OCS Study MMS 2004-023 

ANIMIDA Task 2 

Hydrocarbon and Metal Characterization of 

Sediment Cores in the ANIMIDA Study Area 

Special Report 

Submitted to: 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Minerals Management Service 

Anchorage, Alaska 

Submitted by: 

Battelle 

255 Bear Hill Road 

Waltham, Massachusetts 

Contract No.143501-99-CT-30998, TO 10902

U.S. Department of the Interior

M inerals Manageme nt S ervice

Ala ska Outer Continenta l Shelf Re gion 
ANIMIDA Task 2 

Hydrocarbon and Metal Characterization 

of Sediment Cores in the ANIMIDA Study Area 

Special Report

John Brown, Principal Investigator 

Battelle 

255 Bear Hill Road 

Waltham, Massachusetts 

02451 

This study was funded by the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service (MMS), Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, 

Anchorage, Alaska, under Contract No. 143501-99-CT-30998, TO 10902 

 as part of the MMS Alaska Environmental Studies Program. 

August 2003 

The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this report or product 

are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department 

of the Interior, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement 

or recommendation for use by the Federal Government.
List of Authors 

Mr. John Brown, Battelle 

Dr. Paul Boehm, Battelle 

Ms. Linda Cook, Battelle 

Dr. John Trefry, Florida Institute of Technology (FIT) 

 
i 

Table of Contents 

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................................... 

Executive Summary..............................................................................................................ES-1 

1.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................1-1 

1.1 Study Area .............................................................................................................. 1-1 

1.2 Development History in the Study Area................................................................. 1-2 

1.3 Current/Proposed Oil Development........................................................................ 1-2 

1.3.1 Northstar .................................................................................................. 1-2 

1.3.2 Liberty...................................................................................................... 1-3 

1.4 Potential Contaminants and Disturbances of Concern............................................ 1-3 

1.5 Study Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1-4 

 1.5.1 Sediment Core Research Questions and Hypotheses............................... 1-5 

2.0 Methods ...........................................................................................................................2-1 

 2.1 Field Methods and Study Design............................................................................ 2-1 

 2.1.1 Study Design............................................................................................ 2-1 

 2.1.2 Summer 2001 Field Sampling ................................................................. 2-1 

 2.2 Analytical Methods................................................................................................. 2-2 

 2.2.1 Geochronology of Sediment Cores.......................................................... 2-2 

 2.2.2 Ancillary Parameters................................................................................ 2-3 

 2.2.3 Organic Chemical Parameters.................................................................. 2-4 

 2.2.4 Inorganic Parameters ............................................................................... 2-7 

 2.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control......................................................................... 2-8 

 2.3.1 Quality Assurance.................................................................................... 2-9 

 2.3.2 Field Quality Control ............................................................................. 2-12 

 2.3.3 Organic Chemistry Laboratory Quality Control.................................... 2-12 

 2.3.4 Metals Chemistry Laboratory Quality Control...................................... 2-14 

 2.4 Database Management.......................................................................................... 2-16 

3.0 Results .............................................................................................................................3-1 

 3.1 Sediment Cores ....................................................................................................... 3-1 

 3.1.1 Geochronology of Sediments................................................................... 3-1 

 3.1.2 Grain Size................................................................................................. 3-2 

 3.1.3 Organics ................................................................................................... 3-2 

 3.1.4 Metals....................................................................................................... 3-4 

 3.2 Quality Control Results........................................................................................... 3-5 

 3.2.1 Organics Quality Control......................................................................... 3-6 

 3.2.2 Metals Laboratory Quality Control.......................................................... 3-8 

4.0 Discussion.......................................................................................................................4-1 

 4.1 Geochronology........................................................................................................ 4-1 

 4.1.1 Geochronology of Hydrocarbons ............................................................ 4-8 

 4.1.2 Geochronology of Metals – Concentrations of Metals over Time ........ 4-12 
ii 

Table of Contents (continued) 

5.0 Recommendations..........................................................................................................5-1 

6.0 References.......................................................................................................................6-1 

List of Appendices 

Appendix A: Grain-Size, Metals, and Total Organic Carbon Data 

Appendix B: Organics Data 
iii 

List of Tables 

Section 2 

Table 2-1: MMS ANIMIDA Summer 2000 Sampling Stations 

Table 2-2: Saturated Hydrocarbons Target List 

Table 2-3: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon and Alkyl Polynuclear Aromatic

Hydrocarbon Target List 

Table 2-4: Sterane and Triterpane Target List 

Table 2-5: Summary of Instrumental Methods and Method Detection Limits for 

Metal Analysis of Sediment 

Table 2-6: Sample Containers, Preservation, and Laboratory List 

Table 2-7: Data Quality Objectives for Saturated Hydrocarbon and Polynuclear 

Aromatic Hydrocarbon Analyses 

Table 2-8: Data Quality Objectives for Sterane and Triterpane Analyses 

Table 2-9: Data Quality Objectives and Criteria for Metals Analyses 

Section 3 

Table 3-1: Table of Concentration of Selected Organic Parameters in Sediment Core 

Samples 

Table 3-2: Diagnostic Ratios and Parameters of Saturated Hydrocarbons, Polynuclear 

Aromatic Hydrocarbons, and Steranes and Triterpanes 

Table 3-3: Average Total Organic Concentrations in Surficial Sediments from 

ANIMIDA Study Area, Alaska Marine Sediments, and Cook Inlet and 

Shelikof Strait Sediments 

Table 3-4: Summary Data for Metals, Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and Grain Size in 

Sediments from the Coastal Beaufort Sea. 

Table 3-5: Summary of Results for Metal/Al Ratios in Sediment Cores 

Table 3-6: Organic Quality Control Result Summary – Polynuclear Aromatic 

Hydrocarbon Analyses 

Table 3-7: Organic Quality Control Result Summary – Saturated Hydrocarbon 

Analyses 

Table 3-8: Organic Quality Control Result Summary – Sterane and Triterpane 

Analyses 

Table 3-9: Inorganic Quality Control Result Summary – Trace-Metal Analyses 

Table 3-10: Results for Marine Sediment Certified and Standard Reference Materials 

and for Metals Spike Recoveries 

Section 4 

Table 4-1: Values for the Effects Range Low (ERL) and Effects Range Median 

(ERM) from Long et al. (1995) and Results from this Study 
iv 

List of Figures 

Section 1 

Figure 1-1: Map of the ANIMIDA Study Area 

Figure 1-2: General Map of Onshore and Offshore Oil and Gas Development in the 

Study Areas 

Figure 1-3: Schematic of BP’s Northstar Development 

Section 2 

Figure 2-1: Map of the ANIMIDA Study Area Showing the Locations of the Summer 

2000 Sampling Stations 

Section 3 

Figure 3-1: Vertical Profiles Showing Activities of Excess 210Pb, Total 210Pb, and 

137Cs for Sediment Cores from Stations P01 (Prudhoe Bay), E01 (East of 

Endicott Island) and 6G (Eastern Portion of Colville River Delta) 

Figure 3-2: Vertical Profiles for Selected Organic Parameters in Sediment Core from 

near Pole Island (Station 3A) 

Figure 3-3: Vertical Profiles for Selected Organic Parameters in Sediment Core 6A 

from near Colville River Delta (Station 6A) 

Figure 3-4: Vertical Profiles for Selected Organic Parameters in Sediment Core from 

Colville River Delta (Station 6G) 

Figure 3-5: Vertical Profiles for Selected Organic Parameters in Sediment Core from 

near Endicott Island (Station E01) 

Figure 3-6: Vertical Profiles for Selected Organic Parameters in Sediment Core from 

near Liberty Prospect (Station L02) 

Figure 3-7: Vertical Profiles for Selected Organic Parameters in Sediment Core from 

near Northstar Island (Station N02) 

Figure 3-8: Vertical Profiles for Selected Organic Parameters in Sediment Core from 

near Northstar Island (Station N03) 

Figure 3-9: Vertical Profiles for Selected Organic Parameters in Sediment Core from 

Prudhoe Bay (Station P01) 

Figure 3-10: Vertical profiles for Metals and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in Sediment 

Core from Prudhoe Bay (Station P01) 

Figure 3-11: Vertical Profiles for Metals in Sediment Core from Prudhoe Bay (Station 

P01) 

Figure 3-12: Vertical Profiles for Metals and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in Sediment 

Core from near Endicott Island (Station E01) 

Figure 3-13: Vertical Profiles for Metals in Sediment Core from near Endicott Island 

(Station E01) 

Figure 3-14: Vertical Profiles for Metals and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in Sediment 

Core from Colville River Delta (Station 6G) 

Figure 3-15: Vertical Profiles for Metals in Sediment Core from Colville River Delta 

(Station 6G) 
v 

Figure 3-16: Vertical Profiles for Metals and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in Sediment 

Core from near Northstar Island (Station N02) 

Figure 3-17: Vertical Profiles for Metals in Sediment Core from near Northstar Island 

(Station N02) 

Figure 3-18: Vertical Profiles for Metals and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in Sediment 

Core from near Colville River Delta (Station 6A) 

Figure 3-19: Vertical Profiles for Metals in Sediment Core from near Colville River 

Delta (Station 6A) 

Figure 3-20: Vertical Profiles for Metals and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in Sediment 

Core from near Pole Island (Station 3A) 

Figure 3-21: Vertical Profiles for Metals in Sediment Core from near Pole Island 

(Station 3A) 

Section 4 

Figure 4-1: North Slope Crude Oil – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH Distribution 

Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

Figure 4-2: Colville River Sediment, Year 1999 – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH 

Distribution Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

Figure 4-3: Sediment Core P01 Interval 0-2 cm – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH 

Distribution Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

Figure 4-4: Sediment Core P01 Interval 24-26 cm – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), 

PAH Distribution Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram 

(bottom) 

Figure 4-5: Sediment Core 6G Interval 0-2 cm – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH 

Distribution Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

Figure 4-6: Sediment Core 6G Interval 16-18 cm – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), 

PAH Distribution Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram 

(bottom) 

Figure 4-7: Sediment Core 3A Interval 0-2 cm – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH 

Distribution Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

Figure 4-8: Sediment Core E01 Interval 0-2 cm – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH 

Distribution Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

Figure 4-9: Sediment Core L02 Interval 0-2 cm – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH 

Distribution Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

Figure 4-10: Sediment Core N02 Interval 0-2 cm – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH 

Distribution Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

Figure 4-11: Sediment Core 6A Interval 0-2 cm – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH 

Distribution Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

Figure 4-12: Regression Plot of Total PAH less Perylene versus Silt + Clay for 2001 

Sediment Samples and 1999 and 2000 Surficial Sediment Samples 

Figure 4-13: Pyrogenic/Petrogenic PAH Ratios for 2001 Sediment Cores – all Depth 

Intervals 

Figure 4-14: Double Source Ratio Plot of C2 D/C2P vs C3D/C3P for all Core Samples 

and Source Samples 

Figure 4-15: Double Source Ratio Plot of C2D/C2P vs C3D/C3P for all 2001 Core 

Samples, Source Samples, and 1999 and 2000 Surficial Sediment Samples 
vi 

Figure 4-16: Comparison of 2001 Core Sample Total PAH Concentrations to Sediment 

Quality Guideline Effects Range Low (ERL) and Effects Rang Median 

(ERM) Values (Long et al., 1995) -- Note y-axis log scale

Figure 4-17: Plots of Al versus (a) Silt plus Clay, (b) Iron, and (c) Vanadium for 

Surficial Sediments from 1999 and 2000 and Sediment Cores from 2001 

Figure 4-18: Plots of Al versus (a) Lead, (b) Copper, (c) Chromium, (d) Nickel, (e) 

Zinc and (f) Mercury for Surficial Sediments from 1999 and 2000 and 

Sediment Cores from 2001 

Figure 4-19: Plots of Al versus (a) Barium, (b) Arsenic, (c) Silver, (d) Cobalt, (e) 

Antimony and (f) Thallium for Surficial Sediments from 1999 and 2000 

and Sediment Cores from 2001 
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 

vii

ADL Arthur D. Little, Inc. 

