m along
radials 1 and 7. These stations are required to assess the toxicity status of the individual
samples as to a toxic/non-toxic status.
All of the collected samples will be screened via Microtox for sediment toxicity, commencing
immediately upon receipt of the samples by a SCC ISO17025-accredited laboratory. All stations
within 500 m will be subjected to the juvenile polychaete (Neanthes arenaceodentata) growth
assay and amphipod lethality assay (Rhepoxynius abronius). All reference (reference sample
net stations) will be subjected to the full suite of sediment toxicity assays. The toxicity sample
process is illustrated in Figure 3.5. All toxicity testing will be conducted within six weeks of
sample collection as per Environment Canada guidelines.
30
November 18, 2013
Figure 3.5
Hibernia EEM Program Sediment Toxicity Testing Strategy
The sediment toxicity assays to be used during production phase EEM surveys include Microtox
(Vibrio fisheri), amphipod lethality assay and juvenile polychaete growth and survival assays.
Sediment toxicity test particulars are presented in Table 3.5. Lethal endpoints measure survival
over a defined exposure period. Sub-lethal endpoints measure physiological functions of the
test organism, such as metabolism, fertilization and growth, over a defined exposure period.
Tests that measure sub-lethal endpoints are a gauge of the long-term effect(s), which, in the
end, may be as detrimental as lethal effects. The bacterial, polychaete and amphipod tests use
whole sediment. The bacterial test and polychaete growth test measures sub-lethal effects
(metabolic activity), whereas the amphipod and polychaete survival tests measure lethal effects.
31
November 18, 2013
Table 3.5
Sediment Toxicity Test Particulars
Toxicity Test
Endpoints: Biological
Amphipod Survival
% survival
Endpoints: Statistical
Significant difference from
negative control or
reference
EPS 1/RM/26
Rhepoxynius abronius
Within 6 weeks of
collection
10 days after test initiation
90% average survival in
negative control sediment
Reference Method
Test Organism
Test Initiation
Test Termination
Performance Criteria
Juvenile Polychaete
% survival and %
difference in growth
Significant difference from
negative control or
reference
PSEP 1995
Neanthes arenaceodentata
Within 6 weeks of
collection
20 days after test initiation
90% average survival in
negative control sediment
Bacterial Luminescence
Reduction in luminescence
IC50 (sample concentration
estimated to result in 50%
inhibition of light emission).
EPS 1/RM/42
Vibrio fischeri
Within 6 weeks of collection
30 minutes after test initiation
Coefficient of variation for
control solutions included in
the test must be 12%; R2
value of 0.95 or greater
The sediment toxicity assays are to be conducted according to standard methods established
by Environment Canada and Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP 1991). Methodology
descriptions for bioassays are provided in Appendix B.
Luminescent Bacteria Toxicity Assays (Microtox)
A strain of marine bacterium will be used to determine the toxicity of sediment samples. The
bacterium emits light as a result of normal metabolic activities. The light is measured with a
photo detector under specific conditions. Reduction of light at 5, 15, or 30 minutes is taken as a
measure of toxicity (Environment Canada 2002).
The Microtox (Solid Phase) Assay will be conducted
according to Environment Canada (2002). Analyses
are conducted on a Model 500 photometer with a
computer interface (Photo 4). Samples that are
stored at 4C are thoroughly homogenized prior to
the Microtox assay. Duplicate samples will be
conducted on 10 percent of the total samples,
reference toxicant assays using phenol will be
conducted per series of sample assays and a
reference positive control sediment will be
conducted per series of sample assays. The IC50
endpoints are calculated by the Microbics Corp. Photo 4: Microtox Analyzer (M500)
solid phase program, with graphic analyses of the
calculated data endpoints to be undertaken as a data verification procedure.
This assay is particularly useful for monitoring or screening because it is rapid, simple and uses
a small volume of sample. Microtox is sensitive to pure organic compounds, municipal wastes
and the more toxic industrial effluents; however, it is generally less sensitive than other bioassay
tests with respect to inorganic toxicants and pesticides (Environment Canada 1992a).
Reference method EPS 1/RM/42 (Environment Canada 2002) contains interim guidelines for
32
November 18, 2013
assessing Microtox toxicity. EEM programs at Hibernia will use the large volume sample size as
described in reference method EPS 1/RM/42 (Environment Canada 2002) but will retain the
original value of <40,000 mg/L to determine a toxic/non-toxic response, as the <40,000 mg/L
value was derived using similar principles that are the basis of the Environment Canada (2002)
interim guidelines for solid phase Microtox. The choice of 40,000 mg/L as the toxic/non-toxic
criteria takes into account the Microtox responses observed for the baseline Microtox data
(JWE 1995b).
Amphipod Survival Assay
The amphipod survival assay will be conducted according to Environment Canada (1992b;
1998), using the marine amphipod Rhepoxynius abronius. In 2003, Rhepoxynius abronius
suffered a population collapse. While, the population did recover after the 2003 collapse, there
is a possibility of future population collapses that may necessitate the periodic use of an
alternate species.
The amphipod acute toxicity assay involves the
placement of a suitable number of test organisms
(20 organisms) in five replicate test sediments
(Photo 5). A sixth test sediment container will be
used for monitoring purposes only. The assay
exposes the amphipods to the sediment samples
for a period of 10 days, after which survival and
percent re-burrowing is examined in control
sediment. The test endpoint is expressed as
percent mortality for a single concentration test and
percent re-burrowing in control sediment at test
termination.
Photo 5: Amphipod Bioassay in Progress
The determination of toxic/non-toxic results
involves statistical analysis by t-test between the reference or control sediment and the test
sediment. The control sediment is obtained from the collection site of the marine amphipods that
is known to support their growth and continued survival. The reference sediments (Hibernia
Reference sites) were treated as test sediments when trying to determine if they are toxic or
non-toxic during the baseline EEM program. Production phase EEM programs should examine
the reference sediment against the control sediment. The sampling net station sediments will be
compared to the reference sediment if there are no significant differences in the amphipod
responses to the reference and control sediments. The detection of differences in amphipod
responses to the reference and control sediments will require comparisons made between test
sediments and reference sediments, as well as the test sediments and control sediments.
Juvenile Polychaete Growth Assay
Neanthes arenaceodentata, a common marine polychaete found on the west coast of North
America, is a sediment-dwelling organism that is easy to maintain and grow in clean sediment in
the laboratory. The test protocol was developed by PSEP (1991) and is used widely in the USA
33
November 18, 2013
and now more commonly in Canada. The test evaluates the effect of contaminated media
(sediment) on the survival and growth of juvenile polychaetes over a 20-day period.
Five juveniles (three-week post-emergent) are introduced to the sediment in a jar with overlying
seawater. Five laboratory replicates per sample are tested. The organisms are fed and the
overlying water changed at regular intervals during testing.
Subsequent to a 20-day exposure to the sediment
sample, the weight of juvenile polychaetes is
measured at the end of the test and used as an
integrative indicator of sediment quality (Photo 6).
The organisms are in direct contact with the
sediment and ingest sediment in the process of
feeding. Consequently, their growth response
reflects the presence/absence of contaminants
associated with the solid phase of the sediment that
may impair, inhibit or enhance food conversion to
body mass.
Photo 6: Juvenile
Polychaete
Sediment
Toxicity Test in progress
The determination of toxic/non-toxic results involves
statistical analysis by t-test between the reference or control sediment and the test sediment.
The control sediment is sediment that is known to be uncontaminated. For the baseline EEM
program, the reference sediments (Hibernia Reference sites) were treated as test sediments to
determine if they are toxic or non-toxic. Production phase EEM programs should examine the
reference sediment against the control sediment. The sampling net station sediments will be
compared to the reference sediment if there are no significant differences in the polychaete
responses to the reference and control sediments. The detection of differences in polychaete
responses to the reference and control sediments will require comparisons made between test
sediments and reference sediments, and perhaps between test sediments and control
sediments.
3.1.5
Sediment Program QA/QC
At all stations, sediment samples will be collected within a 50-m radius of the normal station
location. As noted elsewhere, each sample collection position will be established using DGPS
positioning. A sample from each station will be archived for a period of time in the event
additional replicate analyses are requested. Duplicate samples will be collected at randomly
selected locations (10 percent of total number of stations) and will be subject to the same subsampling strategy as other stations, with the exception of toxicity and Microtox samples
(not required for QA/QC stations).
Analytical sample results will undergo a quality review which includes a review for outliers. Any
outliers noted are confirmed against original data to confirm no transcription errors have
occurred while working with the data. If outliers still remain after the first data quality check, the
laboratory is contacted to confirm the data result is not a transcription error by the laboratory. If
there are any remaining outliers or unusually high or low data points, an archived sample is sent
for confirmation analyses.
34
November 18, 2013
A sampling plan will be prepared and distributed to all field staff and relevant members of the
ship’s crew prior to commencing the sediment sampling program. Standard operating
procedures outlining methods for sample collection and handling are included in the sampling
plan. All data will be recorded on standardized data sheets and samples will be collected in prelabelled sample bottles.
At the laboratory level, standard QC samples and practices applicable to the analyses, as per
standard reference methods and as required by the ISO17025 accreditation, will be
implemented. The data sets will be verified and validated before provision of results for
interpretation purposes (i.e., checked to ensure that all parameters have been analyzed and all
results have been entered in the proper locations within the database).
3.2
Water Column Program
3.2.1
Pilot Water Column Program 2004
A water quality pilot study was undertaken during the 2004 EEM program. The objectives of the
pilot program were to:
assess the effectiveness of using CTD profiles to identify the produced water plume; and
use water chemistry results to validate the predictions of the Hibernia produced water
dispersion model.
To ensure water column samples collected at Hibernia were reflective of the influence of the
produced water plume, the location of the plume was identified in “real time” using differences in
temperature, conductivity, salinity and dissolved oxygen, as measured with a CTD profiler.
CTD profiles within 50 m of the produced water outlet clearly differed from profiles conducted at
the Reference sites. Once the plume was identified, 10 L Niskin samplers were deployed to
obtain water samples at two locations within the plume and at locations near-surface and nearbottom. The use of CTD profiles successfully directed sample collection from within the
produced water plume for 10 of 11 stations. All samples were analyzed for fuel and lube range
hydrocarbons, BTEX, PAH and metals. The results of water analysis were then used to validate
the predictions of the produced water dispersion model (Lorax 2004).
The pilot study initiated sampling as close to the produced water outlet as possible. The actual
sample locations were weather-dependant, and located at a distance deemed safe by the
vessel master in consultation with the Offshore Installation Manager (OIM). The stations
radiated out from the initial station as far as the plume could be tracked as indicated by the
results of the CTD profiles. This was anticipated to be within 500 m of the Platform but was
actually within 40 m of the Platform. Sample locations as directed by the CTD scan results
(2004) are illustrated in Figure 3.6.
35
November 18, 2013
Figure 3.6
Water Quality Station Locations Hibernia 2004 EEM Program
36
November 18, 2013
3.2.2
Water Column Program 2007
The sampling design for the 2007 water column chemistry program was revised based on a
review of data collected in 2004. The objectives of the 2007 program were as follows:
to determine estimates of dispersion factors to validate dispersion modelling; and
to predict a zone of potential effects from available chemical and toxicity data.
In 2007, as in 2004, CTD profiles were used to locate the produced water plume. CTD profiles
conducted within 50 m of the discharge (near-field) clearly differed from the Reference sites
(far-field), while profiles conducted at 50, 100 and 200 m (mid-field) were practically
indistinguishable from reference profiles. Water sampling locations for the 2007 EEM are
illustrated in Figure 3.7. Representative CTD profiles for the near-field, mid-field and far-field
Reference sites are presented in Figure 3.8.
Once the plume was located, a series of 10 L Niskin water samplers were positioned to obtain
two samples within the produced water plume, a surface sample and a near-bottom sample.
Samples were analyzed for the same parameters as 2004 with the addition of nutrients
(total nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen and total phosphorous). Sampling of “raw” produced water on
the Hibernia Platform was conducted concurrently with the 2007 water column sampling.
Dilution factors were calculated by comparing field concentrations of select parameters with
concentrations of these parameters in “raw” produced water on the Hibernia Platform. Dilution
factors ranged from 94 (at the 27 m station) to greater than 13,505 (at the 22 m station). The
calculated concentrations of produced water ranged from 0.004 to 1.06 percent at the 22 and
27 m stations, respectively. The field-derived produced water concentrations correspond well
with the produced water concentrations of 0.06 to 0.7 percent predicted by the produced water
dispersion model (Lorax 2004).
When field-derived concentrations of produced water were compared to laboratory produced
water toxicity data (generated to satisfy Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines (NEB et al. 2010)
requirements), it was clear that concentrations required to achieve toxicity do not extend beyond
22 to 27 m of the Hibernia produced water discharge. Thus, a zone of potential effects can be
generally stated to exist within 50 m of the discharge outlets.
37
November 18, 2013
Figure 3.7
Water Sampling Locations 2009 EEM
39
November 18, 2013
Figure 3.8
Graphic Display of Representative CTD Profiles at Near-field (W1 and W6),
Mid-field (W50) and Far-field (WR1 – 16,000) Sampling Stations
39
November 18, 2013
3.2.3
Water Column Programs
Water column programs will be incorporated as a permanent feature of the core EEM program
but it is not intended for the HSE EEM program. The objectives of the water column program
are:
to validate dispersion models,
to monitor contaminants associated with produced water releases and their dispersion in
the water column; and
to predict a zone of potential effects based on available chemical and toxicity data.
Water column programs would be a combination of fixed and “real-time” stations similar to those
conducted for the 2007 and 2009 water quality programs. Based on results of the water quality
pilot study and 2007 and 2009 water quality programs, it is imperative that the field crew have
the flexibility to direct the locations of stations based on “real-time” data obtained from the
CTD profiles. Fixed stations for the water column program have limited value in that the
produced water plume is fluid, with the plume location at any point in time dictated by factors
such as flow rates of the seawater return and produced water discharges, current regime at the
time and weather patterns.
Water column locations sampled during the 2007 and 2009 EEM programs at 50 m (5179721.9,
669361.6), 100 m (5179690.9, 669323.9), 200 m (5179629.8, 669239.32), 1-16,000 m
(5195807.8, 668967.12) and 7-16,000 m (5179363.9, 653427.43) will become fixed stations.
As a result of the fluid nature of the produced water plume, samples collected within 50 m of the
produced water discharge (nine locations in total) will be directed by a Seabird 25 CTD profiler
(refer to Appendix C for Seabird 25 capabilities).
A DGPS will be used to ensure accuracy of
station positioning. At near-field stations, CTD
profiles will be conducted to determine the
presence of the produced water plume (Photo 7).
CTD profiles will be plotted and viewed on a
laptop computer for changes in the parameters
indicative of the produced water plume
(temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen and
salinity). Upon location of the plume, 10 L Niskin
water samplers (Photo 8) will be deployed to
obtain three water samples (one near-surface,
one within the plume and one near-bottom). For
mid-field and far-field stations, water samples will Photo 7: CTD Profiler in Operation during 2007
EEM
be collected near-surface, near-bottom and at a
depth that approximates the location of the
produced water plume in the near-field. A minimum of nine sampling locations will be conducted
in the near-field, three in the mid-field and two in the far field. As well, 10 percent of stations will
40
November 18, 2013
be sampled twice (at one depth, surface, mid or bottom) for QA/QC purposes. Standardized
data sheets will be completed for each sampling
station.
Sample locations for the near-field stations will be
dictated by the CTD profiles and by weather
conditions at the time of sampling. The vessel
master, in consultation with the OIM, will
ultimately determine the minimum distance from
the Platform that can be sampled safely.
If logistically feasible, Offshore Waste Treatment
Guidelines (NEB et al. 2010) sampling (including
toxicity testing) will be conducted on the Hibernia
Platform concurrent with field sampling associated
Photo 8: Niskin Water Sampler in Operation
with the water column program. All field samples
will be analyzed for fuel and lube range
hydrocarbons, BTEX, PAH, metals, nutrients, oil and grease, total suspended solids, chlorophyll
a and phaeophytin a (refer to Table 2.4 for a list of metals and PAHs to be analyzed).
Samples will be decanted from the Niskin water sampler into pre-labelled, laboratory-supplied
sample bottles. All samples will be kept refrigerated at or near 4°C in a dedicated freezer. The
temperature of the freezer will be monitored and recorded every three hours, until delivery to a
certified analytical laboratory.
Chlorophyll and phaeophytin samples are collected from the Niskin Samplers in 1 L plastic
bottles that are wrapped in tin foil to protect the sample from direct sunlight (to avoid
degradation of chlorophyll pigments). Samples are filtered within 30 minutes of collection by use
of a vacuum filtration apparatus. Each 1 L sample is gently filtered (less than 75 mm Hg vacuum
pressure) onto a GF/F filter and the sample is “fixed” by adding approximately 20 ml of
magnesium carbonate solution. After filtration, each filter pad is wrapped in tin foil, placed in a
pre-labeled petri dish, taped and stored at -20 ºC.
3.2.4
Sample Analysis Methods
The methods summaries for water analysis are contained in Appendix D.
3.2.5
Quality Assurance
Each sample collection position will be established using DGPS positioning and will be logged
by personnel dedicated to this task. Ten percent of water quality stations will be sampled in
duplicate for QA/QC purposes and will be subject to the same analysis as other samples.
A sampling plan will be prepared and distributed to all field staff and relevant members of the
ship’s crew prior to commencing the water sampling program. Standard operating procedures
outlining methods for sample collection and handling are included in the sampling plan. The
41
November 18, 2013
CTD profiler will be calibrated by the supplier prior to use. All data will be recorded on
standardized data sheets and samples will be collected in pre-labelled sample bottles.
At the laboratory level, standard quality control samples and practices applicable to the
analyses, as per standard reference methods and as required by the ISO17025 accreditation,
will be implemented. All results will be entered into the database. The data sets will be verified
and validated before provision of results for interpretation purposes (i.e., checked to ensure that
all parameters have been analyzed and all results have been entered in the proper locations
within the database).
3.3
Biological Quality
The purpose of the biological survey is to collect sufficient American plaice specimens for the
assessment of tissue chemistry profiles, sensory evaluations (taint testing) and fish health
indicators near the Hibernia Platform, the HSE drill centre and at a Reference site approximately
50 km to the northwest.
3.3.1
Sample Locations
American plaice will be collected near the Hibernia Platform, the HSE drill centre and at a
Reference site 50 km northwest of Hibernia with similar depth and bottom characteristics. Each
sampling area is defined by a 2,000 m radius circle. Centre points for these areas are presented
in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6
Centre Points of Biological Sampling Areas
Site
Hibernia Platform Site
HSE drill centre
Reference site
Northing
5179604
5174100
5221751
Easting
669341
672020
638479
Latitude
4645'1.7"N
46° 41'52.7”N
4708'12.0"N
Longitude
4846'58.5"W
48°44'46.5"W
4910'26.0"W
The safety zone at Hibernia is the area encompassed by a 500 m buffer around the Platform
and the OLS flowlines (north and south), riser bases and the tanker connection zone. The EEM
fishing zone (Figure 3.9) is that area between 500 and 2,000 m from the GBS location, with a
safety zone to the east-southeast that encompasses the OLS system and associated 500 m
safety zones. Hibernia Platform personnel have in the past requested that fishing be moved
further away from the Platform due to concerns of having a fishing vessel in such close
proximity to the Platform. Close communication between all parties will be required to ensure
fish specimens are captured as close to the Platform as possible.
42
November 18, 2013
Figure 3.9
Hibernia EEM Target Fishing Zone
43
November 18, 2013
3.3.2
Sample Collection Method
American plaice will be collected using commercial
otter trawl equipment (Photo 9). Upon retrieval of
the net, the catch will be removed from the trawl
cod end and directed into the fish chute leading into
the cutting room on the deck below. Prior to
unloading the catch from any set, surfaces that
could come in contact with the catch will be cleaned
to prevent any source of contamination that might
taint the specimens. In the cutting room, the catch
will be sorted by species and then by length
(Photo 10). All American plaice will be transferred
to new plastic containers as quickly as possible
after removal from the cod end.
Photo 9: Campellan Trawl
All American plaice samples will be handled in
a consistent manner, regardless of the
analysis to be undertaken onshore. Each fish
will be processed individually, with an
identification number allocated to each fish
and the sample retained for future analysis.
For each fish, the length (to the nearest
centimetre) and weight (to the nearest gram
as measured by gimballed electronic balance)
will be recorded. The identification number for
each fish will correspond to pre-numbered
sample bags used to package the fish body
parts. The fish will be dissected and the sex
Photo 10: Representative Catch
determined. The liver and fillets (with skins
removed) will be portioned as individual samples for analysis. Fillets will be trimmed so that any
fat that may have accumulated around the edges at the base of the dorsal and ventral fin
systems will be removed prior to blending. Otoliths will be removed for future age analysis.
3.3.3
Sample Analyses
The analytical methods described are for tissue chemical profiles, organoleptic evaluations and
fish health indicators.
3.3.3.1 Tissue Chemical Profiles
Detailed methodologies for tissue chemistry profiles are provided in Appendix E.
44
November 18, 2013
Sample Preparation
The collected American plaice specimens will be immediately filleted after collection to provide
for a skinless fillet (which will be portioned for various analytical requirements) and a liver
sample. Samples will be stored at -20°C until analyzed.
For each sample, suitable quantities of wet tissue will be removed for the determination of dry
weight and lipid content (hydrocarbons only). All analyses should be performed on wet tissue.
Suitable quantities will be taken from each of the samples for complete analyses for the suite of
trace metals, petroleum hydrocarbons and PAHs.
Trace Metals
The homogenized tissues will be fully digested in high-purity nitric acid with sufficient digestion
to ensure complete destruction of all tissues and associated fats. Determination for trace metals
(see Table 2.5 for a list of metals) will be by ICP-MS with the exception of mercury which is
analysed by CVAA.
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Analyses for both petroleum hydrocarbons and a suite of 18 PAHs (see Table 2.6 for list of
PAHs) will be undertaken using GC-MS, ensuring that sufficient clean up procedures have been
undertaken to provide for competent analyses.
For PAH determinations, a portion of wet tissue is spiked with five deuterated surrogate PAH
compounds, representing a range of volatilities, to monitor the efficiency of the sample
preparation steps. The sample is extracted with 75%/25% (v/v) n-pentane/methylene chloride.
An aliquot of the extract is removed and interfering compounds are eliminated using a silica gel
column clean up procedure. The extract is then solvent exchanged into iso-octane and analyzed
by GC-MS using selected ion mode.
3.3.3.2 Sensory Evaluations (Taint Testing)
Sensory evaluation methods (taste panels) will be conducted to collect information on American
plaice with respect to taint. The sensory evaluation tools used for this program are the triangle
test (discriminative test) for the assessment of taint and hedonic scaling (affective/acceptance
test) for the detection and measurement of flavour impairment. Hedonic scaling will be
conducted only in the event that a statistically significant triangle test is realized.
The term "taint" for the purposes of the Hibernia EEM program will use the ASTM definition as
cited in Botta (1994); that is, an off-flavour and undesirable flavour. Taint, as defined, may be
due to spoilage or the presence of contaminants in the flesh. The contaminants causing taint
may not be present in the tissues in sufficient concentrations to do physiological damage to the
individual fish.
Taint can only be determined by human senses; chemical and instrumental analyses cannot
provide direct information. Thus, unless a relationship between the specific chemical and taint
45
November 18, 2013
(determined by organoleptic sensory evaluation) has been well established, the presence of a
chemical alone in an edible aquatic resource does not determine the presence of taint
(Botta 1994). Taint, as defined, makes no reference as to whether the taint is pleasant or
unpleasant. Thus, any assessment of taint must incorporate procedures to detect and measure
changes in flavour in conjunction with an assessment of flavour impairment.
Sensory evaluations will be conducted on American plaice collected as part of biological
surveys. Fillets will be pooled and partitioned for use in various components. The portion of
samples that will be used in the sensory evaluations will result in two sets of samples for
Reference and Hibernia and HSE sites, with approximately the same quantity of American
plaice in both. One set will be used to conduct discriminative sensory evaluations (Triangle
Test) and the other to conduct preference sensory evaluations (Hedonic Scaling) in the event a
statistically significant triangle tests occurs.
Samples will be prepared by the casserole method, with a modification for cooking in an oven
rather than suspension over boiling water or steam. Frozen samples are to be thawed at room
temperature for two hours. Samples will be enclosed in individual aluminium foil packets and
cooked in a convection oven at 210C for 20 minutes. Fifteen-gram samples will be placed in
each foil packet (prior to cooking) and labelled with a random three digit code. Samples will be
served at 35C.
Discriminative Tests (Triangle Test)
Discriminative tests will be employed during organoleptic sensory evaluations to determine
whether a product is tainted. The triangle test is the sensory evaluation tool most commonly
used because it is believed to be free of expectation error. It does not require any familiarity with
the sensory properties of either the odd or the duplicate sample (Botta 1994).
The triangle test presents the panellists with a
three sample set (triangle) of coded samples and the
panellist must identify the sample that is different
from the other two in the set (Photo 11). Half the
panellists will receive sets composed of two coded
samples from treatment A and one coded from
treatment B, whereas the other panellists will receive
sets composed of one coded sample from treatment
A and two coded from treatment B. Therefore, there
are six possible orders in which the coded samples
may be presented to the panellists (Botta 1994):
ABB; AAB; ABA; BAA; BBA; and BAB.
Photo 11: Presentation
of
Samples
for
The panel size is 24 panellists, with four sittings of six
Triangle Test
panellists. Therefore, four of the six possible
presentation orders for the samples will be presented during any sitting for a triangle test. It is
important that each combination be presented to the panellist the same number of times and
46
November 18, 2013
distributed randomly among the panellists. The order in which each panellist is to evaluate the
samples is indicated on the sensory evaluation forms (Botta 1994).
Panellists for the triangle test should have the same level of qualification and each panellist
should be given one familiarization session. Triangle tests used for the evaluation of fish tainting
will be administered to 24 panellists typical of the general population of consumers. However,
regardless of the size of the panel, the number of panellists should be a multiple of six.
Panellists involved in simple discriminate test such as the triangle test should not be trained
(Botta 1994).
Participants will be familiarized during a short briefing session with the presentation of samples
and score sheets (Figures 3.10) prior to conducting the sensory evaluations. The Marine
Institute of Memorial University has been used previously to conduct the sensory evaluations
and has a readily accessible population of potential participants.
Preference Tests (Hedonic Scaling)
Preference (acceptance/affective) tests are employed to determine "acceptability". Samples
may differ in preparation, ingredients or, as in this case, location of capture. The nine-point
hedonic scale is a useful sensory evaluation technique (Stone and Sidel 1985) by which the
magnitude of preference (or attributes of stimuli) are made explicit by the participants (Land and
Sheppard 1988). The simplicity of use, interest to participants, use with naive participants,
flexibility over a wide range of applications, and applicability to a wide range of stimuli make this
technique ideal for Hibernia’s EEM purposes. Hedonic scaling for taint will be conducted as part
of Hibernia EEM programs when a positive triangle test has occurred. A positive triangle test
occurs when taste panel participants correctly identify 13 of 24 coded samples.
Participants are presented with two coded samples (one from the Hibernia area and one from
the Reference site) and are required to indicate the degree of preference for each coded sample
on the questionnaire form (Figure 3.11).
47
November 18, 2013
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TRIANGLE TEST
Name:
Date/Time:
Product: American Plaice
1.
Taste the samples in the order indicated and identify the odd sample.
You must choose one of the samples.
Code
214
594
733
Check Odd Sample
2.
Comments:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Figure 3.10
Sample Questionnaire for Sensory Evaluation by Traingle Test
48
November 18, 2013
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HEDONIC SCALING
Name:
Date/Time:
Product: American Plaice
1. Taste these samples and check how much you like or dislike each one.
619
835
like extremely
like very much
like moderately
like slightly
neither like nor
dislike
dislike slightly
dislike moderately
dislike very much
dislike extremely
like extremely
like very much
like moderately
like slightly
neither like nor
dislike
dislike slightly
dislike moderately
dislike very much
dislike extremely
2. Comments:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Figure 3.11
Sample Questionnaire for Sensory Evaluation by Hedonic Scaling
49
November 18, 2013
3.3.3.3 Fish Health Indicators
Tissue Sample Collection
Upon capture, the spinal cord of the fish is severed
and total length and weight are measured (Photo 12).
Each fish will be assessed visually for any external
parasites and/or abnormalities and then dissected.
Sex and maturity stage are recorded according to
procedures used by DFO. Liver and gonad are
weighed. Tissues will be processed as follows.
Blood – Blood is drawn from a dorsal vessel near the
tail (Photo 13) and two blood smears will be prepared
for each fish according to standard haematological
methods (Platt 1969). Briefly, a tiny drop of blood will
be spread across a microscope slide to form a uniform
thin film. Slides are dried in a chamber and fixed in
methanol for future assessment.
Photo 12: Fish Measuring, Weighing
and Visual Assessment
Liver - The entire liver will be excised and bisected.
From the right half, a 4 to 5-mm thick slice will be
cut and placed in 10 percent buffered formalin for
histological processing and the remainder will be
frozen on dry ice in a -80C freezer for mixed
function oxygenase (MFO) analysis.
Gill - The first gill arch on the right hand side of the
fish will be removed and placed in 10 percent
buffered formalin for histological processing.
Photo 13: Blood Extraction from American
Plaice
Heart, spleen, gonad and kidney - Tissue
samples of these organs will be removed and
placed in 10 percent buffered formalin for
histological processing, if required.
Otoliths - A pair of otoliths will be removed for
ageing (Photo 14).
Photo 14: Otolith Extraction from
Throughout the dissection process, any internal
American Plaice
parasites and/or abnormal tissues will be
recorded and preserved in 10 percent buffered formalin for subsequent identification.
50
November 18, 2013
Mixed Function Oxygenase Assay
MFO induction will be assessed in liver samples of American plaice as 7-ethoxyresorufin Odeethylase (EROD) activity according to the method of Pohl and Fouts (1980) as modified by
Porter et al. (1989).
Sample Preparation
Each sample will be thawed on ice and homogenized in four volumes of 50 MM Tris-sucrose
buffer, pH 7.5, (1 gm liver to 4 mL buffer), using at least 10 passes of a glass Ten Broek hand
homogenizer. The homogenate is centrifuged at 9,000 g for 15 minutes at 4°C and the
supernatant (S9) frozen in triplicate at -80°C until assayed. All liver samples will be held and
processed under the same storage and assay conditions.
EROD Assay
The reaction mixture, final volume 1.25 mL, contains 53 nmol Tris-sucrose buffer (50 mM, pH
7.5), 20 l of S9 liver (diluted five times), 2.25 nmol 7-ER (150 M ethoxyresorufin), and the
reaction is started by the addition of 0.16 mg NADPH (1.25 mg/ml). After a 15-minute incubation
at 27°C in a temperature-controlled water bath, the reaction is terminated by the addition of
2.5 mL of ice-cold methanol. Methanol blanks will contain the same components as the sample
tubes, with methanol being added prior to the addition of NADPH. Assay tubes will be vortexed
and the protein precipitate removed by centrifugation at 3,600 g for five minutes. The
fluorescence of resorufin formed in the supernatant is measured in quartz cuvettes (1 cm
pathlength) at 585 nm using an excitation wavelength of 550 nm (slit width of 0.5 mm). Enzyme
activity is linear with time and protein concentration. Protein concentration of each S9 will be
determined using the Lowry protein method (Lowry et al. 1951). The rate of enzyme activity in
pmol/min/mg protein is obtained from the regression of fluorescence against standard
concentrations of resorufin.
Additional details on MFO assays can be found in Appendix F.
Haematology
Blood smears will be stained with Giemsa stain and examined with a Wild Leitz Aristoplan bright
field microscope for identifying different types of cells based on previous descriptions (Ellis
1976). Because blood cells do not disperse randomly on a slide when a smear is made, the
standard procedure Exaggerated Battlement Method will be performed to ensure that cells in
one particular area (i.e., the middle or the edges of the slide) are not missed (Lynch et al. 1969).
Size, shape and degree of haemoglobinization of red blood cells will be examined and recorded.
Additional details on blood abnormalities can be found in Appendix F.
Tissue Histopathology
Both liver and gill samples will be processed by standard histological methods (Lynch et al.
1969) using an Autotechnicon Tissue Processor. A graded ethyl alcohol series of 70 percent,
51
November 18, 2013
80 percent, 95 percent, and two changes of 100 percent are used for dehydration of the
samples. The organs are then cleared in three changes of chloroform. Finally, the tissues are
impregnated with three changes of molten embedding media, Tissue Prep 2™. The processed
tissues are embedded in steel molds using molten embedding media, and topped with labelled
embedding rings. After cooling, the hardened blocks of embedded tissues are removed from
their base molds. The blocks are trimmed of excess wax. Sections are cut at 6 m on a Leitz
microtome, floated on a 47°C water bath containing gelatin, and then picked up on labelled
microscope slides. After air drying, the slides are fixed at 60C for approximately two hours to
remove most of the embedding media and allow the sections to adhere properly to the slide.
Sections are stained using Mayers Haematoxylin and Eosin method (Luna 1968). Finally, after
coverslips are applied using Entellan®, the slides are left to air dry and harden overnight.
Liver
All liver samples will be assessed microscopically for the presence of different lesions (e.g.,
Myers et al. 1987, 1991). Among them are:
1.
Nonspecific necrosis
8.
Cholangioma
2.
9.
Cholangiofibrosis
3.
10.
4.
Eosinophilic foci
11.
Macrophage aggregates
5.
Basophilic foci
12.
6.
Clear cell foci
13.
Hepatocellular vacuolation
7.
Hepatocellular carcinoma
Lesions (except macrophage aggregates) will be recorded for each fish as not detected (0) or
detected (1). The percentage of fish affected by each type of lesions or prevalence of lesion will
then be calculated.
Macrophage aggregation will be recorded on a relative scale from 0 to 7 and prevalence will be
calculated for fish showing a moderate to high aggregation (3 or higher on the scale).
Additional details on the various liver lesions can be found in Appendix F.
Gill
Gill samples are examined microscopically under low power (63x) to get an overview of the
entire section and to record the presence of any abnormalities or parasites. Five randomly
selected fields will then be read for each sample at 250x magnification and examined as follows:
1. Total number of secondary lamellae are counted and recorded.
2. Each lamella will then be examined quantitatively for six different stages:
52
November 18, 2013
Stage 1 - Thin lamellae: Operationally defined here as secondary lamellae having a 1cell-thick epithelial layer with the base between two secondary lamellae having a 3- to 5cell-thick epithelial layer.
Stage 2 - Distal hyperplasia: Thickening of the epithelium from the basal end and
running almost the entire length of secondary lamellae (which may also appear
misshapen).
Stage 3 - Epithelial lifting: Separation of the epithelial layer from the basement
membrane.
Stage 4 - Clubbing: Swelling of the distal end of secondary lamellae which occurs in
two different forms: a) tip hyperplasia - thickening of the epithelium at the very tip of
lamellae giving the appearance of a club; and b) telangiectasis - a swelling without
rupture of the capillary at the distal end of lamellae (i.e., aneurism).
Stage 5 - Basal hyperplasia: Thickening of the epithelium near the base of secondary
lamellae where they meet the primary filament.
Stage 6 - Fusion: Fusion of two or more lamellae.
It is important to note that the stages do not follow in any specific order. For example, a Stage 4
does not necessarily proceed to a Stage 5.
3.3.4
Quality Assurance
All sample containers will be pre-labelled (with the exception of the actual fish identifier) prior to
departure. All pertinent information and sample specimen identification will be recorded on
standard forms. Information such as length, weight, sex, maturity, biological specimen sample
labels and by-catch records will be included in the forms. Storage temperatures will be
monitored daily.
Upon completion of the survey, a cruise report will be issued, providing a documented history of
the commercial fish survey including problems encountered. These procedures will ensure
reliable and defensible data on which to base sound conclusions.
3.4
Health and Safety
Health and safety are an integral part of the Hibernia EEM program and it is the contractor’s
responsibility to ensure that sufficient controls are in place to operate in a safe manner, thereby
protecting the health of all employees. A portion of the Hibernia EEM program is conducted at
sea aboard either a chartered fishing vessel (commercial fish program) or an operator-provided
offshore supply vessel (sediment program). It must be recognized that while on these platforms,
the ultimate responsibility and final decision for safety considerations will be at the discretion of
the vessels’ captains. Nevertheless, the contractor has health and safety considerations that
must be considered during the execution of the Hibernia EEM.
The Hibernia EEM program activities are such that a hazard assessment (see Section 4.3.1 for
further details) should be undertaken prior to initiation of work. In addition to the hazard
assessment, the contractor must consider safety concerns and requirements such as personal
53
November 18, 2013
safety training and equipment, boat safety, subcontractor training and safety, fire safety, safe
lifting practices and the proper use of tools. The contractor is responsible for conducting
appropriate field health and safety inspections, as well as conducting daily toolbox safety
meetings, to ensure safety is consider during the undertaking of all Hibernia EEM activities. All
safety activities should be appropriately documented.