AMS Applied Marine Sciences 

ANIMIDA Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring in the Development Area 

BPXA British Petroleum Exploration Alaska 

BS Blank Spike 

BSMP Beaufort Sea Monitoring Program 

°C Degrees Celsius 

C Carbon 

CI Confidence Interval 

cm Centimeter 

COC Chain of Custody 

CORIS Coastal and Offshore Resource Information System 

CPI Carbon Preference Index 

CRM Certified Reference Material 

CV Coefficient of Variation 

CVAAS Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 

%D Percent Difference 

DDW Distilled, Deionized Water 

dpm Decompositions per Minute 

DQO Data Quality Objectives 

EICP Extracted Ion Chromatogram Profile 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ERL Effects Range-Low 

ERM Effects Range-Median 

FAAS Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 

FID Flame Ionization Detection 

FIT Florida Institute of Technology 

FY Fiscal Year 

g Gram 

GC Gas Chromatography 

GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry 

GFAAS Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 

H3PO4 Phosphoric Acid 

H2SO4 Sulfuric Acid 

HCl Hydrochloric Acid 

HClO4 Perchloric Acid 

HDM Harvard Design and Mapping 

HF Hydrogen Fluoride 

HNO3 Nitric Acid 

ICF ICF Consulting 

ICP/MS Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry 

ID Inner Diameter 

IRM Instrument Reference Material 

K-D Kuderna-Danish 

KeV Kilo Electron Volts 

Kg Kilogram 
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued) 

viii

KLI Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc. 

km Kilometer 

LALK Lower-Molecular-Weight Alkanes 

m Meter 

MDL Method Detection Limit 

mg Milligram 

mL Milliliter 

mm Millimeter 

MMS Minerals Management Service 

MRL Minimum Reporting Limit 

MS Mass Spectrometry 

N Normal 

N/P Naphthalene/Phenanthrene Ratio 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NRC National Research Council of Canada 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

ORS Oil Reference Standard 

PAH Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon 

PB Procedural Blank 

PBOC Prudhoe Bay Operations Camp 

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl 

PHC Petroleum Hydrocarbons 

QA Quality Assurance 

QAM Quality Assurance Manual 

QC Quality Control 

R/V Research Vessel 

RF Response Factor 

RL Reporting Limit 

RPD Relative Percent Difference 

rpm Revolutions per Minute 

RSD Relative Standard Deviation 

S Sedimentation Rates 

S/T Steranes/Triterpanes 

SD Standard Deviation 

SHC Saturated Hydrocarbons 

SIM Selected Ion Monitoring 

SOP Standard Operating Procedure 

SPMD Semipermeable Membrane Device 

SRB Scientific Review Board 

SRM Standard Reference Material 

TALK Total n-Alkanes 

TOC Total Organic Carbon 

TPHC Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 

μg Microgram 

μL Microliter 
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued) 

ix

μm Micrometer 

URSGWC URS Greiner Woodward Clyde 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USAEDA United States Army Engineering District, Alaska 

USDOI United States Department of the Interior 

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

V/V Volume to Volume 

WBS Work Breakdown Structure 

ZGFAAS Zeeman Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 

 
ES-1 

Executive Summary 

Overview 

The ANIMIDA program was designed to address the potential environmental impacts of two oil 

and gas developments in the Beaufort Sea, namely the Northstar and Liberty developments. The 

Phase I Report (Boehm et al. 2001b) presented the initial findings on the ANIMIDA program. 

Phase I provided one-year of pre-development baseline data for Northstar and Liberty. Based on 

Phase I results, several tasks were implemented in Phase II. The tasks included Task 2: 

Continued Chemical Monitoring Effort: Hydrocarbon and Metal Characterization of Sediments, 

Bivalves, and Amphipods in the ANIMIDA Study Area. 

The resulting information from Task 2 is intended to be used to: 

• assess baseline environmental conditions prior to Northstar and/or Liberty oil development 

and production activities; 

• assess the potential impacts from Northstar and/or Liberty oil development and production 

activities by measuring parameters that are indicators of environmental impacts; and 

• provide information needed in post-leasing decisions to help minimize these impacts. 

Phase II Task 2 was implemented in the summer of 2000 and the findings for this initial part of 

Phase II were reported in Brown et al. (2002). 

Phase II began in summer 2000 and was planned to monitor the effects of construction and 

operation of the Northstar and Liberty developments. Northstar construction began as planned 

and was completed in October 2000. First production of oil began late in 2001. The Liberty 

development plans were halted in mid-2002 and no activity has occurred. However, there 

remains the possibility that development plans using directional drilling from a location adjacent 

to the Endicott causeway complex may proceed in the future. 

The initial Phase II results (i.e., the 2000 field season results) reported by Brown et al. (2002) 

were the first non-baseline hydrocarbon monitoring of the Northstar development during the 

construction of the gravel island and pipeline and represented continued baseline monitoring at 

Liberty. These results indicated that the chemical inputs – organic and metal constituents 

normally associated with oil development – were not detected in the surface sediments and that 

any observed changes were well within the regional natural variability (i.e., the baseline). 

Because some anomalies were noted in the Northstar study area (which appeared to be changes 

in target chemical constituents associated with co-varying grain-size changes), recommendations 

for future work included a 2001 field program focusing, in part, on the collection and analysis of 

sediment cores. Thus, the 2001 field season’s program was intended to gain further information 

on historical trends so as to be able to better interpret pre- and post-Northstar development data 

(from ANIMIDA Phase I and previous studies e.g., Beaufort Sea Monitoring Program). 
ES-2 

Objectives – Task 2 

The ANIMIDA program was designed to address a series of scientific questions concerning the 

potential impacts of the Northstar and Liberty developments. In turn testable hypotheses guided 

the design of the technical program. The key questions that drive Task 2 of ANIMIDA are: 

Question 1. What are the background levels and temporal trends of chemicals of concern (i.e., 

the organic and trace-metal contaminants) that are known to be associated with oil exploration, 

development, and production activities, and do the concentrations of these chemicals increase as 

a result of the Northstar and/or Liberty developments? 

Question 2. If concentrations of organic and/or metal pollutants do increase in the environment 

as a result of the Northstar and/or Liberty developments, do these increases pose an ecological 

threat or risk? 

Task 2 addresses the first question. Tasks 2, 6, and 8 are needed collectively to address the 

second question. 

To provide the data needed to address these questions, the specific objectives of Task 2 include: 

• Perform annual or biannual field studies (fiscal years [FYs] 2000 to 2003) to monitor 

sediment and biota chemistry in the nearshore Beaufort Sea, focusing on the Northstar and 

Liberty developments 

• Coordinate chemistry monitoring coupled with other ANIMIDA Phase II tasks (biology and 

sediment transport), and with ANIMIDA-coordinated studies (e.g., physical oceanography). 

• Perform organic and inorganic chemical analyses and analysis of data to document any 

incremental input of contaminants. 

An explicit goal is to examine temporal changes and to determine if any observed changes in 

concentration and/or composition are related to the Northstar development. 

ANIMIDA Study Design – Task 2 

To meet the objectives of the ANIMIDA program, the study design of Task 2 focuses on the 

detection of contaminant inputs and their temporal trends: measuring those parameters that 

would be leading indicators of, or related to, environmental impacts from the Northstar and 

Liberty oil development projects (Figure 1-1). 

This approach also included the determination of the natural baseline of targeted chemical 

constituents, historical trends, and performing a screening-level evaluation of potential 

environmental risk as a result of these contaminant inputs, through comparison to known 

benchmarks. 
ES-3 

The constituents of primary focus included: 

• hydrocarbons and associated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); and metals as 

primary contaminants of concern 

• sediment contamination 

• bioaccumulation of contaminants 

• other natural and anthropogenic sources of contaminants of concern 

The study design for Phase II involved several components: 

• design of a site-specific radial array sampling grid around each development centroid; 

• selection of area-wide stations that had previously been sampled as part of the MMS 

Beaufort Sea Monitoring Program (BSMP) (1984 to 1990) 

• sample reference stations 

• identification of source samples for collection (e.g., river sediments) 

• addition of Phase II sampling stations along the pipeline route 

In 2001, a sediment coring effort was added to the program. This report focuses solely on the 

collection, analyses, and results for the sediment core samples. 

2001 Sediment Coring Effort 

Based on recommendations from the 2000 efforts (Brown et al., 2002) a sediment coring 

program was implemented in the summer of 2001 to examine the historical baseline and the 

recent temporal trends as reflected in the geochronology of the sediments. The study area for the 

ANIMIDA program was defined as the nearshore Beaufort Sea, bounded by the Stockton Islands 

to the east, and by the Jones Islands to the west. This area encompasses both the Liberty and 

Northstar prospect areas, and much of the shoreline where regional Prudhoe Bay oil production 

activities are occurring. One open-water survey was conducted from July 24 to August 14, 

2001. 

Sediment cores were collected from nearshore areas of the Beaufort Sea adjacent to Liberty 

prospect, Northstar Island, and reference sites to determine the geochronology of the cores and 

analyze them for oil industry-related contaminants – metals and organics. Stations for sediment 

core sampling were selected based on historical data from BSMP, ANIMIDA Phase II (2000) 

results from Northstar Island, and Liberty Prospect stations. Historical grain-size data were used 

to identify those stations that had fine-grained sediments and would be good candidates for 

depositional areas. Sediment cores were collected at 11 nearshore and offshore stations: 4 

historic BSMP stations, 2 Northstar area stations, 3 Liberty stations, 1 Sagavanirktok River 

Delta (Endicott) station, and 1 Prudhoe Bay station. Of these collected cores, eight (8) were 

selected for age dating. Age dating was accomplished through a combination of 210Pb and 137Cs 

measurements and dating techniques. 
ES-4 

Findings 

The summer 2001 field sampling program resulted in the successful acquisition of sediment core 

samples suitable for age dating from eight stations. Of the eight cores, reliable and detailed 

results for geochronology were obtained for three stations: 1) station P01 in Prudhoe Bay, 2) 

station E01, just east of the Endicott development near the mouth of the Sagavanirktok River, 

and 3) station 6G near the eastern area of the Colville River Delta (Figure 2-1). 

Geochronology and Sedimentation Rates 

Results show sedimentation rates that range from ~0.04 centimeters (cm)/year (yr) to ~0.10 

cm/yr, with several sites having little or no net accumulation of sediment during at least the past 

50 years. At three sites, 3- to 5-cm thick layers of sediment were identified that were deposited 

since North Slope development began (approximately 1970). Overall results are consistent with 

those of Naidu et al. (2001) for the same area. The presence of fine-grained sediment at a given 

location can vary from year to year and the sediments along much of the shallow, coastal 

Beaufort Sea are quite dynamic. 