54
November 18, 2013
4.0
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
4.1
Sampling Platforms
The sediment survey will be conducted from an offshore supply vessel. The vessel will carry
two large shipment containers, one dedicated to sample processing and one (containing
refrigerators) dedicated to sample storage. Other smaller shipment containers may be required
to house sampling equipment. The commercial fish survey will be conducted from a leased
fishing vessel available for charter.
4.2
EEM Survey Schedule
The sediment and commercial fish baseline or preproduction surveys were undertaken in
August and December, 1994, respectively. The first core EEM production survey was conducted
in August, 1998. Surveys were conducted every year for the first three years (1998, 1999 and
2000) and were scheduled to be conducted every second year thereafter (2002, 2004, 2006,
etc.). For the 2006 EEM, the C-NLOPB approved deferring the program until 2007. EEM field
programs were then scheduled and conducted in 2009 and 2011. In 2013, a core EEM program
and a HSE EEM program were initially scheduled. However, due to a delay in drilling at the HSE
site from the second quarter of 2013 to the fourth quarter of 2013, it was not practical to conduct
the HSE EEM program. Consequently, Hibernia requested, and received approval for, a deferral
of the core EEM program in order to achieve program alignment with the 2014 HSE EEM
program. The HSE EEM will be conducted every year for the first three years after which, like
the core EEM, will be conducted every second year. However, this frequency will be assessed
after results for the EEM program are analyzed. The commercial fish surveys will be undertaken
in late June-early July to maximize the probability of sufficient fish catches. The sediment survey
is scheduled in late July to late August to ensure limited downtime due to weather and to ensure
availability of marine amphipods for toxicity testing. The water column program, which is
conducted as part of the sediment survey, will not be scheduled for any period of planned
production downtime (i.e., scheduled maintenance or turnarounds).
Baseline data was collected for the HSE subsea development in 2011 along with the scheduled
core EEM program. Operational discharges at the HSE drill centre are anticipated in the fourth
quarter of 2013. Thus, the first operational HSE EEM will take place in 2014 with the 2014 core
EEM program.
4.3
Documentation
4.3.1
Hazard Assessment and Safety Considerations
The identification of health and safety hazards applies to all existing activities, projects and
services, as well as planned activities and services. This assessment applies to all occupational
health and safety risks associated with work activities conducted by Hibernia EEM contractors.
55
November 18, 2013
Such risks include, but are not limited to:
activities of all personnel having access to the workplace (including subcontractors);
all facilities at the workplace owned by the contractor or other participants in a project;
and
routine and non-routine activities.
The workplace for offshore programs would be considered to include the mobilization/
demobilization locations, activities occurring at the shore-base facility and activities aboard the
vessels from which the offshore EEM programs are conducted. Hibernia EEM contractors are
responsible to:
identify hazards in the workplace with the assistance of their employees;
document and address any hazards reported by their employees;
report observed or reported hazards to the appropriate personnel;
initiate and participate in a Hazard Assessment on existing work tasks/jobs;
determine which hazards present significant risks of causing adverse health effects and
safety concerns; and
use Hazard Assessment practices, where necessary, to identify hazards and identify
control measures and safe work practices to eliminate or control the hazards prior to
starting a work task/job.
The following steps may be used to identify health and safety hazards associated with the
contractor’s activities for Hibernia’s EEM programs.
list activities, services and products undertaken or provided by the core EEM contractor;
identify potential health and safety hazards for each activity with consideration for work
completed for the core EEM program;
identify the controls currently in place to mitigate the hazards;
rank each hazard in order of priority, based on the magnitude of the potential effect and
the feasibility of its occurrence and its history of occurrence;
identify significant hazards based on rank; and
identify the legal and other requirements that directly relate to the identified hazards.
These identified steps serve as a guide to Hazard Assessment and safety considerations that
must be considered when conducting the core EEM program. The contractor may have a
Hazard Assessment in place that has different steps than those outlined below. The contractors
should use their system in consultation with Hibernia to conduct a Hazard Assessment for the
core EEM program activities.
Hazard identification/analysis should be carried out prior to commencing the Hibernia EEM
program. It is not possible to manage risks if the hazards themselves have not been identified.
56
November 18, 2013
4.3.2
Cruise Plan
Cruise plans will be developed or updated, as appropriate, prior to the start of the EEM field
surveys. Cruise plans will provide the overall plan for the field surveys and contain specific
information regarding field crew, sample locations, location coordinates, samples to be
collected, QA procedures, safety considerations and priorities for the survey. The cruise plan is
intended as a general overview of the anticipated field program for use by Hibernia operations
personnel, the vessel crew and the field survey team. There are two cruise plans, specific to the
sediment/water program and the commercial fish program.
4.3.3
Cruise Report
Cruise reports will be developed once the EEM commercial fish and sediment field surveys are
complete. The cruise reports will document the collection of samples by providing a summary of
the field surveys, including vessel, personnel, mobilization, survey coordinates, a detailed report
of the field survey activities and safety activities. The cruise reports will also append the
sediment sample log, core description log, positioning report, daily field reports, any incident
reports (e.g., damaged equipment, survey crew member injury), tow start and finish coordinates,
biological data sheets and safety meeting minutes. There are two cruise reports, specific to the
sediment/water program and the commercial fish program.
57
November 18, 2013
5.0
CORE EEM REPORTING AND REVIEW
5.1
Statistical Design
Statistical analyses and interpretations are an integral component of any EEM program and are
given detailed consideration in the design of this program. The program and the data have
evolved such that the method of analyses and interpretations conducted for the baseline and
earlier production phase programs do not necessarily contain sufficient robustness to
adequately interpret and describe the existing dataset. The statistical methods that are
recommended for the analyses and interpretations of future Hibernia EEM programs are
detailed below. The statistical methods are a component of the EEM program that requires
continued assessment for relevancy and will be subject to a review after each year’s data are
collected and analyzed.
5.1.1
Hypotheses
The EEM program is designed around the monitoring of the critical elements of the receiving
environment that have provided the most beneficial and timeliest information on potential
deleterious effects to the receiving environment. It builds upon requests and recommendations
provided from regulatory review and experience gained from previous Hibernia EEM programs.
Specifically, data will be collected on sediment quality, water column chemistry and a
commercial fish species. Data will also be collected on raw produced water to enable the
generation of estimates of dispersion factors and a zone or area of potential effects.
The intent of the EEM program is to detect project-induced changes to the surrounding
environment. A series of hypotheses have been developed to aid in the verification of the
predictions of no significant adverse effects stated in the Hibernia Drill Centres Construction and
Operations Program Screening Report dated July 24, 2009. These hypotheses will be evaluated
annually in the project environmental assessment updates and the evaluation will include
consideration of EEM program results.
H0 = Approved releases of solid and liquids from Hibernia’s production and drilling operations
will not result in significant adverse environmental effects on marine fish (as assessed by fish
health indicators and integrative assessment).
HA = Approved releases of solid and liquids from Hibernia’s production and drilling operations
will result in significant adverse environmental effects on marine fish (as assessed by fish health
indicators and integrative assessment).
will not result in significant adverse environmental effects on marine fish habitat (as evaluated
by sediment toxicity assays and integrative assessment).
58
November 18, 2013
will result in significant adverse environmental effects on marine fish habitat (as evaluated by
sediment toxicity assays and integrative assessment).
H0 =Approved releases of solid and liquids from Hibernia’s production and drilling operations
will not result in the taint (as measured by organoleptic evaluations and integrative assessment)
of fishery resources outside of the safety zone.
will result in the taint (as measured by organoleptic evaluations and integrative assessment) of
fishery resources outside of the safety zone.
Initially a key objective is to confirm any observed biological effect is due to a project related
activity or some other factor. Methods used to assess environmental effects of an activity have
evolved from the basic chemical analyses to more exhaustive studies that integrate physical,
chemical and biological testing. The monitoring tools that will be used to apply the integrated
approach are described in Sections 2 and 3 herein. The process involves an integrative weightof-evidence approach to the assessment of biological environmental effects, examining multiple
factors and trophic levels. The integrative assessment or weight-of-evidence approach provides
more information on spatial extent, the magnitude of contamination and biological effects
associated with the contamination than any one single component. Once a biological effect has
been concluded to be a project induced effect the EEM survey results will firstly be evaluated to
determine if the observed effects are inconsistent with the project environmental assessment
predictions regarding impacts to marine fish and fish habitat.
With respect to marine fish habitat, an effect not consistent with EA predicted effects would exist
where;
There is a toxic outcome of biological toxicity testing (amphipod and/or polychaete
worm) of a sediment sample collected at or beyond 1000 m from an installation
associated with the assessed project(s);
That toxic outcome may be correlated to the presence of a substance known to be
discharged from such an installation; and
The concentration of that substance is statistically significantly different from the
background/baseline concentration.
Where a biological effect outside environmental assessment predictions is confirmed, the EEM
sediment sampling program will be redesigned (subject to approval by C-NLOPB) at sufficient
detail to determine the spatial extent of the biological effect. The regularly scheduled EEM
program to follow will be modified to reflect the additional sampling and will proceed at its
regularly scheduled time unless a change is agreed to by the C-NLOPB.
Assessment of Significance - once a project-induced effect which is inconsistent with EA
predictions has been confirmed, the determination of significance of these effects, as described
in the hypothesis statements presented above, is conducted in the annual environmental
59
November 18, 2013
assessment update. This will include a qualitative and, where possible, quantitative assessment
using existing knowledge, professional judgment and analytical tools.
Similar to the effects assessment approach applied in the Hibernia Drill Centres Construction
and Operations Program Screening Report (July 2009), significance of project attributable
biological effects on marine fish and marine fish habitat can be assessed, largely qualitatively,
using the following descriptors:
Magnitude: the nature and degree of the observed effect. Magnitude of effects may be
rated as follows:
-
Low - Affects a specific group or critical habitat for one generation or less; within
natural variation;
-
Medium - Affects a portion of a population or critical habitat for one or two
generations; temporarily outside the range of natural variability;
-
High - Affects a whole stock, population or critical habitat (may be due to the loss of
an individual(s) in the case of a species at risk) outside the range of natural
variability.
Geographical Extent: describes the area within which an observed effect of a defined
magnitude occurs;
Frequency: the number of times during a project or a specific project phase that an
observed is occurring (i.e., one time, multiple);
Duration: the period of time to return to a baseline condition or the effect can no longer
be measured or otherwise perceived. It may be divided into three timeframes: shortterm, mid-term and long-term;
Reversibility: the likelihood that a measurable parameter will recover from an effect,
including through active management techniques such as habitat restoration works; and
Ecological Context: the general characteristics of the area in which the project is
located; typically defined as limited or no anthropogenic disturbance (i.e., not
substantially affected by human activity) or anthropogenically developed (i.e., the area
has been substantially disturbed by human development or human development is still
present).
The assessment and associated discussions associated with a determination of significance are
matters of importance that must be undertaken objectively with all relevant factors considered.
Additional studies, such as net benefit studies or environmental studies may be required to
augment or verify information collected in the environmental effects monitoring program.
5.1.2
Sediment Chemistry Statistical Analyses
A detailed review of the sediment chemistry analysis was undertaken in 2003 and resulted in
focusing statistical analysis primarily on barium and hydrocarbons. Other chemical parameters
that remained unchanged since the baseline program in 1994, while collected as part of the
suite of trace metals, will no longer be subject to statistical analyses.
60
November 18, 2013
Similarly, the continued use of statistical analyses for parameters that have returned or
encroached upon baseline levels in 2002 and that remained at similar or lower levels since 2004
is not necessary for future EEM programs, provided current operating conditions remain
constant. The data collected in 2004 indicated most contaminant levels have returned to 1998
or baseline levels and therefore, the application of statistical analyses is not relevant. Statistical
analyses will be applied when there exists an obvious deviation from the baseline, 2002, 2004,
2007 or 2009 data.
The first step in data analyses and interpretation is the screening of data to select chemical
parameters for further statistical analysis in the event of a reversal to the improving trend
observed in the 2002, 2004, 2007 and 2009 EEM programs (as assessed by the
two-dimensional (2-D) plots). Following the visual screening, examination of the summary data
and above-noted criteria, a determination will be made on which parameters to carry forward
into exploratory data analysis and statistical analysis. In cases where data values below the
estimated quantitation level (EQL) are present for a substance that was the subject of plotting or
further statistical evaluation, the “non-detectable” observation will be treated using ½ EQL.
In 2009 in response to regulators comments that the substitution for statistical methods should
follow the approach of Helsel (2005), an in-depth examination and application based on Helsel
2005 was undertaken. The results of that study concluded that the data analyses provided the
same conclusion using ½ RDL or more detailed approach advocated by Helsel. Considering the
Helsel method is more time consuming than using ½ EQL while providing no additional benefit
or statistical precision to the Hibernia Data set, all future programs will use ½ EQL for dataset
with below detection values. Details of this undertaking were provided in the 2009 Hibernia EEM
report (HMDC 2012, Volume 1, Appendix B).
Some data had changed EQL from 1994 to 1998. For the two total extractable hydrocarbons,
C11-C20 (fuel range) and C21-C32 (lube range), the 1994 EQL was 10 mg/kg while the
1998 EQL was 0.25 mg/kg. This was due to a refinement in methodology to reflect client
requirements, techniques and technological advances. Due to the major changes in the
hydrocarbon detection limits, the 1994 hydrocarbon data will not subjected to statistical
analyses.
The mean data (pre-2002 data) and one data point per year (post-2002 data) will be used to
generate 2-D surface plots using colour intensity to easily visualize spatial and temporal trends
for all the sediment chemistry EEM data to date. Two-dimensional surface plots were selected,
since three variables can be displayed on one graph. The Y-axis represents the north-south
distance in kilometres from the Hibernia Platform, the X-axis represents the east-west distance
in kilometres from the Hibernia Platform, and the colour of the contour represents the mean
concentration for a substance in sediments. The Hibernia Platform is located at the centre in
each of these plots. The colour plots are arranged so that a full sequence of plots may be
presented, representing the data collected since 1994. For chemical parameters added
subsequent to 1994, only plots for the years that data were collected for the parameter will be
presented. The data for the last two years will be represented by two larger plots, so that recent
changes can be readily visualized. If the spatial scale was too large to visually detect the
concentration of the parameter, it was then reduced to 1 km in all directions of the Hibernia
Platform.
61
November 18, 2013
SYSTAT version 10 statistical computing software (SPSS Inc.) or relevant updates will used to
produce all the figures and perform the statistical analyses. The coloured mosaic contours in the
2-D plots, which extend to the margins of the plot, will be generated by interpolation of the
station EEM sediment chemistry data. Since software interpolation increases with distance from
the GBS, the sample grid design will be overlain on the 2D contour plots presented in EEM
reports to remind the reader of this fact. In addition, text sections will describe the limitation of
interpolation to readers. The Reference site data will not be included in these figures. An
example of the 2-D surface plots (without sample grid) that will be used to illustrate the relevant
chemical parameters is provided in Figure 5.1.
The statistical approach to evaluating the monitoring data has been structured to consider
two levels of scale. The first is a coarse screening for differences between near-field (stations
between 250 and 1,000 m from the Platform), mid-field (stations between 1,500 and 3,000 m
from the Platform), and far-field (4,000 to 6,000 m from the Platform) stations. The division of
stations into near-, mid- and far-field groupings is arbitrary, but reflects the varying spatial extent
of effects predictions developed in the Hibernia production phase EEM program (HMDC 1996).
The second statistical analysis focuses on effects within 1,000 m of the Platform, by looking
explicitly at effects at the distance radii of 250, 500, 750 and 1,000 m. In both cases
(coarse- and fine-scale analysis), the analysis explicitly tests for effects attributable to distance
from the Platform (either as near-, mid- or far-field, or explicitly as distance), the year of the
EEM program (time) and, most importantly, the potential interaction term between distance and
time.
Figure 5.1
Example of a Two-dimensional Surface Plot: Average Sand Content in
Hibernia Sediment for 2000 and 2002 Data
The use of repeated sampling over time also results in a technical violation of the assumptions
of ANOVA, since observations at any single station sampled over time can be said to be autocorrelated (in effect, they tend to be more similar to observations from the previous and
62
November 18, 2013
subsequent sampling periods than they should be if they were statistically independent
samples). In spite of these difficulties, there is no better statistical technique to apply to the data
than ANOVA, and as long as it is recognized that a relatively high incidence of “false positive”
observations can be expected, the technique remains an important data interpretation tool. In
order to aid in interpreting the importance of statistically significant differences, and to help
screen out “false positive” results, four principles can be considered. These are the principles of:
proximity (differences are more likely to be real if they are observed in close proximity to
the source of the disturbance);
adjacency (differences are more likely to be real if two or more adjacent locations are
affected);
multiplicity (differences are more likely to be real if two or more parameters are affected
simultaneously); and
duration (differences are more likely to be real if they persist over time).
Although each of these principles is evaluated independently, they can be taken cumulatively to
establish a weight-of-evidence, suggesting that observed statistically significant differences
either are, or are not, true effects of the project.
The following chemical parameters will be subjected to statistical analysis using ANOVA: total
barium; weak-acid extractable barium; fuel range hydrocarbon; and lube range hydrocarbon.
Each of the chemical parameters will be analyzed in two steps. The first step is a coarse-scale
analysis, where the various distances are divided into near-, mid- and far-field groups. All years
for which data are available will be processed. At each sampling station, the mean value for the
available data for each year will be taken as the best point estimate. In instances were only one
data point is collected per station (post-2002 Hibernia EEM programs), that data point will be
used. Note that in this statistical analysis, the sampling station is the experimental unit. The use
of individual samples collected at each station is therefore not valid, since these samples are
not true replicates, but should be viewed as sub-samples. A statistical error term calculated
using the sub-samples as if they were true replicates would underestimate the inherent
variability between stations, and would therefore further inflate the rate of false positive results.
The second step in the analysis is to examine the near-field stations, and to look for effects
attributable to Distance (250, 500, 750 or 1,000 m) or Year in this area, where the effects are
most likely to be observed.
The statistical analyses as detailed were used for the preparation of the 2002, 2004, 2007 and
2009 Hibernia EEM Program reports (HMDC 2003, 2005, 2009, 2011) and will be used for
future EEM programs.
The HSE EEM will rely on the same methodology for sediment chemistry statistical analyses as
per the core EEM program as described herein. Changes in HSE sediment chemistry will be
tested using a one way ANOVA design along a distance gradient (factor levels: 250, 500, 1000
and 16,000 m). The analysis will include an analysis of the core and HSE data sets separately
and as a combined data set.