 

In Prudhoe Bay (station P01), the vertical profile for 137Cs supports the results from excess 210Pb 

with a sedimentation rate of ~0.10 ± 0.02 cm/yr based on the 1950 appearance of 137Cs at ~5 cm 

and the observed 1963 peak at ~3.75 cm. Samples from depths >4 cm were most likely 

deposited before extensive development activities began around 1970 in the area of Prudhoe 

Bay. 

At station E01, the calculated sedimentation rate based on excess 210Pb is about 0.04 ± 0.02 

cm/yr. Activities of 137Cs are detectable to a depth of 3.25 cm, yielding a sedimentation rate of 

~0.06 ± 0.02 cm/yr, a value that is reasonably consistent with that obtained from the profile for 

excess 210Pb considering the uncertainty in the data. These data for station E01 support the 

likelihood that sediments at depths >4 cm pre-date oil and gas development. 

In the Colville River Delta at station 6G, the 137Cs profile supports a sediment accumulation rate 

of ~0.06 ± 0.02 cm/yr. The record of sediment input since the 1950s is sequestered into the top 

4 to 5 cm of sediment. 

Organics – Saturated and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHC) in sediment core samples from the 

summer 2001 survey ranged from 3.2 to 17 milligrams (mg)/Kilogram (kg), with one anomalous 

concentration of 31 mg/Kg detected at core station 6G in the 0- to 2-cm interval. However, 

when normalized to the clay fraction1, the 0- to 2-cm interval from core sample 6G falls within 

the range of the results for the other 6G core, indicating that the observed enrichment of 

hydrocarbons was due to the accumulation of fine-grained material at the surface of this core. 

The mean TPHC concentrations for the eight cores ranged from 4.6 to 11 mg/kg. 

In general, comparisons of the core profiles for key diagnostic organic parameters for all of the 

cores do not show any clear trends that would indicate an increase in petroleum hydrocarbons 

 

1

 Clay only was used to normalized the results for core 6G due to a high percent clay result for the 0-2 cm sample. 

The remaining cores were normalized to the silt+clay parameter. 
ES-5 

over time. The core profiles from the five stations where geochronology could not be 

established (likely representing a historical pre-development record) are generally uniform and 

show little variability of the hydrocarbon parameters over time. The cores for which pre- and 

post-oil and gas development dates can be established (P01, E01, and 6G) generally show 

uniform distributions of key parameters throughout the cores, with some variability in specific 

core intervals. 

The composition of saturated hydrocarbons (SHC) through the depth of all the sediment cores 

was generally similar (see representative sample tri-plot in Figure ES-1), indicating a common 

TPHC source relationship between pre-1970 and post-1970 sediments. For example, similar 

patterns are noted in the GC/FID chromatograms for the pre-1970 and post-1970 sediments from 

cores P01 and 6G (see Figures 4-6 through 4-9). 

 

Concentrations of Total PAH in sediment core samples from the summer 2001 survey ranged 

from 284 to 932 micrograms (μg)/Kg, with one anomalous concentration of 1,990 μg/Kg 

detected at core station 6G in the 0- to 2-cm interval. However, when normalized to the clay 

fraction, the 0- to 2-cm interval from core sample 6G falls within the range of results for the 

other 6G core sections and is no longer an outlier, further supporting the earlier observation that 

the high result is due to a grain-size effect. The mean Total PAH concentrations for the eight 

cores ranged from 383 to 657 μg/Kg. Overall, the levels of SHC and PAH measured during the 

sediment core survey are within the range of values reported from previous studies of the region 

and other Alaskan coastal areas. 

A plot of the 2001 core data, along with the 1999 and 2000 surface sediment data for total PAH 

minus perylene versus silt plus clay, is shown in Figure ES-2. The plot shows that all the 2001 

core samples fall within the 95% prediction intervals, indicating that the 2001 core sediment 

samples are not different in Total PAH content from the historical natural background of the 

region. 

An analysis of PAH compositional data for the core samples through a comparison of the 

pyrogenic-to-petrogenic PAH ratios reveals a generally consistent abundance of petrogenic PAH 

relative to pyrogenic PAH across all core samples. Petrogenic PAH comprise consistently 90% 

of the total PAH in all samples from all cores, with a slightly higher pyrogenic abundance (13%) 

at station 6G, offshore the Colville River (see Figure ES-3). 

Effects Range Low (ERL) and Effects Range Median (ERM) values have been developed as 

sediment quality guidelines for 13 individual PAH compounds and 3 classes of PAH (low- and 

high-molecular-weight PAH, and Total PAH). A comparison of the Total PAH from all 

ANIMIDA core sediments to the ERL and ERM criteria shows that none of the Total PAH 

concentrations determined in this study exceed the ERL. The station 6G surface interval (0- to 

2-cm), which had the highest measured Total PAH at 1,990 μg/Kg, was still well below the ERL 

value of 4,022 μg/Kg. The mean Total PAH values from each core were generally an order of 

magnitude lower than the ERL. Similarly, the individual PAH concentrations did not exceed the 

ERL for the individual 13 PAH, which could be compared directly. In summary, based on 

sediment quality criteria, the concentrations of PAH found in the sediment core samples are not 

likely to pose immediate ecological risk to marine organisms in the area. 
ES-6 

Metals 

Collectively, the data for cores from Prudhoe Bay (station P01), near Endicott Island (station 

E01), and east of the Colville River Delta (station 6G) show that normalized concentrations of 

Ba, Be, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Sb, Tl, and V are constant over time, supporting a finding of no 

detectable anthropogenic contributions and no impacts due to early chemical diagenesis. The 

continuum of uniform metal/Al values from river suspended sediment to recent bottom sediment 

to older bottom sediment provides strong support for the very limited impacts with respect to 

trace metals in sediments in the study area. 

In Prudhoe Bay (station P01), concentrations of Al and Fe follow parallel trends downcore. 

Vertical distributions for Ba, Pb, Cr, V, and Zn, as well as Be, Cu, Ni, Sb, and Tl, follow trends 

similar to those observed for Al and Fe, with the coefficients of variation (CVs) for the metal/Al 

ratios all <8%. According to the age-dating results, pre-oil and gas development sediment is 

clearly present at depths >5 cm and post-development (since 1970) sediment would most likely 

be found in the top 5 cm of the sediment column. At the station located just east of Endicott 

Island (station E01), post-development sediment appears to be restricted to the top 4 cm of the 

sediment column. No discernible differences in metal/Al ratios (i.e., downcore variability 

<10%) are observed for all metals except As, Mn, Cd, and Ag, the same trend observed for the 

core from station P01. 

At station 6G, on the Colville River Delta, post-development sediment appears to be restricted to 

the top 3 cm of the sediment column. Once again, no discernible differences in metal/Al ratios 

(i.e., downcore variability <10%) are observed for all metals except Mn, As, Cd, and Ag, the 

same trend observed for the cores from stations P01 and E01. 

Nine (Ag, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, and Zn) of the 16 metals investigated during this study 

have been assigned ERL and ERM concentrations by Long et al. (1995). These guidelines are 

evolving as demonstrated by the extensive efforts of Field et al. (1999) to validate values for Hg, 

Pb, and Zn. Some difficulties still exist with ERL values for Cr, Cu, and Ni, as discussed below. 

Overall, the sediment quality data should be used primarily as guidelines at this time. No 

concentrations of any of the 9 metals in surficial sediments or the 2001 core samples exceed 

their respective values for the ERM . Therefore, adverse biological effects are not expected to 

be a frequent occurrence at any site in the study area as the result of trace metals. Furthermore, 

no concentrations of Ag, Cd, Hg, Pb, or Zn from this study exceed the respective values for the 

ERL and thus adverse biological effects from these 4 metals would be rare. Many points on the 

Al versus Cu and Cr plots exceed the present ERL. However, the ERL for each of these metals 

is less than or very close to the values for average crustal abundance and natural levels found in 

many types of sediment. 

Summary and Recommendations 

The results of the 2001 coring program indicate that depositional areas do exist within the study 

area, though most of the area is erosional in nature. Where net deposition is occurring the 

sedimentation rates are low (<0.1cm/year) in spite of massive inputs of sediment from rivers 

within these areas. The hydrocarbon and metals results show no evidence of anthropogenic 
ES-7 

inputs from the Northstar development and current concentrations and sources are very similar 

to what have occurred historically (well before development) in the study area. 
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

22000

Time

Response_

05300235.D\FID2B

S edim ent C ore P 01 0-2 cm

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAAC0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHP

Compounds

Total PAH (ug/Kg)

36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): W0611.D

T22

T21

T19

T18

T15

T12

T4 T11

Figure ES-1. Example of Compositional “Triplot” from Sediment Core P01 

Interval 0-2 cm – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH Distribution Histogram 

(middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

PAH compound name abbreviations are defined in Table 2-3 

n-C17 

n-C27 
Figure ES-2. Regression of Total PAHs versus Silt+Clay in 2001 Cores Samples 

Compared with 1999 and 2000 Surface Sediment Samples

Silt+Clay(%)

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LN Total PAH less perylene (ug/Kg)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

YEAR

 2001

 2000

 1999

Total Population

Rsq = 0.5197 

5D

4C

L01

N08

N04

N15

N11

N01
0.000

0.0200.0400.0600.0800.1000.1200.1400.160

3A-2

3A-4

3A-6

3A-10

3A-16

3A-20

6A-2

6A-4

6A-6

6A-10

6A-14

6A-18

6G-2

6G-4

6G-6

6G-8

6G-10

6G-12

6G-14

6G-16

6G-18

6G-20

E01-2

E01-4

E01-6

E01-8

E01-10

E01-12

L02-2

L02-4

L02-6

L02-12

L02-16

L02-22

N02-2

N02-4

N02-6

N02-12

N02-16

N02-22

N03-2

N03-4

N03-6

N03-10

N03-16

N03-20

P01-2

P01-4

P01-6

P018

Sediment Core ID - Depth

Pyrogenic PAH:Petrogenic PAH Ratio

Figure ES-3. Pyrogenic/Petrogenic PAH Ratios for 2001 Sediment Cores – all Depth Intervals 

Dotted lines represent upper and lower 95% confidence intervals for all samples. 
1-1

1.0 Introduction 

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) Amendments of 1978 (92 Stat. 629) 

established a policy for the management of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and for 

protection of the marine and coastal environments. The amendments authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to conduct studies in areas of offshore leasing activities to assess potential impacts on 

the marine and coastal environments resulting from oil exploration, development, and production 

activities. 

In the nearshore Alaskan Beaufort Sea, offshore oil development and production activities 

initially proposed for both the Northstar and Liberty sites by British Petroleum Exploration 

Alaska, Inc. (BPXA) are currently underway at Northstar and halted until further notice at 

Liberty. At Northstar, the oil field was developed from a gravel island and is currently 

producing oil, which is transported to land-based pipelines through a sub-sea pipeline. Extensive 

Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) were prepared for the Northstar area by the U.S. Army 

Engineering District, Alaska (USAEDA, 1999) and for the Liberty area by the U.S. Department 

of Interior (USDOI), Minerals Management Service (MMS; USDOI, 2002). 

In 1998, MMS decided to conduct studies to characterize the pre-development baseline 

environment and to monitor selected parameters over time as part of a long-term program to 

assess potential impacts from oil development and production near both the Northstar and 

Liberty sites. Information generated from these studies will be considered in post-leasing 

decisions to help minimize potential impacts. The program, Arctic Nearshore Impact 

Monitoring in the Development Area (ANIMIDA), was initially designed to carefully monitor 

perturbations and impacts specifically related to construction activities and oil recovery and 

transportation via pipeline from the gravel islands to the onshore processing facilities. Thus, the 

overall rationale of the program was to establish two site-specific baseline and monitoring efforts 

directed at the Northstar and Liberty developments. Priorities were placed on establishing both a 

pre-development baseline and a scientific basis for post-construction/development impact 

monitoring. Elements included contaminants in the sediments and selected marine biota in the 

area; information on the amount and chemistry of the total suspended matter; information on 

other natural and anthropogenic sources of contaminants of concern (hydrocarbons and trace 

metals); and impacts (bioaccumulation) on marine biota. 

1.1 Study Area 

The Alaskan Beaufort Sea comprises the southern part of the Arctic Ocean; it lies adjacent to the 

northern coast of Alaska and extends from the Chukchi Sea at Point Barrow about 370 miles 

(600 kilometers [km]) east to the Canadian border. The Alaskan Beaufort Sea extends north 

about 200 miles (~320 km) to water depths >300 feet (~100 meters [m]) at 73°N. The 

continental shelf of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea is 37 to 75 miles (60 to 121 km) wide and shallow, 

with an average water depth of only 120 feet (~37 m) (USAEDA, 1999). Within 1 to 20 miles 

(1.6 to 32 km) of the coast, the Beaufort Sea is characterized by numerous narrow and low relief 

barrier islands. 
1-2

The Northstar and Liberty project areas are situated in the shallow, coastal waters of the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea (Figure 1-1). The Northstar site (Figure 1-1) is seaward of the barrier islands and 

the Liberty site is landward of several barrier islands. The area of the Northstar development is 

located about 6 miles (~10 km) offshore of Point Storkersen in the Beaufort Sea in water depths 

of 30 to 40 feet (~9 to 12 m). The island was constructed partly on the remains of Seal Island, 

which was built by Shell Oil Company during the 1980s (USAEDA, 1999). The Liberty site is 

about 6 miles (~10 km) offshore in Foggy Island Bay or 1.5 miles (∼2 km) west of Tern Island, 

where water depths are about 22 feet (~6.7 m) (Figure 1-1). This location is 30 miles (~50 km) 

southeast of the proposed Northstar development and 7 miles (~12 km) from the Endicott 

Causeway. 

1.2 Development History in the Study Area 

Over the past three decades, numerous onshore and offshore oil exploration and development 

projects have commenced in both the Alaskan and Canadian Beaufort Seas. Over 20 discoveries 

have been made, including areas such as Endicott (an offshore field in state waters), 

Sagavanirktok Delta North, Eider, and Badami. Because of this past development, the 

ANIMIDA study area is not considered to be “pristine’ from a chemical perspective. Operations 

to the east (i.e., in Canada) may represent a source of contaminants to the Alaskan Beaufort Sea 

and hence to the Northstar and Liberty study areas. An overview of the developments located in 

the eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea is presented in Figure 1-2. 

Since 1975, 17 gravel islands have been constructed in waters less than 50 feet (15 m) deep in 

the Alaskan Beaufort Sea for exploration drilling. Most of these islands remain in some form, 

but have been abandoned by removal of all equipment and erosion protection. Two of these 

gravel islands, Seal and Northstar, are within the Northstar unit. Natural barrier islands have also 

been used for exploration drilling activities and for staging areas (USAEDA, 1999). 

1.3 Current/Proposed Oil Development 

1.3.1 Northstar 

The BPXA Northstar development project is located about 6 miles (~10 km) northwest of 

Prudhoe Bay. While the Northstar Island is in state waters, 6 to 7 wells are or will be in federal 

waters on the OCS. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) approved the Northstar 

project in May 1999 and MMS approval followed in September 1999. Northstar is the first 

offshore oil production facility in the Beaufort Sea without a causeway to shore. At this site, a 

sub-sea pipeline system connects the island and discovered oil to onshore processing facilities. 

Construction of the island was completed by October 2000 and first production began late in 

2001. Recoverable reserves are estimated at 175 million barrels of oil. A schematic of the 

development is shown in Figure 1-3. 

Northstar Island was reconstructed from the existing gravel of its predecessor, Seal Island, and 

from additional gravel hauled to the island from a gravel mine site near the mouth of the 

Kuparuk River. The island is surrounded by a linked concrete mat armor island slope protection 

system and the working surface of the island is surrounded by sheet piling. Drilling and 

production at Northstar has taken place on the gravel island with an above-seawater footprint of 
1-3

about 5 acres (~0.02 km2) (URS Greiner Woodward Clyde [URSGWC], 1998) and a seafloor 

footprint designed to be 635 feet by 970 feet (allowing for uncertainties from construction, the 

footprint may be up to 835 feet by 1,170 feet). Exploration drilling had taken place at Seal 

Island dating back to the 1980s. 

1.3.2 Liberty 

In mid-2002 BPXA announced that they had halted their plans to develop the Liberty Prospect in 

Foggy Island Bay (Figure 1-1). Liberty Prospect is located about 6 miles east of the Endicott 

Project. The proposed location was adjacent to Tern Island, which was the site of exploration 

drilling dating back to 1982. MMS published a final EIS report for Liberty in 2002 (USDOI, 

2002). However, recent information from the oil industry has indicated that there are revitalized 

plans to develop Liberty by directionally drilling from a gravel pad connected to the existing 

Endicott causeway complex. This scenario would greatly reduce the development logistics and 

potential environmental complexities associated with an offshore production island and pipeline 

as originally proposed. The final status of the Liberty Prospect development will influence the 

design of any future monitoring strategies for this prospect. 

1.4 Potential Contaminants and Disturbances of Concern 

There are three potential perturbations to the physical environment that may occur due to 

development activities. These impacts may be a result of: 1) changes to the physical 

environment from construction (gravel island, causeways, pipeline), 2) associated changes in 

sediment inputs and resulting sedimentation, and 3) increased availability of chemicals in the 

environment that may be bioavailable. 

The majority of wastes generated during construction and developmental drilling would consist 

of drill cuttings and spent muds. Drilling fluids would be disposed through onsite injection into 

a permitted disposal well or would be transported offsite to a permitted disposal location. In 

addition, domestic wastewater, soil waste, and produced waters generated during the project 

would be injected into a disposal well. Solid wastes, including scrap metal, would be hauled 

offsite for disposal at an approved facility. 

Chronic discharges of contaminants would occur during every breakup from fluids entrained in 

the ice roads. Entrained contaminants from vehicle exhaust, grease, antifreeze, oil, and other 

vehicle-related fluids would pass into the Beaufort Sea system at each breakup. These 

discharges are not expected to be major; however, they would exist over the life of the field. 

The greatest effect on water quality from gravel island and pipeline construction would be 

additional turbidity caused by increases in suspended particles in the water column as a result of 

island and pipeline construction. Turbidity increases from construction activities generally are 

temporary and are expected to end within a few days after construction stops. Trenching for the 

oil pipeline at Northstar may have caused resuspension of existing bottom sediments. Both island 

and pipeline construction may have resulted in incorporation of suspended sediment into sea ice. 

Research findings concerning sources, concentrations, and dispersion pathways for suspended 

sediment are presented in separate reports for Task 5 and Task 7 of the ANIMIDA program. 
1-4

1.5 Study Objectives 

The primary objectives of the overall ANIMIDA program are to characterize and monitor the 

physical environment of the Northstar and Liberty development areas to evaluate potential and 

actual impacts from these major offshore oil developments. 

The ANIMIDA program is being implemented in two phases. During Phase I, chemistry 

measurements were made during the open-water season near the Northstar and Liberty sites, and 

at Beaufort Sea Monitoring Program (BSMP) stations. A winter sampling program was also 

conducted under Phase I to collect data under ice-covered conditions. The 1999 open-water 

sampling represented pre-construction baselines at both the Northstar and Liberty locations. The 

winter sampling represented the first construction-monitoring period for Northstar and additional 

pre-construction data at Liberty. The overall objectives of Phase I were to implement a 

baseline/monitoring program focused on those measurements and parameters that could be used 

to determine the existence, extent, and magnitude of environmental effects from the Northstar 

and Liberty oil development projects. 

The plans for Phase II evolved from: a) consideration of the early results from Phase I 

monitoring; b) reviews of the program by the Scientific Review Board (SRB); and c) public 

comments received at the first Program Workshop in October 1999 in Anchorage, Alaska. The 

overall objective for Phase II Task 2 is to characterize the sediments near ongoing and proposed 

offshore oil development related to potential contaminants and serve as a continuation of the 

Phase I organic and inorganic chemistry monitoring program. The specific objectives for Phase 

II Task Order 2 are listed below: 

• Perform annual or biannual field studies (fiscal years [FYs] 2000 to 2003) for the monitoring 

of sediment and biota chemistry in the nearshore Beaufort Sea, focusing on potential impacts 

from the Northstar and Liberty developments 

• Perform organic and inorganic chemical analyses that are consistent with previous 

measurements and thus capable of determining any observed incremental impacts 

• Coordinate chemistry monitoring with other ANIMIDA Phase II tasks (biology and sediment 

transport) and with ANIMIDA-coordinated studies (e.g., physical oceanography) 

The results of the post-Northstar construction Phase II Task 2 sediment and biota sampling 

(summer 2000) indicated that no organic and metal contaminant inputs from Northstar were 

detected, and that any observed changes were well within the natural variability (Brown et al., 

2002). However, some hydrocarbon and sediment grain-size trends were observed near 

Northstar, which warranted further investigation in 2001. Based on these observations, a Phase 

II Task 2 sediment core sampling program was initiated in the summer of 2001 to further 

evaluate trends of hydrocarbons and metals in the historical record of sediment cores from the 

monitoring area. 
1-5

1.5.1 Sediment Core Research Questions and Hypotheses 

The objectives of the ANIMIDA program address a series of scientific questions concerning the 

potential impacts of the Northstar and Liberty developments. Each question can be turned into a 

testable hypothesis, which guides the design of the technical program. Two pairs of questions 

(Q) and candidate hypotheses (H) applicable to the Task 2 2001 sediment core sampling follow. 

Q1. What trends in the background levels of the chemicals of concern (i.e., the organic and tracemetal contaminants) that are known to be associated with oil exploration, development, and 

production activities are seen in the historical sediment record, and do the concentrations of these 

chemicals increase as a result of these activities? 

H1a. The concentrations of organic pollutants in sediments do not show any trend within the 

sediment core as a result of past and present oil exploration, development, and production 

activities. 

H1b. The concentrations of metal pollutants in sediments do not show any trend within the 

sediment core as a result of past and present oil exploration, development, and production 

activities. 

Q2. If concentrations of organic and/or metal pollutants do increase in the environment as a 

result of past and present oil exploration, development, and production activities, do the 

increased concentrations exceed environmental quality guidelines (e.g., Effects Range-Lows 

[ERLs])? 

H2a. Concentrations of organic pollutants in the sediment cores do not pose an ecological risk 

to marine organisms as determined by sediment quality benchmarks. 