63
November 18, 2013
5.1.3
Sediment Toxicity Statistical Analyses
Toxicity tests will be analyzed and interpreted in a two-step process. The first step will be the
interpretation of the toxicity test based on guidelines developed by Environment Canada for the
determination of toxic/non-toxic responses. The second step is a more detailed statistical
analysis similar to that used for the sediment chemical statistical analyses. The toxicity data will
be examined using the 2-D surface plots, if appropriate.
To assess if the Microtox assay, amphipod survival and juvenile polychaete growth results
correlate with sediment chemistry data for Hibernia, Pearson correlation coefficients will be
calculated using log(10) transformations on concentration data and square-root arcsine
transformations on percentage data (e.g., percent sediment particle size and amphipod
survival). Transformations will be applied to promote the normality of the data and homogeneity
of the variance for parametric assumptions of the statistical analysis. A correlation coefficient of
+1.0 would indicate that there was a perfect linear relationship between two variables, with both
values increasing or decreasing together. A high correlation coefficient does not signify
a causative or dependent relationship between the two parameters being examined, where
one parameter is responsible for the outcome of the other parameter. A correlation coefficient
of -1.0 would indicate a perfect inverse relationship between the two parameters, such that the
value of one parameter increases as the other decreases. Correlation coefficients rarely equal
1, but always lie between +1.0 and -1.0. In this report, a Pearson correlation coefficient
(“r” value) having an absolute value of 0.55 or greater is arbitrarily considered to be meaningful,
and worthy of discussion.
A single-factor ANOVA using the general linear model will be used to determine whether
significant differences in sediment toxicity data (Microtox, amphipod survival and juvenile
polychaete growth) could be detected between near-, mid- and far-fields from the Hibernia
Platform. This first coarse-scale analysis is based on an arbitrary division of the various station
distances along the radials into near-, mid- and far-field groups. Where a significant difference
attributable to the experimental factor field is indicated in the ANOVA, the source of this
difference will be investigated using Tukey’s HSD multiple comparison tests. Individual Microtox
and juvenile polychaete data values will be log(10) transformed, whereas percent amphipod
survival data will be square-root arcsine transformed prior to analysis to ensure the assumptions
of the ANOVA analyses are met. In 2002, there were insufficient data for amphipod survival,
juvenile polychaete survival and juvenile polychaete growth to obtain the minimum degrees of
freedom necessary to test the interaction effect of Year X Field in the ANOVA. Therefore, for the
2002 data, only Year and Field were tested for statistical significance in the ANOVA. It is
plausible this may occur for future data and, as for the 2002 data, only Year and Field will be
tested for statistical significance in the ANOVA in the event of such an occurrence.
The second step in the ANOVA analysis will be to focus on the near-field stations for the various
years of sediment toxicity data, and to look for effects attributable to the Distance factor
(250, 500, 750 or 1,000 m) in this area, the Year factor and to the interaction effect of Year X
Distance. The underlying assumption is that effects are most likely to be observed closer to the
Hibernia Platform, if present. The interaction effect (Year X Distance) will be only conducted on
64
November 18, 2013
Microtox data because there were too few amphipod survival, polychaete survival and juvenile
polychaete growth data points to support this analysis.
5.1.3.1 Microtox Interpretation Guidelines
The statistical endpoint for the bacterial luminescence toxicity test is the determination of
whether the biological endpoint (bioluminescence) for the sample is significantly different from
the negative control (0 percent), calculated as the IC50 value. The Microtox assay is conducted
by instrumentation developed by Microbics Corp., which includes a data analysis package.
The IC50 (concentration at which 50 percent inhibition is observed) is calculated. This value is
calculated by probit analysis and should be verified graphically on a logarithmic-probability plot.
For the bacterial luminescence assay, Environment Canada has published a revised reference
method for Solid Phase Microtox Testing. The reference method (EPS 1/RM/42 (Environment
Canada 2002)) contains interim guidelines for assessing Microtox toxicity. Sediments with levels
of silt/clay greater than 20 percent are considered to have failed this sediment toxicity test
(are toxic) if the IC50 is less than 1,000 mg/L as dry solids. This interim guideline is unchanged
and is not applicable for Hibernia sediments as the Hibernia samples all have particle size
compositions containing significantly less than 20 percent fines.
For any test sediment from a particular station and depth that is comprised of less than
20 percent fines and that has an I# $1,000 mg/L, the IC50 of this sediment must be
compared against a sample of “clean” reference sediment or negative control sediment (artificial
or natural) with a percent fines content that does not differ by more than 30 percent from that of
the test sediment. Based on this comparison, the test sediment is judged to have failed the
sediment toxicity test if, and only if, both of the following two conditions apply:
1. the IC50 is more than 50 percent lower than that determined for the sample reference
sediment or negative control sediment; and
2. the IC50 for the test sediment and reference sediment or negative control sediment differ
significantly.
During the development of the Hibernia production phase EEM program, a Microtox response of
<40,000 mg/L was considered to have failed the Microtox sediment toxicity test. The choice of
<40,000 mg/L was chosen to account for observed baseline Microtox responses. The Hibernia
baseline data were collected in 1994 prior to the installation of any offshore production platforms
or major offshore oil activity. Therefore, all Hibernia baseline stations could be considered to be
samples of “clean” reference sediment.
The Microtox failure value based on the baseline data would have been an IC50 value of
36,150 mg/L. This value was rounded to 40,000 mg/L for interpretation purposes. The value
chosen to indicate a Microtox failure for the Hibernia production phase EEM program (HMDC
1996) recognized the baseline variability and the influence of sediment physio-chemical
characteristics on the Microtox response. Therefore, a Microtox response of <40,000 mg/L
is still valid as an interpretation guideline for a Microtox sediment toxicity test failure and is
65
November 18, 2013
consistent with the new interim guidelines for assessing Microtox toxicity, as detailed in
reference method EPS 1/RM/42 (Environment Canada 2002).
5.1.3.2 Amphipod Survival Interpretation Guidelines
The amphipod survival assay endpoint is percent mortality. The statistical endpoint for the
amphipod toxicity test is the determination of whether the biological endpoint (percent survival)
differs statistically from the control or reference sample, calculated using the Student’s T-Test.
The amphipod survival test results would be considered toxic if the endpoint (mortality) is more
than 30 percent lower and significantly different than mortality in the negative control sediment
(sediment collected from the amphipod collection site) at the p=0.05 level. The amphipod
survival test results would be considered toxic if the endpoint (mortality) is more than 20 percent
lower and significantly different than mortality in the Reference sites (16 km Hibernia Reference
sites) at the p=0.05 level.
5.1.3.3 Juvenile Polychaete Growth Interpretation Guidelines
The statistical endpoint for the juvenile polychaete toxicity test is the determination of whether
the biological endpoint (percent survival and mean growth) differs statistically from the control or
reference sample, calculated using TOXCALC computer program (Tidepool Scientific Software
1994). Environment Canada has no interpretative guideline for the juvenile polychaete toxicity
test. For the purpose of this report and as an aid for the interpretation of the results, the
amphipod survival tests interpretative guidelines will be used as a guide for the interpretation of
the juvenile polychaete data. Therefore, the juvenile polychaete survival test results would be
considered toxic if the endpoint (mortality) is more than 30 percent lower and significantly
different than mortality in the negative control sediment at the p=0.05 level. The juvenile
polychaete growth test results would be considered toxic if the endpoint (mean growth) is more
than 30 percent lower and significantly different than mean growth in the negative control
sediment at the p=0.05 level.
Alternatively, the juvenile polychaete survival test results would be considered toxic if the
endpoint (mortality) is more than 20 percent lower and significantly different than mortality in
Reference site sediment at the p=0.05 level. The juvenile polychaete growth test results would
be considered toxic if the endpoint (mean growth) is more than 20 percent lower and
significantly different than mean growth in the Reference site sediment at the p=0.05 level.
5.1.4
Water Quality Statistical Analyses
The water quality program was undertaken as a pilot study in 2004 and was also included in the
2007 and 2009 core EEM programs to determine whether information can be collected within
the water column on hydrocarbons via standard laboratory analyses using CTD profiles to direct
sample locations. The purpose of the water quality monitoring is to validate the produced water
dispersion modelling. Therefore, water quality data analyses will include a comparison of
predicted and actual dilution factors.
66
November 18, 2013
5.1.5
Statistical Analyses of Tissue Chemistry Profiles
Statistical tests (ANOVA) will be performed on the biological tissue data to evaluate whether
there are significant differences in the chemical concentrations present in liver or muscle tissues
of American plaice, between fish collected in the vicinity of the Hibernia Platform and those
collected at a Reference site. For the core EEM program, only the data collected since 1994 will
be used for the analysis, since the data collected in 1994 did not include sufficient fish to
support the statistical analysis.
The first step of analysis is to screen the data and select for further analysis only those
parameters that are reliably detected. If data are routinely below the EQL, then no further
analysis will be conducted. Based upon the screening, selected parameters will be retained for
statistical analysis of muscle and liver tissues. In cases where data values below the EQL are
occasionally present for a parameter that is the subject of further statistical evaluation, the “nondetectable” observation will be replaced in the data set by a numerical value equal to one-half
the EQL.
A two-way ANOVA using the general linear model will be used to determine whether statistically
significant differences in chemical concentration are present in American plaice liver and muscle
tissues caught near the Hibernia Platform and from a Reference site. The experimental factors
or treatments that will be statistically tested in the ANOVA include Year and Area (Hibernia and
Reference), as well as the Year X Area interaction term. Where statistically significant
differences attributable to either of the experimental factors or interaction term are indicated in
the ANOVA, the source of these differences will be investigated using Tukey’s HSD multiple
comparison tests. All data will be log(10) transformed prior to analysis to ensure the
assumptions of the ANOVA analyses were met.
5.1.6
Statistical Analyses for Sensory Evaluations (Taint Testing)
The statistical methods employed for organoleptic evaluations range from standard tables to
vigorous parametric analyses. The statistic method used will depend on the actual organoleptic
assessment technique.
A determination of taint necessitates that a statistical difference for the triangle test and an
unacceptable ranking for the hedonic scaling be obtained.
5.1.6.1 Triangle Test
The triangle test datum is a value that represents the number of correct responses over the
number of panelists. This value is compared to values in a standard table (Table 5.1)
to determine the statistical significance of the result. A statistically significant result for the
recommended panel size of 24 would require 13 correct responses (95 percent significance
level). When results for the triangle test are less than 13 correct responses, the hedonic scaling
assessment will not be conducted.
67
November 18, 2013
Table 5.1
Triangle Test, Difference Analyses
Number of Tasters
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Number of correct answers
necessary to establish
level of significance
5%
1%
0.1%
5
6
7
6
7
8
6
7
8
7
8
9
7
8
9
8
9
10
8
9
10
9
10
11
9
10
12
10
11
12
10
11
13
10
12
13
11
12
14
11
13
14
12
13
15
12
14
15
13
14
16
13
14
16
13
15
17
14
15
17
14
16
18
15
16
18
15
17
19
16
17
19
16
18
19
16
18
20
17
19
20
17
19
21
18
19
21
18
20
22
18
20
22
19
21
23
19
21
23
20
22
24
20
22
24
21
22
25
21
23
25
21
23
25
22
24
26
22
24
26
23
25
27
23
25
27
23
25
28
24
26
28
24
26
29
25
27
29
25
27
29
Number of Tasters
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
200
300
400
68
5%
1%
0.1%
27
29
31
27
29
32
27
30
32
28
30
33
28
30
33
28
31
33
29
31
34
29
32
34
30
32
35
30
32
35
30
33
36
31
33
36
31
34
36
32
34
37
32
34
37
32
35
38
33
35
38
33
36
39
34
36
39
34
36
39
34
37
40
35
37
40
35
38
41
35
38
41
36
38
41
36
39
42
37
39
42
37
40
43
37
40
43
38
40
44
38
41
44
39
41
44
39
42
45
39
42
45
40
42
46
40
43
46
40
43
46
41
44
47
41
44
47
42
44
48
42
45
48
42
45
49
43
46
49
43
46
49
80
84
89
117
122
127
152
158
165
November 18, 2013
Number of Tasters
54
55
56
5%
1%
0.1%
25
27
30
26
28
30
26
28
31
Number of Tasters
500
1000
2000
5%
1%
0.1%
188
194
202
363
372
383
709
722
737
5.1.6.2 Hedonic Scaling
Hedonic scaling assesses the magnitude of preference along a nine-point scale. The scale
lends itself to the assignment of values (1 to 9) and statistical analysis of the data by ANOVA.
Samples from the Hibernia and Reference sites are analyzed to determine if there is a statistical
difference within a sample or between the two samples. The drawback to the use of the ANOVA
is the assumption that each point of the scale is of equal size and value. Nevertheless, the
ANOVA analysis allows for the detection of differences between sample locations while
accounting for differences attributable to sample variability. Graphical presentation in the form of
a frequency histogram aids in the interpretation and understanding of hedonic scaling results
and should be used as an illustrative aid.
5.1.7
Statistical Analyses of Fish Health Indicators
5.1.7.1 Mixed Function Oxygenase Induction
Enzyme activities in liver tissues of fish of the same gender from the Hibernia and Reference
sites will be compared by unpaired t-test or Mann-Whitney Rank Sum test when data are not
normally distributed. Comparisons having a p<0.05 are considered to be statistically significant.
5.1.7.2 Haematology
A blood cell differential count will be performed on lymphocytes, neutrophils and thrombocytes
and expressed as a percentage of each type of cells for 200 cells counted on each slide.
Percentages will be transformed using arcsine square root before analysis by the Mann-Whitney
Rank Sum test (Sokal and Rohlf 1981) and comparisons between sites having a p<0.05 are
considered to be statistically significant.
5.1.7.3 Tissue Histopathology
In livers, the macrophage aggregation will be recorded on a relative scale from 0 to 7 and
prevalence will be calculated for fish showing a moderate to high aggregation (3 or higher on
the scale). Prevalence of lesions will be statistically analyzed by the Fisher’s exact test.
Comparisons between sites having a p<0.05 are considered to be statistically significant.
For gill tissue, the results for each fish will be expressed as the percentage of lamellae
presenting the stage in relation to the total number of lamellae counted in the fields.
Percentages will be transformed using arcsine square root before analysis by the unpaired t-test
(Sokal and Rohlf 1981). Comparisons between sites having a p<0.05 are considered to be
statistically significant.
69
November 18, 2013
The degree of oedema present in gills, if any, will be recorded on a 0 to 3 relative scale
(0-absent, 1-light, 2-moderate and 3-heavy) and compared among sites with the Mann-Whitney
Rank Sum test. Comparisons between sites having a p<0.05 are considered to be statistically
significant.
5.2
Reporting
Data collected during the EEM will be statistically compared against the baseline
characterization data and previous years’ data for each subsequent EEM survey. The data will
be reported in an interpretative document in a plain language format to the extent possible to
facilitate the usefulness of the EEM program. The report will contain the following basic
elements that are organized in to chapters:
an executive summary that will provide a general overview of the report;
an introduction that will provide an overview of the project setting, project commitments,
EEM objectives and an outline of the evaluation and interpretation of the particular years
program;
a detailed description (including tables and figures for metered discharges) of the
regulated/approved discharges including produced water, storage displacement water,
platform drainages, seawater return discharge, sanitary and domestic wastes and drill
cutting discharges;
a synopsis on the sediment chemistry program, including data collection, data screening,
data organization and a summary of relevant chemistry data;
the statistical analyses of the sediment chemistry data;
details on the sediment chemistry program, including the toxicity tests results and the
associated statistical analyses;
details on the water quality program, with recommendations as appropriate;
details on the commercial fish program, encompassing tissue chemical profiles and
sensory evaluations (taint tests) that includes summary information on fish catches,
tissue chemical data, statistical analyses associated with tissue chemical data and
results of the sensory evaluations (taint testing);
details on the results of the fish health program, including statistical analyses;
a detailed discussion and interpretation of the data that discusses each of the
components separately and an integrative assessment of the program that discusses the
hypothesis and impact and model predictions;
a conclusion that will highlight key results; and
recommendations that will identify opportunities for improvement in the program.
A summary report that contains more details than the executive summary can be developed for
public release if required.
70
November 18, 2013
5.3
Decision Making
The EEM program is one component in Hibernia’s environmental management system (OIMS
System 6-5 Environmental Management). The EEM program provides Hibernia with the
necessary information to make project-related decisions with respect to environmental practices
associated with effects on the marine environment.
5.4
EEM Program Review
The EEM program will be reviewed after each year that data are collected. Each of the steps in
the program including the sample grid designs will be evaluated and, if necessary, refined to
better meet the objectives of the EEM.
71
November 18, 2013
6.0
HIBERNIA SOUTHERN EXTENSION EEM
HMDC currently uses a single fixed GBS platform to complete drilling of oil production, water
injection and gas injection wells through a total of 64 well drill slots. Drilling complexities
associated with some of the extended reach wells, as well as the lack of available drill slots
within the GBS, negates full resource recovery using wells drilled from the GBS alone.
Therefore, a subsea development was deemed the appropriate option for HSE. HSE
development will be located just south of PL1001 and inside of PL1005. The HSE development
includes a number of wells originating from a subsea template or manifold, which is connected
to the GBS via subsea flowlines. Subsea equipment will be located in an excavated drill centre
to prevent impacts with icebergs. The location and layout of subsea equipment will provide ease
of access for inspection, testing, repair, replacement, or removal. The following sections provide
details on the proposed HSE EEM program, which builds upon the core EEM program.
6.1
HSE EEM Program Components
Data on sediment quality and commercial fish species will be collected in each EEM monitoring
year. Fish health indicators are included as part of the commercial fish program. The primary
goal of the water column component of the core EEM program is to monitor effects associated
with produced water. The HSE field production design is such that there will be no produced
water releases at HSE; rather, the produced water associated with HSE development will be
processed and handled at the Hibernia production Platform (GBS) and as such, there is no
requirement for a water quality component in the HSE EEM. All produced water effects
associated with HSE will be captured under the existing core EEM Program. The proposed EEM
components and target parameters are summarized in Figure 6.1. Details of each component
are provided in subsequent sections.
6.2
Sampling Platforms
The sediment survey will be conducted from an offshore supply vessel. The vessel will carry
two large shipment containers, one dedicated to sample processing and one (containing
refrigerators) dedicated to sample storage. The commercial fish survey will be conducted from
a leased fishing vessel that meets specification outlined by the field lead. To achieve efficiencies
with respect to vessel availability and staffing requirements, the HSE EEM will be conducted
concurrent with the Hibernia EEM program, where possible.
6.3
EEM Survey Schedule
The HSE baseline EEM was conducted in 2011. The HSE EEM program will be conducted
annually for the first three years with the first operational EEM program projected to commence
in 2014 as drilling is anticipated to commence in the fourth quarter of 2013. The deferral of the
core EEM to 2014 enabled alignment of the HSE and core EEM programs and they will be
conducted consecutively in 2014.