H2b. Concentrations of trace-metal pollutants in the sediment cores do not pose an ecological 

risk to marine organisms as determined by sediment quality benchmarks. 

Incremental variations in hydrocarbons, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and metals 

will be difficult to measure because of the known high background levels and high variability 

from natural inputs – eroded shales, coals, peat, etc. These changes can only be inferred from a 

strategy of: 1) low-level sensitive measurements that can detect change; 2) a statistical sampling 

program that affords enough measurements to detect changes; and 3) a sampling program that 

includes obtaining representative other sources (natural and anthropogenic) of these chemicals 

and contaminants, so that sources can be fingerprinted and in turn detected and identified in 

sediments. All of these elements are built into this program. While the program is designed to 

accomplish this “baselining,” it is inherently limited by the large variability and the dynamics of 

the area, which in turn impose practical limits on the amount of replication that can be 

accomplished for a given program budget. The bottom line is that changes in measured 

parameters might only be determined by factors of two or more, which may be the lowest 

statistically significant change that can be detected in pre- and post-development monitoring 

efforts. 
Figure 1-1. Map of the ANIMIDA Study Area

Oliktok Point

Jones Islands

Kuparuk River

West Dock

Prudhoe Bay

Reindeer Island

Cross Island

Boulder Patch

Endicott

Development Is.

Narwhal Island

Jeanette Island

Pole Island

Bullen Point

Sagavanirktok

River

Northstar Island

Liberty Prospect

150°W

150°W

149°W

149°W

148°W

148°W

147°W

147°W

146°W

70°N

70°N

70°30'N

70°30'N

0 4 8 12 16 20

Kilometers

0 4 8 12 16

Nautical Miles

Area of Detail

Beaufort Sea

AAllaasskkaa

Locus Map

Barrow

File Name: 72104004.mxd

Figure 1-3: Schematic of BP’s Northstar Development 

(from: http://www.bp.com/alaska/index_nstar.htm) 

u:mms animida\phase I report\final report files\interim section 1.doc 
2-1 

2.0 Methods 

This section describes the methods used in field sampling, field measurements, laboratory 

analyses, and data analyses. 

2.1 Field Methods and Study Design 

2.1.1 Study Design 

The study area for the ANIMIDA program was defined as the nearshore Beaufort Sea, bounded 

by the Stockton Islands to the east, and by the Jones Islands to the west. This area encompasses 

both the Liberty and Northstar prospect areas, and much of the shoreline where regional Prudhoe 

Bay oil production activities are occurring. One open-water survey was conducted from July 24 

to August 14, 2001 under Phase II of the ANIMIDA program. The scientific crew, on board the 

MMS Research Vessel (R/V) 1273, collected sediment cores, water samples, and biota (fish) 

samples for chemical analyses from the program study area. This report focuses solely on the 

collection, analyses, and results for the sediment core samples. 

Sediment cores were collected from nearshore areas of the Beaufort Sea adjacent to Liberty 

prospect, Northstar Island, and reference sites to determine the geochronology of the cores and 

analyze them for oil industry-related contaminants (metals and organics). Stations for sediment 

core sampling were selected based on historical data from BSMP, Northstar Island, and Liberty 

prospect stations. Historical grain-size data were used to identify those stations that had finegrained sediments and would be good candidates for depositional areas. The stations where 

sediment cores were collected are listed in Table 2-1 and are shown in Figure 2-1. 

2.1.2 Summer 2001 Field Sampling 

The summer 2001 cruise was conducted from July 24 to August 14, 2001, and coincided with a 

period of expected favorable ice and weather conditions in the program study area. Members of 

the field team arrived in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska on July 24, with additional team members joining 

the effort through August 1, 2001. The field sampling and logistics plan (Arthur D. Little, 2001) 

prepared for the summer 2001 field survey provides detailed explanations of the field methods 

for sample collection, equipment decontamination, and subsampling of sediment cores. Field 

sampling personnel from Battelle, Arthur D. Little (ADL), Florida Institute of Technology (FIT), 

Applied Marine Sciences (AMS), and Kinnetic Laboratories (KLI) participated in the survey. 

The scientific team and ship’s captain (Mark Mertz - TEG Ocean Services) conducted the work 

on a 12- to 20-hour-a-day basis, depending on favorable operating conditions. A detailed 

description of the activities conducted during the survey, including a log of the daily activities, is 

included in the Cruise Report (ICF, 2003). A summary of the field sampling activities and 

methods follows in this section. 

Samples 

The scientific crew collected sediment core samples for chemical analyses from the program 

study area. Sediment cores were collected at 11 nearshore and offshore stations: 4 historic 

BSMP stations, 2 Northstar area stations, 3 Liberty stations, 1 Sagavanirktok River Delta 

(Endicott) station, and 1 Prudhoe Bay station. 
2-2 

A complete list of the sediment core sampling stations that were occupied and sampled in the 

study area is included in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 also provides the station identification, station 

type, latitude and longitude, depth, date and time of sampling, and the type of chemical and 

geophysical analyses for each sample. Figure 2-1, a map of the ANIMIDA study area, shows the 

locations of the summer 2001 sediment core sampling stations. Additional daily survey and 

sampling station information is included in the 2001 station logs contained in the Cruise Report 

(ICF, 2003). 

Field Sampling Procedures 

Standard sampling procedures were followed at each sampling station, according to the Summer 

2001 Field Logistics and Sampling Plan for the MMS ANIMIDA Program (ADL, 2001). The 

sediment core sampling procedure included deployment of a dual-barrel gravity corer with ~300 

pounds of extra lead weight by ~ 10-foot “freefall” into the bottom to collect “side-by-side” 

cores for geochronology and chemistry. 

The most significant technical difficulty during this survey was obtaining gravity core samples of 

adequate length and appropriate sediment type (i.e., sediment representative of a depositional 

environment). Minor modifications were made to the dual-barrel core sampler in the field to 

maximize sediment penetration and minimize sediment core disturbance (extra weights were 

added and core cutters were removed). The core sample collections were limited to areas where 

soft, fine-grained sediment could be found. Core attempts were made at many stations where 

promising fine-grained surface sediment was underlain by hard clays, gravels, or sandy 

substrates. Core penetrations in such circumstances were often limited to 15 to 20 centimeters 

(cm), were prone to washouts, and core samples were subsequently not collected. However, 

favorable cores of 20 to 35 cm in depth were collected at 11 stations throughout the study area. 

Field scientists maintained field notes throughout the survey in logbooks and in field forms 

(station logs). Any exceptions to the procedures described in the logistics and sampling plan 

were recorded in the appropriate field record(s). Photodocumentation was conducted during the 

survey using a 35-millimeter (mm) camera and digital still/video camera (capable of 15- to 60-

second clips). Field activities were photographed and videotaped to record specific samples, 

sampling procedures, and unusual sediment types. All photodocumentation will be provided to 

MMS on compact discs. 

2.2 Analytical Methods 

2.2.1. Geochronology of Sediment Cores 

Sediment samples used for age dating were sub-sectioned in 0.5-cm intervals. Approximately 8 

to 10 grams (g) of freeze-dried sediment from each layer (0.5-cm thick) of the sediment cores 

were ground to a fine powder using a Spex 8000 mixer mill. The samples were then tightly 

packed into a 2-cm diameter, 5-cm long polycarbonate vial to a depth of 30±1 mm. A rubber 

stopper was used to seal the vial and was cemented into place with two-part epoxy to prevent 

leakage of Rn-222 and disruption of secular equilibrium between Ra-226 and Pb-210. The 

samples were then set aside for at least 20 days to establish secular equilibrium and the activities 

of the various radionuclides were then determined by counting. 
2-3 

For counting, the sealed vial was placed in a well-type intrinsic germanium detector (WiGe, 

Princeton Gamma Tech Model IGW11023). The samples were then counted for a period of 2 to 

3 days or until sufficient counts of the pertinent radionuclides were obtained (>1,000 net counts 

for Pb-210). The peaks monitored for the purposes of this study were: Pb-210 at 46.5 kilo 

electron volts (KeV), Pb-214 at 295.2 KeV and 351.9 KeV, Bi-214 at 609.3 KeV, and Cs-137 at 

661.6 KeV. The Ra-226 daughter isotopes Pb-214 (2 peaks) and Bi-214 were used to determine 

the activity of Ra-226. Detector efficiency and counting accuracy were standardized using 

standard reference river sediment 4350B (Cs-137) from the U.S. National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) and RGU-1 (Pb-210) from the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

The specific activity as decompositions per minute (dpm) per gram of each sediment sample was 

calculated from the detector efficiency, gamma intensity, geometry factor, and sample weight 

(Kang et al., 2000). All values are reported as the activity on the date of coring. Errors are 

shown based on 1-sigma counting statistics. 

Sedimentation rates (S) in cm/year were calculated using the following equations with the 

assumptions being made that there is no sediment mixing: 

Cs-137: 

 Depth in cm at which ActivityCs-137 = maximum 

 S = _________________________________________ 

 [Year – (1963 and/or 1950)] in years 

Pb-210: 

 (-) decay constant for Pb-210 (0.0311 year-1) 

 S = _____________________________________________________________ 

 Slope for plot of natural logarithm (ln) excess Pb-210 vs. sediment depth 

The excess Pb-210 is calculated by subtracting the mean of A(Pb-214, Bi-214) from APb-210. 

2.2.2 Ancillary Parameters 

2.2.1.1 Grain Size 

Determination of grain size followed the classic method of Folk (1974) using a combination of 

wet-sieving and pipette techniques. Initially, 10 to 30 g of wet sediment were placed in a widemouth dish using a larger mass for sandy samples and a smaller mass for muddy samples. A 

small amount of distilled-deionized water (DDW) was added to the dish, clay lumps were broken 

up with a gloved finger, and the wetted sample was poured into a 200-milliliter (mL) glass bottle 

and shaken vigorously for a few minutes. Then the sample was poured through 2 mm (gravel) 

and 63 micrometer (μm; sand) sieves and rinsed until the water was clear. The sediment on each 

sieve was washed into beakers #1 and #2, respectively, allowed to settle and the overlying, clear 

water was decanted. The weighed beakers were dried at 100 to 110°C and re-weighed. 

The glass bottle containing the muddy water (<63 μm) was shaken for about 15 minutes and 

gently poured into a 1,000-mL cylinder. The cylinder was stirred vigorously with a stirring rod 

and a timer was started as soon as the rod was removed. Dispersant was not needed in these 
2-4 

samples of marine sediment since the mud fraction dispersed extremely well. After 20 seconds, 

20 mL of sample was withdrawn from a depth of 20 cm using a Class A pipette. The pipette 

sample was drained into weighed beaker #3, dried at 100 to 110°C for 24 hours, and weighed for 

total silt + clay. After 2 hours and 3 minutes, 20 mL of sample was withdrawn from a depth of 

10 cm using a Class A pipette. This pipette sample was drained into weighed beaker #4, dried at 

100 to 110°C for 24 hours, and weighed for total clay. All masses were determined to the 

nearest 0.01 g. The total mass of sample was equal to the sum of masses in beakers 1 + 2 + 3(x 

50). The individual percentages were calculated as follows: 

• % gravel = (beaker #1 sediment/sum) x 100% 

• % sand = (beaker #2 sediment/sum) x 100% 

• % silt = {[(50 x beaker #3) – (50 x beaker #4)]/sum} x 100% 

• % clay = [(50 x beaker #4)/sum] x 100% 

2.2.1.2 Total Organic Carbon 

A 0.5- to –1-g portion of the freeze-dried sediment was placed in a 20-mL Pyrex beaker. Five 

mL of 10% phosphoric acid (H3PO4) were added to remove any inorganic carbon present. The 

sediment was dried at 60°C and re-weighed to determine the increase in weight due to the 

formation of calcium phosphate from adding H3PO4. Then, approximately 200 to 400 

milligrams (mg) of pre-treated sediment were weighed into ceramic boats and combusted at 

900°C in a Shimadzu TOC-5050A carbon system with SSM-5000A solid sampling module 

following the manufacturer’s instructions. The total organic carbon (TOC) content of the 

sediment samples was determined using a four-point calibration curve with pure sucrose as the 

standard. The TOC concentrations were corrected to account for the increase in sediment mass 

following the addition of H3PO4. The calibration curve was checked every 10 samples by 

analyzing certified reference material (CRM) MESS-2, a marine sediment issued by the National 

Research Council of Canada (NRC). 