72
November 18, 2013
Figure 6.1
6.4
Environmental Effects Monitoring Components
Sediment Component
HSE drilling will take place over a two-year period from a drill platform (either a semisubmersible or drill ship MODU). WBMs will be used for the first intermediate hole sections and
SBMs will be used for the remaining sections of the wellbore. Cuttings will be discharged over
board. The purpose of the sediment component is to provide seabed sediment samples for
sediment chemistry and sediment toxicity analyses in the vicinity of the HSE seabed production
centre and at two Reference sites, located 16 km north and 16 km west of the Hibernia
production Platform. The proposed Reference sites are the same Reference sites as per the
core EEM Program, and based on past and current sediment sample analyses they are
appropriate for use as reference stations for both the core and HSE EEM programs. Results will
be analyzed to evaluate changes in sediment characteristics and properties as they relate to
ongoing construction and operations at HSE. Sampling and analyses of the sediments
surrounding the HSE will provide a mechanism to determine changes in sediment chemistry that
could be associated with biological effects due to operational discharges associated with HSE
(drill cutting releases in particular).
6.5
Sample Locations
Collection of sediment samples as part of the HSE EEM will occur in the vicinity of the HSE and
two Reference sites (the same as those used during the core EEM).
In total, 14 stations will be sampled during the HSE EEM, 12 HSE stations and two Reference
sites that are shared with the core EEM program. Samples will be collected based on a radial
design similar to that of the core EEM program, with four radials extending North-South and
East-West. Samples will be collected at 250 m, 500 m and 1,000 m from the HSE centre along
each radial (North, South, East and West). As well, two Reference sites will be sampled at
1-16,000 and 7-16,000 (Figure 6.2). Target coordinates for the collection of sediment samples
are included in Table 6.2.
73
November 18, 2013
Figure 6.2
Sediment Sampling Grid for the Hibernia Southern Extension Program
74
November 18, 2013
Table 6.1
Planned Anchor Locations
TRANSVERSE MERCATOR PROJECTION
UMT ZONE 22N, CM 51°W
NAD83 (CSRS) DATUM, GRS80 ELLIPSOID
GRID IS GREATER THAN TRUE
RIG
CENTER
LAT (north)
46° 41' 53.979"
LONG (west)
048° 44' 59.783"
672 020 E
5 174 100 N
WATER
DEPTH
80 METRES (262ft) LAT
ANCHOR PATTERNS
WEST AQUARIUS
ANCHOR
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Table 6.2
HORIZONTAL
DISTANCE
1300 (4265)
1300 (4265)
1300 (4265)
1300 (4265)
1300 (4265)
1300 (4265)
1300(4265)
1300 (4265)
BEARING TRUE
EASTINGS
NORTHINGS
312.5°
357.5°
042.5°
087.5°
132.5°
177.5°
222.5°
267.5°
671 066
671 981
672 963
673 366
672 974
672 059
671 077
670 674
5 175 050
5 175 448
5 175 063
5 174 150
5 173 150
5 172 752
5 173 137
5 174 050
HSE Baseline Sediment Station Locations (NAD 83, Zone 22 UTM
Coordinates)
STATION ID
N-250
N-500
N-1000
E-250
E-500
E-1000
S-250
S-500
S-1000
W-250
W-500
W-1000
1-16000 (a,b)
7-16000 (a,b)
TARGET EASTING
672177.1
672273.4
672465.9
672394.2
672624.6
673084.9
671865.4
671766.9
671572.5
671476.9
671229.5
670735.5
668966.40
653425.40
TARGET NORTHING
5174464.5
5174695.3
5175156.7
5173948.6
5173850.5
5173654.6
5173717.5
5173481.4
5173015.3
5174192.5
5174231.9
5174310.7
5195808.00
5179364.00
The development of the baseline sampling grid was based on the assumption that the MODU
was equipped with 12 anchor chains. However, the actual anchor and chain configuration will
consist of 8 anchor chains and anchors; Table 6.1 contains details on the planned positioning.
All reasonable efforts will be made to retain the HSE baseline sample locations. However, once
all HSE-related infrastructure is installed, it is highly probable that some stations may have to be
75
November 18, 2013
relocated to ensure adequate asset protection. The actual or as-built anchor pattern will be used
to determine if the baseline stations can be retained or relocated.
One box corer sample will be taken at each station, with the exception of two stations that will
be sampled twice for QA/QC purposes. The QA/QC stations will be randomly selected prior to
implementation of the program. In addition, both Reference sites will be sampled in duplicate.
Thus, a total of 18 samples will be collected from 14 locations. All samples will be analyzed to
determine the levels of chemical parameters and sediment toxicity profiles. The Reference sites
(located approximately 16 km from the GBS) will be assessed for toxicity and the chemistry
required in support of toxicity interpretation. Additional chemical analyses of the sediments will
be obtained as required to support toxicity interpretation.
6.5.1
Sediment Chemistry
The sediment chemistry parameters will mirror the core EEM Program, as outlined in
Section 2.1.1. Sediment sample collection will be conducted as described in Section 3.1.3 and
illustrated in Figure 3.4. Sediment sample analyses will be conducted as outlined in
Section 3.1.4.
6.5.2
Sediment Toxicity
The sediment toxicity program will mirror the core EEM Program as outlined in Section 2.1.2
and analyses conducted as per Section 3.1.4.2. Sediment toxicity results will be reported
immediately to the C-NLOPB once available and all stations will be subject to the full suite of
toxicity testing (microtox, amphipod, juvenile polychaete).
Where a biological effect outside environmental assessment predictions is confirmed, the EEM
sediment sampling program will be redesigned (subject to approval by C-NLOPB) at sufficient
detail to determine the spatial extent of the biological effect. The regularly scheduled EEM
program to follow will be modified to reflect the additional sampling and will proceed at its
regularly scheduled time unless a change is agreed to by the C-NLOPB.
6.6
Commercial Fish Component
The purpose of the commercial fish component is to collect sufficient American plaice
specimens for the assessment of tissue and liver chemistry profiles, sensory evaluations (taint
testing) and fish health indicators. Sampling will occur in the vicinity of the HSE drill centre and
a Reference site. The Reference site is the same as for the core EEM program.
6.6.1
Sample Locations
American Plaice will be collected within a 2 km radius of the HSE drill centre and from
a Reference site; the Reference site for the HSE EEM will be the same Reference site as used
for the core EEM, located approximately 50 km northwest of the Hibernia production Platform.
A minimum of seven tows will be conducted near the HSE centre and from the Reference site
(a minimum of 14 tows in total). A minimum of 50 American plaice (greater than 25 cm in length)
is required from each of the areas (100 American plaice in total). Also, a minimum of 1,500 g of
76
November 18, 2013
fillet is required from each site (3,000 g in total). The proposed start and end coordinates for the
tows are provided in Table 6.3. The proposed sampling sets for all areas are presented in
Figure 6.4.
Table 6.3
Transect
HSE-01E
HSE-01S
HSE-02E
HSE-02S
HSE-03E
HSE-03S
HSE-04E
HSE-04S
HSE-05E
HSE-05S
HSE-06E
HSE-06S
HSE-07E
HSE-07S
REF-01E
REF-01S
REF-02E
REF-02S
REF-03E
REF-03S
REF-04E
REF-04S
REF-05E
REF-05S
REF-06E
REF-06S
REF-07E
REF-07S
HSE and Reference site Fishing Coordinates
NAD 83
Easting
671396.96
670320.18
670940.77
672017.54
671732.72
673010.95
673059.58
673052.63
672844.23
672510.77
671484.93
672561.71
671843.87
670468.37
636012.02
634811.24
637796.04
636681.02
635566.01
636663.87
634776.93
636046.33
633250.22
633730.53
632761.33
633396.03
634283.54
634403.62
Northing
5175292.01
5174402.80
5174165.22
5175054.43
5175797.75
5175255.89
5174783.50
5173394.11
5173380.22
5174727.93
5172482.69
5173371.89
5173540.00
5173352.43
5216447.90
5215744.59
5215607.36
5214783.96
5214955.50
5215813.21
5214715.35
5214149.27
5214252.19
5215555.90
5217580.07
5216344.98
5217599.06
5216209.58
77
Deg Min Secs
Lat
Long
46 42 33.14
-48 45 27.50
46 42 05.34
-48 46 19.35
46 41 57.087
-48 45 50.47
46 42 24.87
-48 44 58.61
46 42 49.20
-48 45 11.019
46 42 30.47
-48 44 11.59
46 42 15.14
-48 44 9.94
46 41 30.17
-48 44 12.15
46 41 29.91
-48 44 21.97
46 42 13.85
-48 44 35.84
46 41 2.11
-48 45 27.12
46 41 29.90
-48 44 35.27
46 41 36.01
-48 45 8.82
46 41 31.20
-48 46 13.78
47 52 30.69
-49 12 28.87
47 48 51.83
-49 13 26.55
47 47 45.21
-49 11 5.22
47 43 26.95
-49 11 58.97
47 44 30.77
-49 12 51.63
47 49 0.33
-49 11 58.66
47 43 18.82
-49 13 29.29
47 40 6.15
-49 12 29.7
47 41 0.00
-49 14 42.14
47 47 58.65
-49 14 17.98
47 59 1.1
-49 15 1.78
47 52 16.5
-49 14 33.00
47 58 56.1
-49 13 49.58
47 51 25.3
-49 13 45.38
November 18, 2013
Figure 6.3
Proposed Fish Sampling Transects
78
November 18, 2013
6.6.2
Sample Collection
Samples will be collected in the same manner as per the core EEM and as described in
Section 3.3.2.
6.6.3
Sample Analyses
American plaice samples will be analyzed for tissue and liver chemistry profiles, sensory
evaluations (taint testing) and fish health indicators. Tissue chemical profiles will be analyzed for
parameters listed in Section 2.3.1 using methodologies described in Section 3.3.3.1. Sensory
Analyses will be conducted as per Section 2.3.2 using protocols described in Section 3.3.3.2.
Fish health indicators will be examined as per Section 2.3.3 using methodologies outlined in
Section 3.3.3.3.
6.7
Field Quality Assurance
HSE EEM will use the same QA procedures as the core EEM program as outlined in
Sections 3.1.4 (sediment quality) and 3.3.4 (biological quality).
6.8
Field Heath and Safety
The HSE EEM program will follow the same health and safety protocols as per the core EEM
program as described in Sections 3.4 and 4.3.1.
6.9
Field Program Reports
There are Cruise Plans and Cruise Reports that are required as part of the core EEM program
and described in Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3, respectively. These reports will have additional
sections added to incorporate the HSE EEM program when joint programs are conducted.
When separate programs are conducted, HSE Cruise Plans and Reports will be prepared as
per Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3, respectively.
6.10
HSE EEM Report
Reporting associated with the HSE EEM will be submitted as a separate section within the
standard core EEM report as outlined in Section 5.
6.10.1 Hypotheses
The following monitoring hypotheses have been developed for the HSE EEM programs:
will not result in significant adverse environmental effects on marine fish (as assessed by fish
health indicators and integrative assessment).
79
November 18, 2013
will result in significant adverse environmental effects on marine fish (as assessed by fish health
indicators and integrative assessment).
will not result in significant adverse environmental effects on marine fish habitat (as evaluated
by sediment toxicity assays and integrative assessment).
will result in significant adverse environmental effects on marine fish habitat (as evaluated by
sediment toxicity assays and integrative assessment).
H0 =Approved releases of solid and liquids from Hibernia’s production and drilling operations
will not result in the taint (as measured by organoleptic evaluations and integrative assessment)
of fishery resources outside of the safety zone.
will result in the taint (as measured by organoleptic evaluations and integrative assessment) of
fishery resources outside of the safety zone.
The approach to the detection of an effect and the determination of significance are described in
Section.5.1.1.
6.10.2 Sediment Chemistry Statistical Analyses
The HSE EEM will rely on the same methodology for sediment chemistry statistical analyses as
the core EEM program which is described in detail in Section 5.1.2. Changes in sediment
chemistry will be tested using a one way ANOVA design along a distance gradient (factor levels:
250, 500, 1000 and 16,000 m). The analysis will include an analysis of the core and HSE data
sets separately and as a combined data set.
6.10.3 Sediment Toxicity Statistical Analyses
It is the intent to use the same sediment toxicity statistical analyses as per the core EEM
program, which is described in detail in Section 5.1.3. The analysis will include an analysis of
the core and HSE data sets separately and as a combined data set.
6.10.3.1 Microtox Interpretation Guidelines
The same Microtox interpretation guidelines will be used as the HSE EEM is contained within
the original core EEM area. Thus, a Microtox response of <40,000 mg/L that is considered
a failure for the core EEM, is also a valid toxic response for the HSE EEM. The Microtox
interpretation guidelines as described in Section 5.1.3.1 will apply to the HSE EEM program.
80
November 18, 2013
6.10.3.2 Amphipod and Juvenile Polychaete Guidelines
The amphipod and juvenile polychaete guidelines as described in Sections 5.1.3.2 and 5.1.3.3,
respectively, will apply to the HSE EEM program.
6.10.4 Statistical Analyses of Tissue Chemistry Profiles
The statistical analyses of tissues chemistry profiles that are used for the core EEM program will
be used for the HSE EEM program and are described in Section 5.1.5.
6.10.5 Statistical Analyses for Sensory Evaluations
The statistical analyses for sensory evaluations (test tainting) used for the core EEM program
will also be used for the HSE EEM program and are described in Section 5.1.6.
6.10.6 Statistical Analyses of Fish Health Indicators
The statistical analyses of fish health indicators used for the core EEM program will also be
used for the HSE program and are described in Section 5.1.7.
6.10.7 Report Format
The report format used for the core EEM program will be used for the HSE program, with the
exception of a water quality component, which is not included in the HSE EEM program (see
Section 6.1). Additional information on the report format is provided in Section 5.2.
6.11
EEM Program Review
As per the core EEM Program, the HSE EEM program will be reviewed after each year that data
are collected. Each of the steps in the program, including sample grid design, will be evaluated
and, if necessary, refined to better meet the objectives of the EEM program. This is an important
step for the HSE EEM program, as the drilling program and released of drill cuttings is planned
for two years only, after which the discharges associated with the subsea infrastructure will be
handled through the Hibernia production Platform.
81
November 18, 2013
7.0
REFERENCES AND PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Material). 1989. Standard Practice for Evaluating an
Effluent for Flavor Impairment to Fish Flesh. ASTM D3696-89. American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. 6 pp.
Berry, J.A and P.G. Wells. 2004. Integrated Fate Modeling for Exposure Assessment of
Produced Water on the Sable Island Bank (Scotian Shelf, Canada). Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry. 23(10): 2483-2493
Botta, J.R. 1994. Sensory evaluation of tainted aquatic resources. Pp. 257-273. In: J.W.
Kiceniuk and S. Roy (eds.). Analysis of Contaminants in Edible Aquatic Resources. VCH
Publishers, New York, NY.
Brandsma, M.G. and J.P. Smith. 1996. Dispersion modeling perspectives on the environmental
fate of produced water discharges. Pp: 215-224. In: M. Reed and S. Johnson (eds.).
Produced Water 2: Environmental Issues and Mitigation Technologies, Plenum Press, New
York, NY.
CAPP (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers). 2000. (Updated Mobil Exxon 2004).
Produced Water Waste Management. 86 pp.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1999. (2010 updates). Canadian
Environmental Quality Guidelines. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
Winnipeg. 2 Volumes.
CEAA (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency). 1994. A Reference Guide for the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: Determining Whether A Project is Likely to
Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects. Ottawa, ON. 15 pp.
C-NOPB (Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board). 1994. Physical Environmental
Guidelines for Drilling Programs on Frontier Lands. St. John’s, NL. 46 pp.
C-NOPB (Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board). 1986. Decision 86.01. St. John’s,
NL. 92 pp. + Appendices.
Cormorant Ltd. 1994. Cruise Report - Hibernia Environmental Effects Monitoring Program:
Baseline Biological Survey. November 23 - December 8, 1994. Prepared for the Hibernia
Management and Development Company Ltd., St. John’s, NF. 19 pp + Appendices.
Ellis, A.E. 1976. Leucocytes and related cells in the plaice, Pleuronectes platessa. Journal of
Fish Biology, 8: 143-156.
Environment Canada. 2002. Biological Test Method: Reference Method for determining the
Toxicity of Sediment Using Luminescent Bacteria in a Solid Phase Test. Report
EPS1/RM/42.
Environment Canada. 1998. Reference Method for determining Acute Lethality of Sediment to
Marine or Estuarine Amphipods. Report EPS 1/RM/35. Environment.
Environment Canada. 1992a. Biological Test Method: Toxicity Test Using Luminescent Bacteria
(Photobacterium phosphoreum). Report EPS 1/RM/24. Ottawa, ON. 61 pp.
82
November 18, 2013
Environment Canada. 1992b. Biological Test Method: Acute Test for Sediment Toxicity Using
Marine or Estuarine Amphipods. Report EPS 1/RM/26. Ottawa, ON. 83 pp.
Environment Canada. 1990. Environmental Code of Practice for Treatment and Disposal of
Waste Discharges from Offshore Oil and Gas Operations. Report No. EPS 1/PN/2.
GESAMP (Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection).
1993. Impact of Oil and Related Chemicals and Wastes on the Marine Environment.
Reports and Studies GESAMP No. 50. 180 pp.
Gulley, D.D., A.M. Boelter and H.L. Bergman. 1994. TOXSAT version 3.3. University of
Wyoming, Laramie, WY.
Helsel, 2005. Nondetects and Data Analysis Statistics for Censored Environmental Data. Wiley
Interscience Hoboken, NJ. 250 pp.
Holdway, D. and D.T. Heggie. 2000. Direct Hydrocarbon Detection of Produced Formation
Water Discharge on the Northwest Shelf, Australia. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science,
50: 387-402.
HMDC (Hibernia Management Development Company Limited). 2011. Hibernia Production
Phase Environmental Effects Monitoring Program 2009. Volumes I and II.
HMDC (Hibernia Management Development Company Limited). 2002. Hibernia Development
Project: Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan for Production Phase. April 1996 revised
June 2002. 80 pp + Appendices.
Phase Environmental Effects Monitoring Program – Year Three (2000). Volumes I and II.
Phase Environmental Effects Monitoring Program – Year Two of Production (August 1999)
Volumes I and II.
HMDC (Hibernia Management Development Company Limited). 1999. Report on Hibernia
Production Phase Environmental Effects Monitoring Program – Year One (1998).
HMDC (Hibernia Management Development Company Limited). 1996. Hibernia Development
Project Production Phase Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan. 84 pp. + Appendices.
HMDC (Hibernia Management
communications.
and Development Company Ltd). 1994.