2.2.3 Organic Chemical Parameters 

Analysis for organic contaminants was conducted by ADL/ICF’s environmental chemistry 

laboratory. The analyses were conducted in accordance with the laboratory’s standard operating 

procedures (SOPs) and generally followed the same procedures used in previous BSMP studies 

(Boehm et al., 1990). 

During the course of this program, the prime contractor ADL filed for bankruptcy protection and 

was subsequently sold off by division. The environmental consulting and laboratory division of 

ADL was purchased by ICF in May 2002. The ADL SOPs were adopted, as is, with no technical 

changes by ICF. The ADL/ICF laboratory SOPs are archived at ICF’s Lexington, MA office. 

To avoid confusion and remain consistent, the laboratory will be referred to throughout this 

report as the ADL/ICF laboratory. 
2-5 

The organic analyses for the sediment core samples were: 

Saturated hydrocarbons (SHC) by gas chromatography/flame ionization detection (GC/FID) 

PAH by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry detection (GC/MS) 

Geochemical biomarkers (steranes/triterpanes [S/T]) by GC/MS 

Targeted compounds are listed in Tables 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4. This section describes the analytical 

methods that were used in performing the organic chemical analyses. 

Sediment Sample Preparation 

The sediment samples were prepared using a procedure based on United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA) Method 3550A, Ultrasonic Extraction (USEPA, 1993). The 

method modifications include orbital shaking of the sample in extraction solvent for 1 hour 

following the final sonication to enhance recovery of target contaminants. The following is a 

summary of the method. 

Approximately 30 g (wet weight) of the homogenized sediment were weighed into a Teflon® jar 

and dried with sodium sulfate. Another 5-g subsample was placed into an aluminum-weighing 

pan and heated at 105°C to a constant weight, for dry-weight determination. The sample was 

serially extracted 3 times with 100 mL of methylene chloride and acetone (1:1, volume-tovolume [V/V]), each time by sonication. The final sonication was followed by orbital shaking in 

the extraction solvent for 1 hour. 

The surrogates were spiked into the sample after the first addition of solvent and before the first 

extraction. All sediment samples were spiked with low-level surrogates (as defined by the 

laboratory SOP) because target compound concentrations in the sample were expected to be at 

trace levels. 

The surrogates used were: naphthalene-d8, acenaphthene-d10, phenanthrene-d10, and 

benzo[a]pyrene-d12 for PAH analysis, 5a-androstane and d50-tetracosane for SHC analysis, and 

d66-dotriacontane for S/T analysis. 

After extraction, samples were concentrated using a Kuderna-Danish (K-D) concentrator on a 

hot-water bath. An extract weight was taken if necessary to determine general organic content 

levels prior to column cleanup. Extracts were then treated with copper to remove sulfur, and 

split in half. One-half was archived in a freezer at –20°C and the other half processed through a 

silica gel column as described in the Extract Fractionation subsection. 

Extract Fractionation 

The sediment extracts were fractionated in order to remove potential interference and to improve 

the quality of the analysis at trace levels. The procedure used for fractionation was similar to 

that used for previous BSMP investigations (Boehm et al., 1990). Prior to fractionation, the 

sample extracts were exchanged from methylene chloride to hexane under nitrogen. 
2-6 

The fractionation was performed using a 30-cm by 1-cm column that was wet-packed in 

methylene chloride with 100 percent activated silica gel/5 percent deactivated alumina/activated 

copper (approximately 11:1:2 g) and preconditioned with 30 mL methylene chloride followed by 

30 mL of hexane. The sample extract (which had been verified to be less than 50 mg extractable 

material per 1 mL) was loaded onto the column. The sample was eluted with 18 mL of hexane 

and the isolated saturate (f1) fraction was collected. This was followed by 21 mL of 

hexane:methylene chloride (1:1) to isolate the aromatic (f2) fractions. 

Internal Standard Addition 

The extracts (or extract fractions) were reduced to a measured final volume under a stream of 

nitrogen. The final sample extracts were spiked with SHC, PAH, and S/T internal standards, as 

appropriate for each extract or fraction. In general, the extracts were concentrated to 

approximately 250 microliters (μL) before adding the internal standards in order to lower 

detection limits. The internal standard compounds used were: chrysene-d12 and fluorene-d10 

for PAH; chrysene-d12 for S/T; and d62-triacontane for SHC. The amount of SHC internal 

standard added to the extracts was adjusted to obtain a target concentration of 50 micrograms 

(μg) per mL. The amount of PAH and S/T internal standard added to the extract was adjusted to 

obtain a target concentration of 1 μg/mL. 

Organic Instrumental Analysis 

Instrumental analysis of the sediment samples included SHC by GC/FID, PAH by GC/MS, and 

S/T by GC/MS. The laboratory SOPs include the acceptability criteria for the calibration, 

procedural blank, surrogate compound recoveries, and spike recoveries, as well as the corrective 

action if the criteria are not met, reporting requirements, and method detection limit (MDL) 

protocols. The data quality objectives (DQO) for these analyses are summarized in Section 2.3 

and in Tables 2-7 and 2-8. 

Saturated Hydrocarbons by Gas Chromatography/Flame Ionization Detection 

Analysis for SHCs was performed using a method based on USEPA Method 8015 (USEPA, 

1993). Target compounds for the method are SHCs, including normal alkanes from n-C9 

through n-C40, pristane, phytane, and selected isoprenoids. Instrument analysis was performed 

by injection of a portion of the prepared sample extract onto a 30-m long by 0.25-mm innerdiameter (ID) fused-silica capillary column with DB-5 bonded phase. This column provides 

baseline resolution of n-alkanes from n-C9 to n-C40 and n-C17/pristane and n-C18/phytane 

pairs. The injection port is designed for splitless injection and includes a silanized wide-bore 

glass liner containing a plug of silanized glass wool to reduce high-molecular-weight mass 

discrimination. 

Qualitative identification of target compounds was made by comparison to a standard mixture of 

calibration standards. Quantitation of the analytes was based on the internal standard compound 

(d62-triacontane), which was spiked into the sample just prior to analysis. The target compound 

concentrations were corrected based on surrogate recovery. 
2-7 

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry 

Analysis for PAHs was performed using a method based on USEPA Method 8270 (USEPA, 

1993). The method modifications include analysis for an expanded list of PAHs and operation in 

the selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode to lower detection limits. 

The sample extract was injected onto a 30-m long by 0.25-mm ID fused-silica capillary column 

with DB-5 bonded phase. This column provides baseline resolution of target PAHs. The 

injection port is designed for splitless injection and includes a silanized wide-bore glass liner 

containing a plug of silanized glass wool to reduce high-molecular-weight mass discrimination. 

Qualitative identification of target compounds was made by comparison to a standard mixture of 

target PAHs. Identification of alkyl PAHs was made by comparison to reference oil samples 

analyzed with each batch of samples. The concentrations of the individual PAHs were 

calculated relative to one of the two internal standards that were spiked into the sample just prior 

to instrumental analysis. The target PAH concentrations were quantified using average response 

factors (RFs) generated from the five-point calibration curve. To quantify the alkyl PAH, 

homologue groups were assigned the RF of their respective parent PAH compound. Compound 

concentrations were corrected based on surrogate recoveries. 

Steranes and Triterpanes 

Analysis for S/Ts was performed by GC/MS in the SIM mode using a method similar to that 

used for PAH analysis. Qualitative identification of the target S/Ts was made by comparison to 

a reference oil analyzed with each batch. 

The concentrations of the identified S/Ts were calculated versus the internal standard chrysened12. All target triterpane concentrations were quantified using the average RF of 17(H), 21(H)-

hopane (T23) generated from the initial calibration. All target sterane concentrations were 

quantified using the average RF of cholestane (S17) in the initial calibration. Surrogate recovery 

of 5b(H)-cholane was calculated relative to the internal standard. Compound concentrations 

were corrected based on surrogate recovery. 

2.2.4 Inorganic Parameters 

Analysis for inorganic parameters was conducted by FIT. The analyses were conducted in 

accordance with FIT’s SOPs. The inorganic analyses for the sediment samples were trace and 

major metals. Targeted analytes and associated MDLs are listed in Table 2-5. This section 

describes the analytical methods that were used in performing the chemical analyses. 

2.2.4.1 Trace and Major Metals Analysis in Sediment 

Sediment samples were initially brought to room temperature, then each wet sediment sample 

was homogenized in the original 75-mL plastic vial using a Teflon mixing rod. Approximately 

20 g of each sample were transferred into a pre-weighed plastic vial to determine water content. 

Once transferred, the wet sediment and the vial were re-weighed. In addition, about 2 to 4 g of 

sample were transferred into Pyrex centrifuge tubes to determine the Hg content of the 

sediments (element symbols are defined in Table 2-5). Samples intended for water content 
2-8 

measurement were frozen, freeze-dried, and re-weighed to determine the water content. The 

dried sediment samples were again homogenized using a Teflon mixing rod. 

About 0.45 g of freeze-dried, homogenized sediment and CRM sediment (MESS-2) were totally 

digested in Teflon beakers using concentrated, high-purity hydrogen fluoride (HF)-nitric acid 

(HNO3)-perchloric acid (HClO4). This method was chosen because it is a total digestion and 

thus accounts for the entire amount of metal in the sample. In the digestion process, 1 mL 

HClO4, 1 mL HNO3, and 3 mL HF were added to the sediment in the Teflon beaker, covered 

with a Teflon® watch cover, and heated at 50°C until a moist paste formed. The mixture was 

heated for another 3 hours at 80°C with an additional 2 mL HNO3 and 3 mL HF before bringing 

the sample to dryness. Finally, 1 mL HNO3 and about 30 mL DDW were added to the sample 

and heated strongly to dissolve perchlorate salts and reduce the volume. The completely 

dissolved and clear samples were diluted to 20 mL with DDW. 

Sediment samples to be analyzed for Hg were digested by heating 2 to 4 g of wet sediment in 

acid-washed, Pyrex centrifuge tubes with 4 mL HNO3 and 2 mL sulfuric acid (H2SO4). 