– personal
JWE (Jacques Whitford Environment). 1995. Hibernia Development Project: Baseline
Environmental Effects Monitoring Data Report. Prepared for the Hibernia Management and
Development Corporation, St. John’s, NL. ix + 122 pp. + Appendices.
83
November 18, 2013
Land, D.G. and R. Sheppard. 1988. Scaling and ranking methods. Pp. 155-185. In: J.R. Piggott
(ed.). Sensory Analysis of Foods. Elseveir Science Publishers Ltd., New York, NY.
Larmond, E. 1977. Laboratory Methods for Sensory Evaluation of Foods. Department of
Agriculture Publication 1637. Ottawa, ON.
Lorax Environmental. 2003. Hibernia Dispersion Study for the Discharge of Produced Water.
Report + CD. Vancouver, BC.
Lowry, O.H., N.J. Rosebrough, A.L. Fan and R.J. Randall. 1951. Protein measurement with the
folin phenol reagent. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 193: 265-275.
Luna, L.G. 1968. Manual of Histological Staining Methods of the Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 258 pp.
Lynch, M., S. Raphael, L. Mellor, P. Spare and M. Inwood. 1969. Medical Laboratory Technology
and Clinical Pathology. Saunders Company, 1,359 pp.
MacKnight, S., 1994. Land and Sea Environmental Consultants Limited – personal
communications.
Mobil. 1985. Hibernia Development Project, Environmental Impact Statement. 5 Volumes. St.
John’s, NL.
Myers, M.S., J.T. Landahl, M.M. Krahn and B.B. McCain. 1991. Relationships between hepatic
neoplasms and related lesions and exposure to toxic chemicals in marine fish from the
U.S. West Coast. Environmental Health Perspectives, 90: 7-15.
Myers, M.S., L.D. Rhodes and B.B. McCain. 1987. Pathologic anatomy and patterns of
occurrence of hepatic neoplasms, putative preneoplastic lesions, and other idiopathic
hepatic conditions in English sole (Parophrys vetulus) from Puget Sound, Washington.
Journal of the National Institute, 78(2): 333-363.
NEB, C-NLOPB and C-NSOPB (National Energy Board, Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador
Offshore Petroleum Board and Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board). 2010.
Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines.
NEB, C-NLOPB and C-NSOPB (National Energy Board, Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador
Offshore Petroleum Board and Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board). 2009.
Offshore Chemical Selection Guidelines for Drilling & Production Activities on Frontier
Lands
Neff, J. 2002. Bioaccumulation in Marine Organisms: Effect of Contaminants from Oil Well
Produced Water. Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, UK. xv + 452 pp.
Neff, J., K. Lee, and E.M. DeBlois. 2011. Produced Water: Overview of Composition, Fates, and
Effects. In: Produced Water, Environment Risks and Advances in Mitigation Technologies.
K. Lee and J. Neff (eds.). Springer Science + Business Media, New York, NY. 608 pp.
PARCOM (Paris Commission). 1989. Guidelines for Monitoring Methods to be used in the
Vicinity of Platforms in the North Sea. 28 pp.
Platt, W.R. 1969. Color Atlas and textbook of Haematology. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia.
445 pp.
84
November 18, 2013
Pohl, R.J. and J.R. Fouts. 1980. A rapid method for assaying the metabolism of 7ethoxyresorufin by microsomal subcellular fractions. Analytical Biochemistry, 107: 150-155.
Porter, E.L., J.F. Payne, J. Kiceniuk, L Fancey and W. Melvin. 1989. Assessment of the potential
for mixed-function oxygenase enzyme induction in the extrahepatic tissues of cunners
during reproduction. Marine Environmental Research, 28: 117-121.
PSEP (Puget Sound Estuary Program). 1991. Recommended Guidelines for Conducting
Laboratory Bioassays on Puget Sound Sediments. Interim Final Report Prepared for U.S.
EPA, Region 10, Office of Puget Sound, Seattle, WA.
Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd. 1993. Hibernia Effluent Fate and Effects monitoring. Prepared
for the Hibernia Management and Development Company Ltd., St. John's, NF. v + 71 pp. +
Appendices.
Seaconsult (Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd). 1994. Hibernia Effluent Fate and Effects
Monitoring. Prepared for the Hibernia Management and Development Company Ltd., St.
John's, NL. v + 71 pp. + Appendices.
Sokal, R.R. and F.J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological
Research. Freeman W.H. and Company, USA. 859 pp.
Stagg, R.M and A. MacIntosh. 1996. Hydrocarbon concentrations in the northern North Sea and
effects on fish larvae. Science Total Environment. 186: 189-201.
Stone, H. and J.L. Sidel. 1985. Sensory Evaluation Practices. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego,
CA. 311 pp.
Terrens, G.W. and R.D. Tait. 1993. Effects on the Marine Environment of Produced Water
Discharges from Esso/BHPP’s Bass Strait Platforms. Esso Australia Ltd., Melbourne,
Australia.
Terrens, G.W and R.D. Tait. 1996. Monitoring Ocean Concentrations of Aromatic Hydrocarbons
from Produced Formation Water Discharges to Bass Strait, Australia. SPE 36033: 739-747.
Yeats, P.A., B.A. Law, and T.G. Milligan. 2011. The Distribution of Dissolved and Particulate
Metals and Nutrients in the Vicinity of the Hibernia Offshore Oil and Gas Platform. In:
Produced Water, Environment Risks and Advances in Mitigation Technologies. K. Lee and
J. Neff (eds.). Springer Science + Business Media. New York, NY. 608 pp.
85
November 18, 2013
HIBERNIA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, PRODUCTION PHASE, ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING PLAN
APPENDIX A
Sediment Chemistry Methods
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Total Carbon / Organic Carbon in Soils and Sediments
SOP #: ATL SOP-00044
Reference: Carbon in Soil, Rock, Limestone and Similar Material – LECO
Effective Date: May, 2001 Revision Date: December, 2007
1. Scope and Application
This method is applicable to the analysis of total carbon and organic carbon in soil and sediment samples
by LECO EC-12 Carbon Analyzer as referenced in Application # 203-601-224 from LECO Equipment
Corp. The Reporting Detection Limit (RDL) for this procedure is 0.02 %.
2. Summary of Method
LECO Corporation describes the principle of operation of the EC-12 Carbon Determinator as follows:
“A sample is combusted with oxygen in an induction furnace using copper accelerator. Non-metal
samples require additional combustion aids. Approximately 97% of the carbon in the sample is oxidized
to CO2 and about 3% combusts to CO, which is catalytically converted to CO2. During combustion the
concentration of gases in the closed loop rapidly becomes homogeneous. Only CO2 gas is detected in the
chamber.”
Organic carbon is measured by pre-treating the sample in order to remove the inorganic carbon. The
sample is digested with hydrochloric acid in order to drive off all carbonates, then dried prior to the above
analysis.
3. Quality Assurance
A minimum of one method blank, one duplicate and one standard reference material is analyzed for each
set of samples.
MS_C_15840_1_5
ACID VOLATILE SULPHIDE IN SOILS
PURPOSE/PRINCIPLE OF METHOD:
Preparation:
The soil sample is placed in a sample tube section of a micro-distillation stick,
which contains a small amount of RODI water. The slurry is acidified and sealed to
the micro-distillation stick that has a collection tube section containing sodium
hydroxide trapping solution. The micro-distillation stick is placed in a block heater;
distillation occurs within the micro-distillation stick that has a hydrophobic
membrane between the sample tube and collection tube sections. The distillate is
then analyzed to determine the amount of sulfide in soils while the acidified RODI
water is analyzed to determine the amount of simultaneously extracted metals. The
sulfide may be in the form of S2- , HS- or H2S. Strongly complex sulfides such as
PbS are not determined.
Analysis: (Based from BRN SOP-00228:6XOSKLGHLQ:DWHUDQG:DVWHZDWHU
6XOSKLGHLQ:DWHUDQG:DVWHZDWHU
6DPSOHVE\0HWK\OHQH%OXH0HWKRG
6DPSOHVE\0HWK\OHQH%OXH0HWKRG
Sulphide reacts with N,N-dimethyl-p-phenylenediamine oxalate under acidic
conditions in the presence of ferric chloride to produce methylene chloride, a deep
blue complex. Ammonium phosphate is added after colour development to remove
ferric chloride colour. The intensity of colour is proportional to the sulphide
concentration and is measured colourimetrically at 664 nm. The sulphide may be
in the form of S2-, HS- or H2S. Strongly complex sulphides such as PbS are not
determined.
SCOPE:
This method is applicable to soil and sediment samples only.
DETECTION LIMITS:
0.2 ug/g Sulphide (as H2S)
INTERFERENCES:
Soil samples that contain surfactants will cause excessive foaming and plug the distillation
membrane thus preventing proper distillation.
SAMPLE HANDLING & PRESERVATION:
Sample
Matrix
Soil
Sample
Hold Time
Containe for
r
Sample prep
Glass jar 1 month
Storage
Conditions
4+2°C. Hold Time
before
Analysis
7 days
Preservation
None
REFERENCES:
Preparation: Analytical Method for the Determination of Acid Volatile Sulfide and
Selected Simultaneously Extractable Metals in Sediment., Method EPA-821-R-91100, Revision 1.0, USEPA, December 1991.
Analysis: Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 21st Edition,
Method 4500-S2- D Methylene Blue Method.
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Analysis of Ammonia (plus Ammonium) – Nitrogen in Aqueous Samples
Based on: EPA 350.1
Effective Date: February 1993
Revision Date: December, 2007
1. Scope and Application:
Ammonia – Nitrogen includes both Ammonia (NH3) and Ammonium (NH4+). This method is applicable
to the analysis of surface waters, ground waters and saline waters. Industrial and sewage wastewaters can
be analyzed as long as they are not highly coloured. Soil samples may be analyzed for aqueous soluble
ammonia following an aqueous extraction as per ATL SOP-00033. The Reporting Detection Limit
(RDL) for water is 0.05 mg/L as N and 0.25 mg/kg as N for soils.
2. Summary of Method:
An Automated Colorimetric Analyzer is used for sample and reagent handling and colour development.
Samples are mixed with EDTA to remove interferences and alkaline phenol and sodium hypochlorite are
added to react with ammonia to form indophenol blue. The absorbance of this compound at 630 nm is
directly proportional to the ammonia concentration.
3. Quality Assurance:
Certified reference materials, method blanks, matrix spikes, and matrix duplicates are analyzed at a
minimum frequency of 5%.
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil/Sediment
SOP #: ATL SOP 000117 and ATL SOP 000119
Reference: Atlantic PIRI Guidelines for Laboratories, Version 2, 2006.
Effective Date: May 2007
This method is designed for the extraction and analysis of volatile petroleum hydrocarbons,
including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, o-xylene, m-xylene, p-xylene (BTEX), and gasoline
range organics (C6-C10) in soils and sediments. The reporting limit is 0.025 mg/kg for benzene,
toluene and ethyl benzene, 0.05 mg/kg for total xylenes, and 2.5 mg/kg for gasoline. Low level
benzene and ethylbenzene reporting limits are 0.005 mg/kg, and 0.01 mg/kg respectively.
This method is used in conjunction with SOP # 9015, “Total Extractable Hydrocarbons (>C10 –
C32) in Soil” to quantify Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (C6 – C32) in a sample.
A 10 gram portion of wet soil or sediment is extracted by shaking with methanol. An aliquot of
the methanol extract is diluted into water and analyzed by purge and trap-gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) or headspace-gas chromatography with flameionization and photo-ionization detection (GC-FID-PID). A surrogate standard (isobutyl
benzene) is added to the sample to monitor analytical performance.
The instrumentation is calibrated with multi-component standards of known concentration.
Calibration accuracy is verified with independent reference standards of BTEX and gasoline. The
day-to-day stability of the calibration is confirmed by analyzing calibration check solutions with
each batch of samples. Components in the samples are identified using retention time criteria,
and/or through verification of mass spectral fit. After detection, the individual peaks are
integrated and quantified. The wet weight concentrations are converted to a dry weight basis
using the moisture content of the sample obtained by gravimetric analysis.
A method blank, spiked blanks (BTEX and gasoline), matrix spike (BTEX spiked onto a soil
sample), and a replicate sample are analyzed with each batch of twenty samples. The spiked
blank QC results are control charted and must meet specific acceptance criteria before sample
results are released.
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Mercury in Soils, Sediments and Solids
Reference: Based on USEPA 245.5
Effective Date: August, 2004
Revision Date: May, 2007
This method is designed for the digestion and analysis of total mercury in soil, sediment and solid samples as
referenced in EPA Method 245.5. The Reporting Detection Limit (RDL) for this procedure is 0.01 mg/kg based on
an initial dry weight of 0.3 grams.
2. Summary:
Approximately 0.3 grams of air dried and sieved sample is accurately measured for analysis and digested in a
mixture of sulphuric acid and nitric acid. Prior to instrumental analysis, the excess potassium permanganate is
destroyed with hydroxylamine hydrochloride. All prepared solutions are analyzed for mercury by CVAAS with a
CETAC M-6000A Automated Mercury Analyzer. Digested samples are mixed with stannous chloride to reduce the
mercury to its atomic state. The mercury is sparged from solution using nitrogen gas and the mercury vapour is
then swept into the absorption cell. The instrument signal (absorbance) is proportional to the concentration of
mercury in the sample.
Certified reference materials, method blanks, matrix spikes, and matrix duplicates are analyzed at a minimum
frequency of 5%.
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Low Level Extractable Hydrocarbons (>C10-C32) in Sediment
SOP #: ATL SOP 000114
This method is designed for the extraction and analysis of petroleum hydrocarbons, including diesel range
organics (>C10-C21) and lubricating oils (>C21-C32) in sediments. The reporting limits are as follows:
Diesel Range (>C10-C21) – 0.25 mg/kg; Lubricating Oil Range (>C21-C32) – 0.25 mg/kg.
A 10 gram portion of wet sediment is weighed out and spiked with two surrogate compounds
(isobutylbenzene and n-dotriacontane). These compounds represent a range of volatilities and are used to
monitor the efficiency of the sample preparation. The sample is extracted by vigorous shaking with 50:50
(v/v) acetone:hexane. The extract is partitioned with the addition of water, and non-petrogenic
compounds are removed from the resulting hexane extract using silica gel. The extract is then
concentrated and analyzed by capillary column gas chromatography with split/splitless injection and
flame ionization detection (GC-FID).
Characterization and quantitation of the sample components are obtained by comparing instrumental
responses with those of prepared multi-component standards. Calibration accuracy is verified by
analyzing independent reference standards. The day-to-day stability of the calibration is confirmed by
analyzing calibration check solutions with each batch of samples. The wet weight concentrations are
converted to a dry weight basis using the moisture content of the sample obtained by gravimetric analysis.
Sample duplicates, process spikes, matrix spikes and method blanks are prepared and analyzed with each
batch of 20 samples. Process and matrix spikes are fortified with known concentrations of transformer
oil.
MS_O_9016
2005/12/09
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Total Metals in Soil / Sediment Samples
Reference: EPA SW846 Method #6020A / ISO 14869-1. 2001
This method is applicable to the digestion and analysis of soil and sediment samples for the determination
of total trace metals. Lower Reporting Detection Limits (RDLs) or additional parameters may be
available upon request:
Analysis
ICPMHFF7-S
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth2
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
1
1
RDL
Analysis
RDL
10
2
2
5
2
2
0.15
2
1
2
50
0.5
Lithium2
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver2
Strontium
Thallium
Tin
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
2
2
2
2
2
0.5
5
0.1
2
0.1
2
5
Note 1: Reported in mg/kg air dry weight basis
(based on 0.5 g made to a final volume of 50 mL with
a x10 dilution prior to analysis).
Note 2: Additional parameter available upon request.
A portion of the air-dried sieved (< 2mm) sample is accurately weighed and digested using a HClO4:
HNO3: HF acid mixture. All samples analyzed by ICP-MS in accordance with USEPA SW846 Method
#6020A. The multi-elemental determination of trace metals by ICP-MS is accomplished by measuring
the ions produced when the dissolved sample is introduced into a radio frequency inductively coupled
plasma. These ions are sorted according to their mass-to-charge ratios and quantified with a discrete
dynode electron multiplier detector.
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soils and Sediments
Reference: USEPA Method 8270C
1.
Scope and Application
This method is applicable to the determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soils and
sediments with a reporting limit of 0.05 mg/kg. The following compounds are routinely determined:
Analyte
Naphthalene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Analyte
Benz[a]anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Perylene
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Benzo[ghi]perylene
Other PAHs can be analyzed by this method provided appropriate standards are available.
A representative 5 gram portion of wet soil or sediment is weighed out and spiked with 3 deuterated
surrogate PAH compounds. These compounds are used to monitor the efficiency of the sample preparation
steps. The sample is extracted for 30 minutes by vigorous shaking with a mixture of 50:50 (v:v)
acetone:hexane. The hexane is partitioned from the acetone by the addition of organic free water. If
required, interfering compounds are removed using a silica gel solid phase extraction (SPE) clean-up
procedure. The extract is analyzed by capillary gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) using
selected ion monitoring mode.
The GC/MS system is calibrated with PAH standards of known concentration. Calibration curves are
prepared by integrating the areas of target ions of the individual PAH peaks obtained during the calibration
runs. Calibration accuracy is verified by analyzing an independent reference standard. The day-to-day
stability of the calibration is confirmed by analyzing calibration check standards with each batch of
samples. The components in the samples are identified using retention time criteria and qualifier ion ratios.
After being detected, the individual peaks are integrated and quantified. The wet weight concentrations for
each sample are converted to dry weight concentrations using the sample percent moisture value. The
percent moisture of each sample is determined separately by gravimetric analysis.
3.
Quality Assurance
A method blank, spiked blanks (each individual PAH), matrix spike (each PAH spiked onto a soil sample),
and a replicate sample are analyzed with each batch of twenty samples. The spiked blank QC results are
control charted and must meet specific acceptance criteria before sample results are released.
MS_O_7010_1_5
2005/12/09
APPENDIX B
Sediment Toxicity Methods
Amphipod Survival Assay
The amphipod survival assay is a static, 10-day bioassay that uses amphipods as the test
organism. It is recommended to use Rhepoxynuis abronuis whenever possible due to the large
base of information available on this organism.
Six replicate samples are prepared by adding 2 cm of sediment to a 1-L glass jar. Clean
seawater with a salinity of 28.2 g/kg, a temperature of 15.2°C, and a dissolved oxygen content
of 90 to 100 percent saturation is overlaid on the sediment up to the 750 mL mark. The vessels
are aerated overnight at an aeration rate of 150 mg/(min L).