Sample tubes were heated for 1 hour in a 90°C water bath and allowed to cool. Each tube was 

centrifuged at 2,000 revolutions per minute (rpm) and the supernatant decanted into a 25-mL 

graduated cylinder. The sediment pellet was rinsed twice with 5 mL DDW, centrifuged, and 

decanted into the graduated cylinder before diluting to a final volume of 20 mL with DDW. 

Labware used in the digestion process was acid-washed with hot 8 Normal (N) HNO3 and rinsed 

three times with DDW. Two procedural blanks, two duplicate samples, and two CRMs were 

prepared with each set of 40 samples. The CRM used was MESS-2, a sediment sample issued 

by the NRC. 

Sediment samples, CRMs, and procedural and reagent blanks were analyzed by flame atomic 

absorption spectrometry (FAAS), graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry (GFAAS; 

Zeeman or Continuum background correction), cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry 

(CVAAS), or inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry (ICP/MS). Mercury concentrations 

were measured by CVAAS. The method used for each element and the corresponding MDLs are 

presented in Table 2-5. All analytical techniques followed manufacturers’ specifications, 

laboratory SOPs, and the details provided in Section 2.3 below. These methods are based on 

USEPA methods described for Series 7000 (FAAS and GFAAS), Series 7470 (CVAAS), and 

Series 6010A (ICP/MS) (USEPA, 1991). 

2.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

A quality assurance (QA) plan, which included quality control (QC) measures, was employed for 

the program. This section presents the key elements of the plan. 
2-9 

2.3.1 Quality Assurance 

2.3.1.1 Documentation 

The procedures for monitoring the activities of key staff, meeting contract requirements, 

submission of all deliverables, budget control, and communications are detailed in the various 

documents that together compose the project management plan: 

A detailed work breakdown structure (WBS) for all tasks, designating primary task leader and 

responsibilities for key personnel and staff; 

A field sampling and logistics plan for field operations, including scheduling, staffing, training, 

QC sample collection and analysis procedures, sample chain-of-custody specifications, and 

sample shipping; and 

A laboratory work plan for laboratory analysis, including laboratory procedures, analytical 

DQOs, QC procedures, corrective action criteria, and data entry/data management. 

The supporting QA documentation includes the general company policies and procedures (hiring 

practices, performance evaluations, program management and control tools, and technical review 

procedures), the Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) for the respective laboratories, and SOPs for 

field and laboratory operations. 

 2.3.1.2 Quality Management 

Program 

As the Program Manager, Mr. John Brown was the primary contact with MMS for the program 

and was responsible for the communication, coordination, and scheduling of all tasks, subtasks, 

meetings, and deliverables. The Program Manager was kept apprised of the program’s status by 

the field sampling and analytical laboratory leaders. 

Field 

John Brown also served as the Field Team Leader for the sediment core collection survey and, as 

such, was responsible for completion of all field activities in accordance with the field sampling 

and logistics plan and communication with the field team. He was also responsible for 

implementing field QC, including issuance and tracking of measurement and test equipment; 

proper labeling, handling, storage, and shipping of samples; chain-of-custody procedures; and 

control and collection of all field documentation. 

The field sampling team was provided a briefing of QA measures prior to beginning field 

sampling. The field personnel were briefed on the potential for contamination and crosscontamination of samples and given guidance on techniques to minimize such problems. In 

general, this included training on the use of pre-cleaned sample containers; use of clean sampling 

equipment; use of decontamination protocols; and good handling practices. It also included 

training on the specified sampling procedures and protocols in accordance with SOPs. 
2-10 

Laboratory 

As organic chemistry task leader, Ms. Linda Cook was responsible for oversight of the organics 

analyses performed by the ADL/ICF’s laboratory. Dr. John Trefry was the inorganic chemistry 

task leader and was responsible for oversight of the inorganic analyses performed by FIT. 

Laboratory analyses were performed in accordance with the laboratories’ QAMs and the projectspecific laboratory workplan. Oversight of the laboratory QA program was the responsibility of 

the laboratory’s QA manager. Implementation of quality practices was the responsibility of the 

laboratory manager, who had the following specific responsibilities: 

• Implementing and adhering to the QA and corporate policies and procedures within the 

laboratory; 

• Approving SOPs; 

• Maintaining adequate staffing; and, 

• Implementing internal/external audit findings and corrective actions. 

Prior to the start of laboratory analyses, the laboratory staff were provided project-specific 

training, including a discussion of the project background and objectives; project organization; 

sample preparation and instrumental analysis procedures; DQOs; QC procedures; and reporting 

instructions. The task leaders provided this training. 

2.3.1.3 Sample Custody, Preservation, and Tracking 

The following section describes the procedures that were employed to ensure the integrity of the 

samples, including prevention of contamination in the field, ensuring safe transport, and 

documenting sample custody and transfer. 

Sample Handling 

All field sampling equipment was decontaminated prior to use at each sampling station. The 

equipment was: 

• scrubbed with brushes and liquid soap-and-water mixture to remove any accumulated 

sediment; 

• wiped clean with a sorbent pad, paper towel, or rag (if necessary); 

• rinsed with seawater (from hose or buckets, as appropriate); 

• rinsed with distilled water; 

• rinsed with isopropanol solvent; and, 

• rinsed with deionized water (optional). 

The clean equipment was prevented from recontamination prior to sampling by either 

decontamination immediately prior to use or protection by wrapping securely in aluminum foil 

that had been decontaminated. Precautions were taken to ensure that clean equipment did not 

contact anything other than the sample, air, or other clean equipment. Clean equipment was 

prevented from contact with the ground (except for the immediate sampling area), hands, 

clothing, plastic bags, buckets, trays, etc. 
2-11 

At all times after collection, sample integrity and custody were maintained. Chain-of-custody 

(COC) procedures are specified in formal SOPs and are followed for all sample storage and 

shipment activities. Chain-of-custody seals and sample labels were applied to each sample 

container, ensuring sample integrity. All field samples were unambiguously labeled in 

waterproof ink with the following information: 

• Sample site; 

• Unique field sample number; 

• Date and time of sample collection; and, 

• Details of preservation used. 

The types of sample containers used and the sample storage methods are provided in Table 2-6. 

Pre-cleaned sample containers that had been certified as such by the vendor were used for the 

program. 

In the field, sediment, biota, and QC samples for chemical analysis were immediately 

inventoried and stored in a secure area after collection. Inventory included counting the samples 

to ensure that all samples were collected and returned to the custody area on board, documenting 

all samples in field logs, and preparing the COC form. 

Sample Shipment 

Following completion of the cruise, samples were packed in coolers for overnight shipment from 

the Prudhoe Bay Operations Camp (PBOC) in Deadhorse, Alaska using Federal Express 

airfreight courier. The samples were frozen prior to transportation and shipped to the appropriate 

analytical laboratories (Table 2-6) either frozen, packed on dry ice, or refrigerated packed with 

frozen blue ice via overnight service. Custody seals were used on all shipping coolers to 

maintain custodial security while the samples were in the possession of a third party (i.e., 

airfreight courier). 

Receipt at ADL 

Quality assurance practices were applied when samples were received at the laboratory. The 

laboratory sample custodian received all samples. The coolers were checked for the presence of 

intact custody seals before they were opened. The coolers were then opened and the temperature 

of the samples was measured by measuring the temperature of a representative sample. Each 

sample was carefully checked for identification, which was then cross-referenced against the 

COC records. Samples were logged in and a unique laboratory identification number was 

assigned to each sample. Problems or discrepancies with the coolers, samples, or documentation 

were recorded and the project manager was notified immediately so that issues could be 

resolved. 

After samples were received into the laboratory and a unique identification number assigned, the 

samples were placed in a secure, uniquely identified storage area until extraction. As is the 

practice by the laboratory, temperatures of all of the refrigerators and freezers were monitored 

and recorded daily. Samples were removed and thawed for sample preparation and then returned 

to frozen storage, where they will be stored for a period of at least two years. 
2-12 

Documentation tracking sample possession from the time it is collected (including equipment 

and container preparation) to the point at which the samples and extracts are discarded is 

necessary to ensure the credibility and validity of field and laboratory results. For this program, 

documentation was accomplished through initiating a COC record for each sample at the time of 

its collection and carrying the required paperwork through the final reporting of results, and to 

the final program files. 

A COC form accompanied the samples as they were delivered from the field to the laboratory. 

Upon receipt, the document was signed by the laboratory’s sample custodian and dated as 

acknowledgement of receipt of the samples. Thereafter, the laboratory internal COC protocols, 

described in the individual laboratory QA program plans or similar documentation, were utilized. 

Receipt at FIT 

Each sediment sample received by the Marine & Environmental Chemistry Laboratories at FIT 

was carefully inspected to ensure that it was intact and that the identification number on the 

sample container matched that found on the custody sheet. All sediment samples for trace-metal 

analysis were kept frozen (-20°C) until processed for analysis. Sediment samples for grain-size 

determination were kept refrigerated (4°C + 2°C) until processing began. 

2.3.2 Field Quality Control 

2.3.2.1 Sample Handling 

Equipment decontamination procedures were strictly followed during the sampling. The 

decontamination included a physical scrub with soap and water, rinses with seawater and 

distilled water, and a rinse with isopropanol. 

2.3.2.2 Documentation 

The scientists maintained field notes throughout the field surveys in logbooks and in a station 

log. Biota (bivalve and amphipod) sampling information was also recorded on log forms. 

Exceptions to procedures specified in the sampling and analysis plans, if any, were recorded on 

the forms. 

Film and digital media were used to photo-document the surveys. This documentation recorded 

specific samples, sampling procedures, and unusual sediment types. 

2.3.3 Organic Chemistry Laboratory Quality Control 

2.3.3.1 Data Quality Objectives and Quality Control Samples 

A set of DQOs was established for the program to ensure that the analytical data would be of the 

quality necessary to achieve the project objectives. The DQOs were also designed to enhance 

the ability of the methods to identify and accurately quantify source-specific oils. The DQOs 

were adapted from the specific laboratory analytical SOPs and were included in the laboratory 

workplan specific for the program. They are included here as Tables 2-7 and 2-8. 

For processing, samples were grouped together in batches of 20 field samples, plus associated 

QC samples. In general, the QC samples processed along with the sediment samples included 
2-13 

one procedural blank (PB), one blank spike (BS), and one standard reference material (SRM; 

sediment SRM 1944) per batch. The BS sample was fortified with PAH matrix spike solution 

and SHC matrix spike solution. 

There were a number of additional measures added to the processing of the samples to monitor 

QC and to aid in the assessment of the data’s usability with respect to the program objectives. 

An important part of this is the evaluation of specific QC samples for accuracy, precision, and 

potential contamination. The following is a general description of some elements. 

Solvent and Standard Checks 

Prior to sample analysis, every lot of solvent used in the analytical process was analyzed in 

duplicate to verify that it was free of contamination and acceptable for use. Likewise, prior to 

spiking the samples with surrogates and internal standards, all standard preparation records were 

checked. No standards were used for an analysis unless they had been approved for use. 

Instrument Calibration 

Before instrumental analysis of sample extracts, a multi-level calibration was analyzed and the 

linearity of the analyte response factors was evaluated. A continuing calibration standard was 

analyzed regularly to check the stability of the instrument response. If the relative standard 

deviations (RSDs) for the initial calibration or the percent difference of the daily calibration did 

not meet the criteria set in the SOP, a new calibration was run and the affected samples reanalyzed. 