Twenty juvenile or young adult amphipods are added to five of the six replicates. The sixth
replicate is used for monitoring sediment and water quality. The containers are topped up to the
950 mL mark with clean seawater and aeration is continued for the duration of the assay.
Observations are made daily for airflow, floating amphipods, temperature, pH, salinity and
dissolved oxygen content of the overlying water. Measurements for undissociated ammonia and
acid-volatile sulphides should be conducted at the beginning and end of the assay.
The test endpoints are mean ± Standard Deviation (SD) percent mortality at day 10. The mean
± SD percent of surviving amphipods that did not rebury in control sediment upon termination of
the exposure can also be calculated.
Microtox
A strain of marine bacterium (Photobacterium phosphoreum) will be used to determine the
toxicity of sediment samples. The bacterium emits light as a result of normal metabolic activities.
The light is measured with a photo detector under specific conditions. Reduction of light at 5, 15,
or 30 minutes is taken as a measure of toxicity (Environment Canada 1992a).
The Microtox (Solid Phase) Assay will be conducted according to Environment Canada (1992a).
Analyses are conducted on a Model 500 photometer with a computer interface. Samples that
are stored at 4°C are thoroughly homogenized prior to the Microtox assay. Duplicate samples
will be conducted on 10 percent of the total samples and reference toxicant assays using phenol
will be conducted per series of sample assays. The following summarize the steps in the
analysis.Place a series of solid phase tubes (SPT) in a holder and incubate at 15°C. Add 1.5 mL
of SPT diluent to SPT tubes (except one).
Mix the sample thoroughly. Centrifuge or pat the sample dry. Weight 0.3 gm of sample into a
SPT tube (the one without the SPT diluent). Add 3.0 mL SPT diluent to SPT tube with 0.3 gm of
sediment. Make 1:2 serial dilutions by transferring 1.5 mL, mixing after each transfer. The
number of serial dilutions should range from 5 to 12 dilutions, depending upon the degree of
toxicity of the sample. Discard 1.5 mL from the last SPT tube dilution. Wait 10 minutes for
temperature equilibrium.
Reconstitute a vial of bacteria. Mix well. Set up the computer program and the Microtox
analyzer, as per the appropriate protocol and dilution series used.
Transfer 20 μL of bacteria to SPT tubes and set timer for 20 minutes at start of transfer. Mix
each SPT tube, insert filter columns into all SPT tubes. At 20 minutes, a timer will ring; touch the
computer space bar and immediately push the filter column to just above the settled solids.
Transfer 500 μL from the SPT tubes to a corresponding cuvette in the incubator block of the
Microtox analyzer. Touch the computer space bar. When the timer sounds, place the first
cuvette in the READ well. Press the SET button. READ light levels for each cuvette as
prompted by ENTER on the computer screen. Reduce the data, correct the result by correcting
to the weight of the dry sample after the moisture content has been determined. Produce data
report.
Juvenile Polychaete Growth Assay
Neanthes arenaceodentata, a common marine polychaete found on the west coast of North
America, is a sediment-dwelling organism that is easy to maintain and grow in clean sediment in
the laboratory. The test protocol was developed by PSEP (1991) and is used widely in the USA
and now more commonly in Canada. The test evaluates the impact of contaminated media
(sediment) on the survival and growth of juvenile polychaetes over a 20-day period. Five
juveniles (three-week post-emergent) are introduced to the sediment in a jar with overlying
seawater. Five laboratory replicates per sample are tested. The organisms are fed and the
overlying water changed at regular intervals during testing.
Subsequent to a 20-day exposure to the sediment sample, the weight of juvenile polychaetes is
measured at the end of the test and used as an integrative indicator of sediment quality. The
organisms are in direct contact with the sediment and ingest sediment in the process of feeding.
Consequently, their growth response reflects the presence/absence of contaminants associated
with the solid phase of the sediment that may impair, inhibit or enhance food conversion to body
mass.
The determination of toxic/non-toxic results involves statistical analysis by t-test between the
reference or control sediment and the test sediment. The control sediment is sediment that is
known to be uncontaminated. For the baseline EEM program, the reference sediments
(Hibernia Reference sites) were treated as test sediments to determine if they are toxic or nontoxic. Production phase EEM programs should examine the reference sediment against the
control sediment. The sampling net station sediments will be compared to the reference
sediment if there are no significant differences in the polychaete responses to the reference and
control sediments. The detection of differences in polychaete responses to the reference and
control sediments will require comparisons made between test sediments and reference
sediments, and perhaps between test sediments and control sediments.
APPENDIX C
Seabird 25 Capabilities
APPENDIX D
Water Chemistry Methods
SULPHIDE IN WATER AND WASTEWATER SAMPLES BY METHYLENE BLUE
METHOD
PURPOSE/PRINCIPLE OF METHOD:
This procedure is used to determine the amount of sulfide in waters and wastewaters. The sulfide
may be in the form of S2-, HS- or H2 S. Strongly complexed sulf ides such as PbS are not
determined. Sulfide reacts with N,N-dimethyl-p-phenylene diamine oxalate under acidic
conditions in the presence of ferric chloride to form a deep blue complex. Sulphide can be present
in various ionic forms H2 S, HS- and S2- depending on pH. Sulphuric acid is mixed with the amine
to produce a reagent which ensures the sulphide is in the form of H2 S. Ammonium phosphate is
added after colour development to remove the ferric chloride colour. The concentration of the
sulphide is directly proportional to the absorbance of the blue complex measured at 664 nm
SCOPE:
This method is applicable to the analyses of sulphides in water and wastewater samples. It is also
applicable to solid samples that have been distilled over into a water based trapping solution.
Calibration Range: 0.2 - 15.0 ug/g (H2 S )
This range demonstrates a linear instrument response. Any sample concentration higher than the
highest calibration standard must be:
i. Diluted with diluent and analyzed again.
ii. The value of any dilution must be between 20% and 80% of full scale.
iii. The final calculated result must be greater than the value of the high standard.
Range:
0.2 - 15.0 ug/g (H2 S)
Detection Limit: 0.2 ug/g (H2 S)
Incremental Units: 0.1 ug/g (H2 S)
ACCURACY & PRECISION:
Accuracy estimates shown below are a summary of analyses for a quality control material
(Control Standard) from 2004 -2005.
Quality Control Material True Value Mean Value Mean % Recovery
Control Standard
100
101.3
101.3
Precision estimates shown below are a summary of analyses for a quality control material
(Control Standard) from 2004 -2005.
Quality Control Material
True Value
Mean Value
%RSD
Control Standard
100
101.3
7.64
SAMPLE HANDLING:
Sample
Matrix
Water
Sample
Minimum Holding Storage
Preservation
Container Volume
Time
Conditions
250 mL
HDPE
bottle
150 mL
AVS Soil Plastic Test
50 mL
Distillate Tube
7 days
4 + 2ºC
7 days
4 + 2ºC
Comments
This preservative is
sufficient for samples
up to 1 L in volume. If
samples are known to
contain high le vel of
2 mL of 2 N zinc sulphide, an additional
acetate and 1 mL 2 mL of zinc acetate
should be added. If
of 10N NaOH
samples are known to
have low pH, an
additional 1 mL of 10N
NaOH should be
added.
Trapping
.
Solution
INTERFERENCES:
Strong reducing agents such as sulphite and thiosulphate prevent the formation of the colour.
Extremely high sulphide concentrations may completely inhibit the reaction. Dilution of the
sample before adding reagents will eliminate this problem. This can be seen by the formation of a
pink solution instead of expected blue colour.
Sodium hydrosulphite will release sulphide when the sample is acidified.
Iodide at concentrations > 2 mg/L may diminish colour formation.
Many metals, for example Hg, Cd, Cu, form insoluble sulfides and give low recoveries.
REFERENCES:
Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1998, 20th Edition,
4500-S2- D. Methylene Blue Method. pp. 4-165&166.
Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1998 20th Edition,
4500-S2- F. Iodometric Method. pp. 4-167.
Total Nitrogen by Automated UV Digestion
Scientific Principle
Nitrogen containing compounds are digested and oxidized in-line to nitrate at 95 degrees Celsius
by using an alkaline persulfate solution and ultraviolet (UV) radiation. The nitrate is
quantitatively reduced to nitrite with the use of an open tubular cadmium reactor (OTCR). The
nitrite is then diazotized with sulfanilamide (SAN) under acidic conditions to form a diazonium
ion. The diazonium ion is then coupled with N-(1-naphthyl)ethylenediamine dihydrochloride
(NED) to form an azo dye which is measure colourimetrically at 520 nm.
Applicability and Use
• This method is applicable to water and wastewater samples.
Responsibilities
It is the responsibility of the Department Managers and Supervisors to ensure that documents are
written and reflect the procedures performed at Maxxam. It is the responsibility of all staff to
ensure that the procedures outlined in this document are followed. Any changes must be
approved by the Supervisor and Quality Assurance.
Calibration Range
The working calibration range for Total Nitrogen is 0-2.0 mg/L N. Any sample concentration that
exceeds this range must be:
• Diluted with diluent and analyzed again.
• It is recommended that the diluted results fall between 20% and 80% of the
calibration range.
• The final calculated result must be greater than the value of the high standard.
Sample Handling
Sample
Matrix
Water - Total
Nitrogen
Water –
Dissolved
Nitrogen
Sample
Container
125 – 250mL
HDPE bottle or
equivalent
125 – 250mL
HDPE bottle or
equivalent
Minimum
Volume/Weight
25 mL
Holding
Time
14 days
Storage
Conditions
4+2C
Preservation
25 mL
14 days
4+2C
Filtered through
0.45 um filter
None
Potential interferences
• If present in sufficient concentration Hg(II) and Cu(II) ions may interfere by forming
complexes having absorption bands in the region of colour measurement.
• Any colour associated with the sample matrix that absorbs in the 520 nm photometer
range.
o Chloride ions do not interfere with the persulfate oxidations step, however the rate
of reduction of the nitrate to nitrite (during the cadmium reduction step) is
decreased.
o The persulfate digestion is not effective in waste samples high in organic matter.
Such samples need to be diluted and then analysed until two different dilutions
agree.
Reference Method
Primary Reference
Standard Methods 21st Edition, 4500-N B In-line UV / Persulfate digestion and oxidation
with flow injection analysis.
Secondary Reference
Astoria -Pacific International Method Revison A 10/2004 – Total Dissolved Nitrogen A077
Instrument Manuals
Astoria 2 Analyzer Operations Manual, Revision 1/07
FASPac II Flow Analyzer Software Package, Version 2.12, Revision 08/2005
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Analysis of Ammonia (plus Ammonium) – Nitrogen in Aqueous Samples
Based on: EPA 350.1
Ammonia – Nitrogen includes both Ammonia (NH3) and Ammonium (NH4+). This method is applicable
to the analysis of surface waters, ground waters and saline waters. Industrial and sewage wastewaters can
be analyzed as long as they are not highly coloured. Soil samples may be analyzed for aqueous soluble
ammonia following an aqueous extraction as per ATL SOP-00033. The Reporting Detection Limit
(RDL) for water is 0.05 mg/L as N and 0.25 mg/kg as N for soils.
An Automated Colorimetric Analyzer is used for sample and reagent handling and colour development.
Samples are mixed with EDTA to remove interferences and alkaline phenol and sodium hypochlorite are
added to react with ammonia to form indophenol blue. The absorbance of this compound at 630 nm is
directly proportional to the ammonia concentration.
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Total Suspended Solids in Water and Seawater
Reference: based on EPA Method 160.2
Effective Date: January, 1998
Revision Date: September, 2008
This method is applicable to surface, ground, and saline waters as well as to domestic and industrial
wastes. The practical range of the determination is 0.5 - 100,000 mg/L. The Reporting Detection Limit
(RDL) is 0.5 mg/L based on a sample volume of 1000 mL.
A known quantity of sample is vacuum filtered through a standard pre-weighed glass fiber filter. The
filter plus retained solids is oven dried, cooled in a desiccator and weighed. The increase in weight from
the original filter weight represents the total suspended solids present.
A minimum of one Method Blank, one Certified Reference Material and one Sample Duplicate is
analyzed with each batch of samples, with a minimum QC frequency of 5 %.
Jan 2004
Calibration of Model 10 Series Turner Designs Fluorometer
1) Cleaning Fluorometer
a) Remove the sample compartment cover (14 screws)
b) Remove the desiccant bag. Mark lamp so it may be returned to its original position (a
mark on the lower base of the lamp works well). Remove lamp by rotating 90° and
pulling it out towards you. Do not touch lamp with fingers.
c) Remove orange reference filter (3-66). Remember orientation.
d) Remove the 2 studs that hold the excitation filter holder assembly.
e) Remove filter holder. Remove blue excitation filter (5-60). Remember orientation.
f) Remove red emission filter (2-64). Remember orientation.
g) Remove the cuvette holder by unscrewing the set of screws.
h) Clean the inside of the fluorometer, the cuvette holder and the filters with 90%
acetone.
i) Return all parts to their original positions.
j) Replace sample compartment cover.
All photosynthetic pigments are light and temperature sensitive. Work must be
performed in subdued light and all standards and filter samples must be stored in
the dark at –20°C to prevent degradation.
2) Calibration and Standardization
a) Calibration should be preformed every six months or when there has been an
adjustment made to the instrument, such as replacement of lamp, filters or
photomultiplier.
b) Materials:
Turner Designs 10-005R fluorometer with analog output, digital voltmeter
Corning filters: 5-60 (excitation), 2-64 (emission) and 3-66 (reference) for the
conventional acidification technique or Welschmeyer/narrow band filters: 436FS10
(excitation), 680FS10 (emission) and 3-66 (reference) for the non-acidification
technique.
13 mm cuvettes
50 μl pipettor
Glass scintillation vials, 20 ml, poly-seal caps preferred
Whatman GF/F filters, 2.4 cm Filtration apparatus
90% acetone solution
10 % HCL
c) Prepare 90% acetone: Put 200 ml of nanopure in 2L volumetric flask and fill flask
to line with 100% acetone. Shake (volume will decrease, readjust to 2L with
acetone).
d) Prepare primary stock: add chlorophyll a standard (1 mg) (Sigma C-6144) to 250
ml of 90% acetone (volumetric flask). (Remove label from chl a standard, clean
residue from label with 90% acetone, break ampoule and drop both pieces in 250 ml
90% acetone. Shake and cover flask completely with tin foil and place in fridge
overnight).
e) Remove primary stock from fridge and bring to room temperature. Turn on
fluorometer and spectrophotometer allowing them to warm up for ~30 minutes.
f) Determine concentration of chl a in primary standard using spectrophotometer:
i) Check baseline by scanning two 90% acetone blanks using 1cm Quartz cuvettes
(must be clean) from 750 to 400nm (Zero at 750nm using acetone blanks prior to
scanning)
ii) Replace one blank from the sample beam (closest to you) with your primary chl a
standard and determine absorbance at 663 nm (A665) (scan from 750 to 400 nm)
iii) Acidify (50 μl of 10% HCL) and determine absorbance at the red peak again
(665nm). The ratio (before/after acidification), corrected for 750nm, should be
close to 1.7
g) Calculate the concentration of chlorophyll a in the primary standard:
Chl a (μg/l) =( A665 (cm-1) / 87.67 (1 g-1 cm-1) ) X 106
h) Transfer 1 ml of primary stock to 50 ml of 90% acetone to make secondary stock.
Make a 3-fold dilution of the secondary stock by transferring 5 ml of the secondary
stock to 10 ml 90%acetone (1st dilution). Transfer 5ml of the 1st dilution to 10 ml
90% acetone (2nd dilution) and so on until you have made 5 dilutions.
i) Measure fluorescence of the secondary stock and 5 dilutions before (Fb) and after
acidification (Fa) on different sensitivities or only without acidification (Fb) if using
Welschmeyer method. Be certain to determine 90% acetone blank for each
sensitivity and correct Fb and Fa for blank voltage if any
j) Plot chl a concentration vs. ((Fb-Fa)/sensitivity) if using acidification method or chl a
concentration vs. (Fb/sensitivity) if using Welschmeyer method. Do a regression.
k) Determine the calibration factor, F:
F = (1/V) X 10
(Always extracting in 10 ml 90% acetone)
Where: V = the slope of the regression between chl a concentration (μg/l) vs.
((Fb-Fa)/sensitivity) if using acidification method or chl a concentration (μg/l) vs.
(Fb/sensitivity) if using Welschmeyer method. Note if the relationship does not
hold at the extremes.
l) The acid ratio of the fluorometer if using the acidification method is determined by:
Acid ratio = 1/V2
Where: V2 = the slope of the regression between Fb vs. Fa. The acid ratio should
be the same for all dilutions. Choose the appropriate acid ratio for calculation of
pheopigment.
3) Filtration and Extraction
a) Filtration volume should be sufficient to catch a minimum of 0.005 μg Chl a (i.e.,
about 100 ml in blue water; about 50 ml is plenty elsewhere). (It is convenient to keep a
set of calibrated narrow-mouth plastic bottles (about 30 ml to 150 ml which are filled to
the brim to obtain specified amounts of water). Laboratory cultures usually require
smaller filtration volumes (1 to 10 ml).
b) Water is filtered onto a 2.4 cm Whatman GF/F filter. Cheaper MFS GF75 filters can be
used in the lab. Vacuum 10 in Hg. Filter is placed immediately in a scintillation vial
containing 10 ml 90% acetone. (Vials are prepared in advance using an automatic
pipettor and are kept in the freezer prior to use: the cold temperature minimizes
degradation of pigment immediately after filtration). Sample is protected from light and
placed in the freezer as soon as possible. Extraction time is 24h.
4) Fluorometry
Samples are removed from the freezer and kept in the dark while being brought to
room temperature. (If a large number of samples are to be done, it is a good idea to warm
subsets so that none of the samples stand at room temperature for a long time). (If you
have a suitable rack, it is convenient to bring vials to room temperature by placing
them in a tray of water). The sample is swirled and poured into a cuvette, filling it about
2/3. The cuvette is placed in the fluorometer and voltage is recorded (Fb). Then 50 μl of
10% HCL is added (Use an automatic pipettor and inject the acid forcibly into the cuvette
while still in the fluorometer). After 30 sec (use some sort of timer) voltage is recorded
(Fa). Cuvette is rinsed with nanopure water, then 90% acetone. A blank is recorded
during the set of measurements (90% acetone not from a squirt bottle) at each different
sensitivity used. If using the Welschmeyer method do not acidify.
5) Calculation
Acidification Technique
Chlorophyll a (μg/l) = F(Fb – Fa) / (ml filtered)(sensitivity)
Pheopigment (μg Chl eq/l) = F((A*Fa) – Fb) / (ml filtered)(sensitivity)
Where:
F = Calibration factor
A = Acid ratio of fluorometer
Fb = Voltage before acidification, corrected for blank at that sensitivity
Fa = Voltage after acidification, corrected for blank at that sensitivity
Note: Pheopigment is expressed as μg chlorophyll equivalents per liter. That is, if 1
μg/l of chlorophyll a is acidified, the resulting concentration of pheophorbide is 1μg
chlorophyll equivalents per liter. The actual concentration is 0.663 μg/l.
Welschmeyer Technique
Chlorophyll a (μg/l) = (F*Fb) / (ml filtered)(sensitivity)
Where:
F = Calibration factor
Fb = Voltage before acidification, corrected for blank at that sensitivity.
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Mercury in Water
This method is designed for the digestion and analysis of total mercury in water and aqueous samples as referenced
in EPA Method 245.1. The Reporting Detection Limit (RDL) for this procedure is 0.013 ug/L.
2. Summary:
A 30 mL aliquot of preserved sample is digested with a mixture of sulphuric acid, nitric acid and an excess of
potassium permanganate, along with potassium persulphate. Following digestion, excess potassium permanganate
is destroyed with hydroxylamine hydrochloride and samples are analyzed for mercury by CVAAS with a CETAC
Automated Mercury Analyzer. During analysis, the digested samples are mixed with stannous chloride which
reduces the mercury to its atomic state. The mercury is sparged from solution using nitrogen gas and the vapour is
swept into the absorption cell. The instrument signal (absorbance) is proportional to the concentration of mercury in
the sample. Digested standards are used for daily calibration, and additional standards are used to monitor
instrument drift.
Second source reference materials, method blanks, matrix spikes, and matrix duplicates are analyzed at a minimum
frequency of 5%.
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Trace Analysis of Cd, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, Fe, Zn in Seawater
SOP #: ATL SOP-00024 / ATL SOP-00055
Reference: USEPA SW846 6020A / USEPA SW846 1640
This method is applicable for the extraction of dissolved metals from fresh and saline waters. Reporting
Detection Limits (RDLs) listed below are based on a minimum sample volume of 50 mL.
Analyte
Cadmium
Copper
Iron
Cobalt
RDL (g/L)
0.1
0.1
1.0
0.1
Analyte
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
RDL (g/L)
0.5
0.1
1.0
The sample is pH adjusted with ultra high purity acetate buffer prior to the addition of a chelating agent.
Following an extraction by shaking, the chelated metals are collected and acidified with nitric acid.
Reagent grade water is then added and the sample is shaken for another extraction cycle. The aqueous
phase is then separated and analyzed by ICP-MS in accordance with USEPA SW846 Method #6020A.
3. Quality Control
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Water
Reference: USEPA Method 8270C
1.
Scope and Application
This method is applicable to the determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in water and
waste water samples with a reporting limit of 0.01 ug/L. The following compounds are routinely
determined:
Analyte
Naphthalene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Analyte
Benz[a]anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Perylene
Benzo[ghi]perylene
A 250 mL water sample is spiked with 3 deuterated surrogate PAH compounds. The surrogate compounds
are used to monitor the efficiency of the sample preparation steps. The sample is extracted by tumbling for
2 hours with hexane. The hexane extract is solvent exchanged into iso-octane prior to analysis. If
required, interfering compounds are removed using a silica gel solid phase extraction (SPE) clean-up
procedure. The extract is analyzed by capillary GC/MS.
After being detected, the individual peaks are integrated and quantified.
3.
Quality Assurance
A method blank, spiked blanks (each individual PAH), matrix spike (each PAH spiked onto a soil sample),
and a duplicate sample are analyzed with each batch of twenty samples. The spiked blank QC results are
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Analysis of Total Phosphorus in Aqueous Samples
Based on: EPA 365.1
This method is applicable to the determination of Total Phosphorus (as P) in drinking, ground, and
surface waters, and domestic and industrial wastes. The Reporting Detection Limit (RDL) for water is
0.02 mg/L as P.
Samples are digested with sulphuric acid in the presence of ammonium persulphate to convert all forms of
phosphorus to orthophosphate Following digestion, an Automated Colorimetric Analyzer is used for
sample and reagent handling and colour development. The orthophosphate reacts with ammonium
molybdate and antimony potassium tartrate under acidic conditions to form an antimonylphosphomolybdate complex. This complex is reduced with ascorbic acid to form a blue complex that
absorbs light at 880 nm. The colour of the complex is proportional to the concentration of orthophosphate
in solution.
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Total Extractable Hydrocarbons (>C10 – <C32) in Water
This method is designed for the extraction and analysis of >C10 – <C32 petroleum hydrocarbons,
including diesel range organics (>C10 - C21) and lubricating oils (>C21 - <C32) in water, seawater, and
waste water samples. The reporting limit is 0.05 mg/L for fuel oils (>C10 - C21) and 0.1 mg/L for
lubricating oils.
This method is used in conjunction with ATL SOP 000118, “Total Purgeable Hydrocarbons (C6 – C10)
in Water” to quantify Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (C6 – <C32) in a sample.
A 250 mL volume of water is spiked with two surrogate compounds (isobutylbenzene and ndotriacontane). These compounds are used to monitor the efficiency of the sample preparation steps. The
sample is extracted by tumbling for 30 minutes with hexane. The hexane extract is analyzed directly by
capillary gas chromatography with split/splitless injection and flame ionization detection.
The GC-FID system is calibrated with standards of known concentration. Each standard contains 9
different aromatic and aliphatic compounds which elute in the >C10 – <C32 range. A calibration curve is
generated for each carbon range (>C10- C21 and >C21 – <C32) by taking an average response factor of
the compounds that elute in each range. Calibration accuracy is verified by analyzing an independent
reference standard. The day-to-day stability of the calibration is confirmed by analyzing calibration
check standards with each batch of samples. Sample products are identified by comparing each product to
a library of reference products.
Method blanks, spiked blanks (transformer oil), matrix spikes (transformer oil spiked into water samples),
and replicate samples are analyzed with each batch of forty samples. The spiked blank QC results are
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Water
SOP #: SOP ATL 000118
This method is designed for the analysis of petroleum hydrocarbons, including benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, m-xylene, p-xylene, o-xylene (BTEX) and gasoline range organics (C6-C10) in
water. The reporting limit is 0.001 mg/L for benzene, toluene and ethylbenzene, 0.002 mg/L for
total, xylenes, and 0.010 mg/L for gasoline.
This method is used in conjunction with ATL SOP 000113, “Total Extractable Hydrocarbons
(>C10 – <C32) in Water” to quantify Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (C6 – <C32) in a sample.
An aliquot of the sample is analyzed by purge and trap - gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS) in full scan mode. A surrogate standard (isobutylbenzene) is added to the sample to
monitor instrument performance.
The instrumentation is calibrated weekly with multi-component standards of known
concentration. Calibration accuracy is verified with independent reference standards of BTEX
and gasoline. The day-to-day stability of the calibration is confirmed by analyzing calibration
check solutions with each batch of samples. Components in the samples are identified using
retention time criteria and/or through verification of mass spectral fit. After detection, the
individual peaks are integrated and quantified.
A method blank, spiked blanks (BTEX and gasoline), matrix spike (gasoline spiked into water
samples), and a replicate sample are analyzed with each batch of twenty samples. The spiked
blank QC results are control charted and must meet specific acceptance criteria before sample
results are released.
APPENDIX E
Biota Chemistry Methods
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Fat (Crude) in Seafood
SOP #: N/A
Reference: AOAC Official Method 948.15 Fat (Crude) in Seafood
Effective Date: January, 1995
Revision Date: October, 2008
This method is applicable to the analysis of fat in fish / seafood samples. The Reporting Detection Limit
(RDL) is 0.5 % based on an initial sample weight of 8g.
A known quantity of sample is combined with concentrated Hydrochloric Acid and heated to release the
fats from the seafood matrix. The released fats are then solublized with ether. The ether/fat phase is
transferred to a pre-weighed vessel and dried to a constant weight. The increase in weight from the
original vessel weight represents the amount of fat present.
A minimum of one Method Blank, one Certified Reference Material and one Sample Duplicate is
analyzed with each batch of samples, with a minimum QC frequency of 5 %.
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Mercury in Biota Samples
Revision Date: August, 2007
This method is designed for the digestion and analysis of total mercury in tissue and biota samples as referenced in
EPA Method 245.6. The Reporting Detection Limit (RDL) for this procedure is 0.01 mg/kg based on an initial
sample weight of 0.3 grams.
2. Summary:
Approximately 0.3 grams of sample is accurately measured for analysis and digested in a mixture of sulphuric acid
and nitric acid. Prior to instrumental analysis, the excess potassium permanganate is destroyed with hydroxylamine
hydrochloride. All prepared solutions are analyzed for mercury by CVAAS with a CETAC Automated Mercury
Analyzer. Digested samples are mixed with stannous chloride to reduce the mercury to its atomic state. The
mercury is sparged from solution using nitrogen gas and the mercury vapour is then swept into the absorption cell.
The instrument signal (absorbance) is proportional to the concentration of mercury in the sample.
Certified reference materials, method blanks, matrix spikes, and matrix duplicates are analyzed at a minimum
frequency of 5%.
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Trace Metals in Biota Samples
SOP #: ATL SOP-00024 / ATL SOP-00030
Reference: EPA SW846 Method #6020A / EPA 200.3
Revision Date: August, 2007
This method is applicable to the digestion and analysis of tissue samples for the determination of trace
metals. Lower Reporting Detection Limits (RDLs) or additional parameters may be available upon
request:
Analysis
ICPMF7-TI
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
1
1
RDL
Analysis
RDL
2.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
0.08
0.5
0.2
0.5
15
0.18
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Strontium
Thallium
Tin
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.12
1.5
0.02
0.5
0.02
0.5
1.5
Note 1: Reported in mg/kg “as received” weight basis
(based on 2.5 g made to a final volume of 35 mL with
a x10 dilution prior to analysis).
“Available” elements are dissolved by digestion with a strong Nitric Acid. The multi-elemental
determination of trace metals by ICP-MS is accomplished by measuring the ions produced when the
dissolved sample is introduced into a radio frequency inductively coupled plasma. These ions are sorted
according to their mass-to-charge ratios and quantified with a discrete dynode electron multiplier
detector.
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Moisture Content, Percent
SOP#: ATL SOP 00001
Reference: Gravimetric 'Handbook of analytical Methods for Environmental Samples'
Volume 1 , page ME4, Ontario Ministry of the environment, Rexdale Ont
1983
Effective Date:
November 1995
Revision Date: October 2007
This method is applicable to the determination of percent moisture in soils, sediments,
sludges and other solid materials. The reporting limit for this method is 1%.
A known quantity usually 5 (plus or minus 2 grams) of the homogenized sample is dried
in a drying oven at 100°C to 110°C for a minimum of 2 hours. The sample is reweighed
and the water lost is determined as a percentage.
A minimum of one blank, one duplicate, and one matrix spike are analyzed for each set
of 20 or fewer samples. Relative percent difference between duplicates must be less than
20%. Spike recovery must be ± 30%.
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Fish and Shellfish
Reference: Based on USEPA Method 8270C and Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in
Biological Tissue by GC-MS (Draft) – Environment Canada, 1993.
This method is applicable to the determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in tissues
samples with Reporting Detection Limits (RDLs) of 0.05 mg/kg on a wet weight basis. The following
compounds are routinely determined:
Analyte
Naphthalene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Analyte
Benz[a]anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Perylene
Benzo[ghi]perylene
The tissue is homogenized in a blender and a 5 g portion is weighed out and spiked with 3 deuterated
surrogate PAH compounds (these compounds represent a range of volatilities and are used to monitor the
efficiency of the sample preparation steps). The sample is extracted with a 50/50 acetone/hexane solvent
using an accelerated mechanical extraction (AME) process. An aliquot of the extract is removed and
interfering compounds are eliminated using a silica gel column clean-up procedure. The extract is then
solvent exchanged into isooctane and analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) using
selected ion monitoring mode.
After being detected, the individual peaks are integrated and quantified.
A method blank, spiked blanks (each individual PAH), matrix spike (each PAH spiked onto a tissue
sample) and a replicate sample are analyzed with each batch of twenty samples. The spiked blank QC
results are control charted and must meet specific acceptance criteria before sample results are released.
MS_O_7030_1_4
2005/12/12
METHOD SUMMARY
Title: Total Extractable Hydrocarbons (>C10-C32) in Fish and Shellfish
Reference: In-house method and Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Biological Tissue by
GC-MS (Draft) – Environment Canada, 1993.
This method is designed for the extraction and analysis of petroleum hydrocarbons,
including diesel range organics (>C10-C21) and lubricating oils (>C21-C32) in tissues and
biota. The Reporting Detection Limits (RDLs) are as follows: >C10-C21 (15 mg/kg) and
>C21- C32 (15 mg/kg) and are on a wet weight basis.
The tissue is homogenized in blender and a 5 g portion is weighed out and spiked with a
surrogate compound (n-dotriacontane). This compound is used to monitor the efficiency
of the sample preparation steps. The sample is extracted with a 50/50 acetone/hexane
solvent using an accelerated mechanical extraction (AME) process. An aliquot of the
extract is removed and interfering compounds are eliminated using a silica gel column
clean-up procedure. The extract is then vialed and analyzed by gas chromatography with
flame ionization detection.
The GC-FID system is calibrated with multi-component standards of known
concentration which elute in the >C10-C32 range. A calibration curve is generated for
each carbon range (>C10-C21 and >C21-C32) using the response factor of the compounds
that elute in each range. Calibration accuracy is verified by analyzing an independent
reference standard. The day-to-day stability of the calibration is confirmed by analyzing
calibration check solutions with each batch of samples. Sample products are identified
by comparing each product to a library of reference products.
Method blanks (containing commercially available fish tissue), spiked blanks
(transformer oil spiked on commercially available fish tissue), matrix spikes (transformer
oil spiked onto tissue samples) and replicate samples are analyzed with each batch of
twenty samples. The spiked blank QC results are control charted and must meet specific
acceptance criteria before sample results are released.
MS_O_9018
2005/12/12
APPENDIX F
Fish Health Indicator Descriptions
Morphometrics
Total body weight
Gutted body weight
Length
Liver weight
Gonad weight
Age
Condition indices
Fulton’s condition index (FCI)
Hepato-somatic index (HSI)
Gonado-somatic index (GSI)
MFO Activity
MFO induction
Gross Pathology
Haematology
Lymphocytes
Neutrophils
Thrombocytes
Histopathology
Liver Histopathology
Eosinophilic foci
Basophilic foci
Clear cell foci
Carcinoma
American Plaice
Physical Characteristics and Condition Indices
Commonly measurements of fish weight and size as well as organ weight.
Expressed in grams.
Total body weight minus the digestive tract
Length measured from the tip of the snout to the end of the caudal fin (or total
length)
Expressed in grams.
Expressed in grams.
Expressed in years.
Condition indices relate the physical dimensions of an animal or one of its
internal organs (e.g. liver, gonads, spleen) with body weight. They are used as
simple method for monitoring major changes in fish health.
FCI is defined as the ratio of body weight to length3 X 100. It expresses the
condition of a fish, such as the degree of well being, relative robustness,
plumpness or fatness in numerical terms.
Changes in condition index can indicate a change in nutritional or energy status,
metabolism or gonadal status. Condition factor could also vary in either direction
outside the normal range in response to chemical exposure.
HSI is defined as the ratio of liver weight to body weight X 100. It provides an
indication of the status of energy reserves in an animal. In a poor environment,
fish usually have a smaller liver (with less energy reserved in the liver). HSI
could also vary in either direction outside the normal range in response to
chemical exposure.
GSI is defined as the ratio of gonad weight to body weight X 100. It provides
information on gonadal health and reproductive status. GSI is affected by
season (which controls reproductive cycling) and age. Pollutants may also
cause changes in GSI.
Mixed Function Oxygenase (MFO) Activity
The MFO system refers to a family of enzymes that transforms the structure of
organic chemicals and performs a critical role in detoxification and other
physiological processes. The activity of this enzyme system commonly
increases in animals in the presence of certain classes of organic pollutants.
Measurements of the activity have been used as an indicator of exposure and
toxicity to certain class of pollutants.
Enhanced activity of the enzyme system as a result of increased rates of
synthesis.
Gross Pathology
Gross pathology refers to the observation and quantification of the presence of
visible diseases, lesions and other abnormalities on the skin or fins and on
internal organs.
Haematology
Study of blood.
Small white blood cells with a large nucleus and a small amount of cytoplasm –
cells important in immunity.
Large white blood cells with a nucleus that is rod or kidney shaped and on
occasion is bi-lobed - cells important in immunity.
Oval or spindle cells with projection(s) of cytoplasm in one or both ends of the
cell - cells important in blood clotting.
Histopathology
Histopathology involves the analysis of tissues for the presence of cellular
damage (i.e., lesions and tumours) which can indicate chronic, or long-term,
exposure to pollutants.
Variation in the diameter of cell nuclei
Lesion characterised by an increase in nuclear and cellular diameters of liver
cells and various cytoplasmic degenerative changes.
Foci of cellular alteration staining with eosin
Foci of cellular alterations having an affinity for basic dyes
Foci of cellular alteration which are non staining
Any cancer that arises from epithelial cells.
Cholangioma
Cholangiofibrosis
Macrophage aggregation
Hepatocellular vacuolation
Fibrillar inclusions
Gill Histopathology
Distal hyperplasia
Epithelial lifting
Telangiectasis
Basal hyperplasia
Tip hyperplasia
Fusion
Oedema condition
American Plaice
Tumour of the bile duct.
Increase in fibrous connective tissue around bile ducts.
Increase in cell division.
Aggregation(s) of phagocytic white blood cells in tissues.
Alteration in the number or in the distribution of vacuoles in cells.
Formation of many non-staining cytoplasmic vacuoles in cells.
Inclusions appearing as bundles at various orientations within cells.
Thickening of the epithelium around the two sides of the secondary lamellae due
to an increase in the number of epithelial cells.
Separation of the epithelial layer from the basement membrane.
Dilatation of blood vessel at the tip of the secondary lamellae.
Thickening of the epithelium near the base of secondary lamellae due to an
increase in the number of epithelial cells.
Thickening of the epithelium around the secondary lamellar tip due to an
increase in the number of epithelial cells.
Fusion of two or more adjacent secondary lamellae.
Swelling within cells.

Hibernia Oil and Gas Production and Development Drilling Project

Transcription

Similar documents

Hibernia Platform

E-Learning: delivering third Level education online

San Diego Wild Animal Park Water Master Plan

PPS2100 - PoolSupplyWorld

Lower Susquehanna River Reservoir System Bathymetry

FloGard® T-SerieS CaTCh BaSin inSerT

Flo Well Installation Instructions