Reference Samples 

To assess the accuracy of the mixture used to calibrate the method, an independently verified 

instrument reference material (IRM) was analyzed against the calibration standard for PAH 

samples. The values of the analytes had to be within 15 percent of the target value for the 

calibration solution to be valid. 

In addition, a solution of an assayed crude oil was analyzed with each initial calibration sequence 

and the results were compared to a laboratory-established mean to assess method accuracy. The 

solution was also used to provide petroleum pattern information and to aid in qualitative 

identification of target compounds. 

Procedural Blank 

A PB was processed and analyzed with each analytical batch in order to monitor potential 

contamination resulting from laboratory solvents, reagents, glassware, and processing 

procedures. 

Blank Spike 

A BS was spiked with representative target compounds prior to extraction to assess the effect of 

the sample processing procedure independent of sample matrix effects. 

Laboratory Duplicate 

A field sample was analyzed in duplicate to assess the precision of the method in the target 

matrix. 
2-14 

Standard Reference Materials 

A SRM of a well-characterized sample of known concentration was processed through sample 

preparation and instrumental analysis with each batch of sediment samples. The results were 

compared to externally certified values to assess method accuracy. This program used SRM 

1944 provided by NIST. 

2.3.3.2 Laboratory Records 

The laboratory maintained detailed records throughout the processing of the samples. All raw 

instrumental data were archived electronically. Completed records or copies of forms were 

collated into a binder for final archive storage. The final laboratory data package contains 

sufficient detail so that an external audit could be performed. The documentation in the final 

data package includes: 

• Lot numbers, vendor, and preparation records for reagents and standards; 

• Sample preparation records; 

• Analytical procedures used that are not documented in laboratory SOPs; 

• Instrument analysis records; 

• Instrument raw data hardcopy; and 

• Documentation of observations or deviations encountered. 

2.3.3.3 Laboratory Data Review 

The following describes the process of data reporting and review by the laboratory. The 

chemistry data for each analysis were reduced and reviewed by the laboratory staff and then 

assembled into the final data package. The assembled package was peer reviewed and checked 

to ensure that the DQOs were met, that the analyses met the program objectives, and that the data 

were traceable and defensible. The data were also reviewed for compliance with the documented 

procedures and quality objectives in the work plan. Data were also reviewed for internal 

consistency and against expected or known values. 

After the final laboratory data package review, it was subjected to a formal audit. The audit 

process is coordinated by the QA Manager and follows the procedure outlined in the ADL/ICF 

Data Review SOP. The formal audit process included a 100-percent review of all handcalculated values and a 20-percent review of computer-generated results. The process also 

checked the traceability of a final result through the instrument calibration and to the sample 

preparation steps. A formal report was issued to the facility supervisors at the completion of the 

audit for response. Upon completion of the responses, the auditor released the results to the 

Program Manager for review and reporting. The final laboratory data package and the audit 

report are maintained in the laboratory files. 

2.3.4 Metals Chemistry Laboratory Quality Control 

Quality Control Measurements for Analysis 

For this project, QC measures included balance calibration, instrument calibration (FAAS, 

GFAAS, Zeeman Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry [ZGFAAS], CVAAS, 

ICP/MS, TOC analyzer, turbidimeters, and in-situ instrument sensors), matrix spike analysis for 
2-15 

each metal, duplicate sample analysis, SRM and CRM analysis, PB analysis, and standard 

checks. With each batch of up to 40 samples, 2 PBs, 2 SRMs and/or CRMs, 2 duplicate samples 

and 2 matrix spike samples were analyzed. Data quality objectives for these QC measurements 

are provided in Table 2-9. 

Instrument Calibration 

Electronic balances used for weighing samples and reagents were calibrated prior to each use 

with certified (NIST-traceable) standard weights. All pipets (electronic or manual) were 

calibrated prior to use. Each of the spectrometers used for metals analysis was initially 

standardized with a 3- to 5-point calibration with a linear correlation coefficient of r ≥ 0.999 

required before experimental samples could be analyzed. Analysis of complete 3- to 5-point 

calibrations and/or single standard checks alternated every 5 to 10 samples until all of the 

analyses were complete. The RSD between complete calibration and standard check was 

required to be <15 percent or recalibration and reanalysis of the affected samples was performed. 

Matrix Spike Analysis 

Matrix spikes were prepared for a minimum of 5 percent of the total number of samples analyzed 

and included each metal to be determined. Results from matrix spike analysis using the method 

of standard additions provide information on the extent of any signal suppression or 

enhancement due to the sample matrix. If necessary (i.e., spike results outside 80 to 120 percent 

limit), spiking frequency was increased to 20 percent and a correction applied to the metal 

concentrations of the experimental samples. 

Duplicate Sample Analysis 

Duplicate samples from homogenized field samples (as distinct from field replicates) were 

prepared in the laboratory for a minimum of 5 percent of the total samples. These laboratory 

duplicates were included as part of each set of sample digestions and analyses and provided a 

measure of analytical precision. 

Procedural Blank Analysis 

Two PBs were prepared with each set of 40 samples to monitor potential contamination resulting 

from laboratory reagents, glassware, and processing procedures. These blanks were processed 

using the same analytical scheme, reagents, and handling techniques as used for the experimental 

samples. 

SRM and CRM Analysis 

A common method used to evaluate the accuracy of environmental data is to analyze SRMs and 

CRMs, samples for which consensus or "accepted" analyte concentrations exist. The following 

reference materials were used: Marine Sediment MESS-2 (NRC) and SRM Trace Elements in 

Water #1643d (NIST). Metal concentrations obtained for the reference materials were required 

to be within ±20 percent of accepted values for >85 percent of other certified analytes. When no 

certified values existed for a metal, matrix spikes were used to evaluate analytical accuracy. 
2-16 

2.4 Database Management 

As part of the ANIMIDA program, MMS requested that the ANIMIDA data be incorporated into 

the MMS Coastal and Offshore Resource Information System (CORIS) database. This required 

database design and development to include the various data types generated by the ANIMIDA 

program into CORIS. Harvard Design and Mapping (HDM – Cambridge, MA) is subcontracted 

to ADL/ICF for completing the database design and data management. All final ANIMIDA data 

will be archived in the MMS CORIS database. 
Table 2-1. Summer 2001 MMS ANIMIDA Sediment Core Stations

Analysis/Replicates

Sediment Cores

Organics/ Metals Dating/GS/TOC

3A BSMP Sed. Core 70°18.975 147°05.430 22 8/3/01 1 2

5A BSMP Sed. Core 70°29.710 148°46.099 37 7/27/01 * * 5A BSMP Sed. Core 70°29.708 148°46.078 38 8/9/01 * 1

5A BSMP Sed. Core-RE2 70°29.720 148°46.186 37 * NA5A BSMP Sed. Core-RE3 70°29.765 148°46.416 37 * NA5D BSMP Sed. Core 70°24.507 148°33.214 8 7/27/01 * *6A BSMP Sed. Core 70°32.217 149°57.732 12 7/30/01 1 1 

6B BSMP Sed. Core 70°33.327 150°24.635 23 7/30/01 1 1 

6G BSMP Sed. Core 70°31.392 149°54.602 9 7/30/01 1 1 

L02 Liberty Sed. Core 70°17.825 147°32.958 23 8/3/01 1 1 

L03 Liberty Sed. Core 70°17.319 147°33.412 23 8/6/01 1 L12 Liberty Sed. Core 70°14.585 147°34.157 19 8/4/01 * 1

N02 Northstar Sed. Core 1st 70°30.515 148°41.320 44 7/31/01 1 1

N03 Northstar Sed. Core 70°29.990 148°41.569 44 7/28/01 1 1 N05 Northstar Sed. Core 70°29.613 148°46.086 37 7/31/01 * * N07 Northstar Sed. Core 70°29.565 148°40.161 40 7/31/01 * *

N10 Northstar Sed. Core, 1st 70°28.933 148°42.018 31 7/27/01 * * N10 Northstar Sed. Core, 2nd 70°28.998 148°41.742 31 7/28/01 * * N10 Northstar Sed. Core, 3rd 70°28.933 148°42.018 31 7/31/01 * *

N24A Northstar Sed. Core, 1st 70°33.632 148°41.699 62 7/28/01 * * N24A Northstar Sed. Core, 2nd 70°34.254 148°41.702 61 7/28/01 * * N24A Northstar Sed. Core, 3rd 70°34.928 148°40.933 64 7/28/01 * * 

M01 McCovey Sed. Core 70°30.765 148°27.374 39 7/31/01 * * BPS Source Sed. sheen on shore 70°10.605 146°51.450 NA 8/12/01 1 NA 

E01 Endicott Sed. Core 70°21.101 147°56.088 13 8/4/01 1 1 

P01 Prudhoe Bay Sed. Core 70°18.806 148°23.229 9 8/1/01 1 1 

SAG02 Source Sed. NR NR NA 8/10/01 1 

Oil Source Kuparuk Crude NA NA NA 7/27/01 1 

Notes:* = On station, sampling attempted, but none collected (for cores or fish)NA = Not applicable/not availableNR = Not Reported

Station ID Station Type Sample Type Latitude Date Longitude Depth (ft) 
Table 2-2. Saturated Hydrocarbons Target List 

Compound Reporting 

Code 

Internal 

Standard/

Surrogate 

Reference 

Compound Reporting 

Code 

Internal 

Standard/

Surrogate 

Reference 

n-Nonane C9 A/1 n-Hexacosane C26 A/1 

n-Decane C10 A/1 n-Heptacosane C27 A/1 

n-Undecane C11 A/1 n-Octacosane C28 A/1 

n-Dodecane C12 A/1 n-Nonacosane C29 A/1 

n-Tridecane C13 A/1 n-Triacontane C30 A/1 

Isoprenoid RRT 1380 1380 A/1 n-Hentriacontane C31 A/1 

n-Tetradecane C14 A/1 n-Dotriacontane C32 A/1 

Isoprenoid RRT 1470 1470 A/1 n-Tritriacontane C33 A/1 

n-Pentadecane C15 A/1 n-Tetratriacontane C34 A/1 

Isoprenoid RRT 1650 1650 A/1 n-Pentatriacontane C35 A/1 

n-Hexadecane C16 A/1 n-Hexatriacontane C36 A/1 

n-Heptadecane C17 A/1 n-Heptatriacontane C37 A/1 

Pristane PRIS A/1 n-Octatriacontane C38 A/1 

n-Octadecane C18 A/1 n-Nonatriacontane C39 A/1 

Phytane PHYT A/1 n-Tetracontane C40 A/1 

n-Nonadecane C19 A/1 

n-Eicosane C20 A/1 Surrogate Compounds 

n-Heneicosane C21 A/1 Tetracosane-d50 D50T A/1 

n-Docosane C22 A/1 5a-Androstane 5AA B/1 

n-Tricosane C23 A/1 

n-Tetracosane C24 A/1 Internal Standard 

n-Pentacosane C25 A/1 Triacontane-d62 D62T 1 

Internal Standard/Surrogate Reference indicates internal standard used for quantitation and surrogate compound used to 

correct analytical results 

Also used in reporting: 

TOTRES: Total of resolved compounds in sample extract 

TPHC: Total of resolved and unresolved compounds in sample extract 
Table 2-3. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon and Alkyl Polynuclear Aromatic 

Hydrocarbon Target List 

Compound Reporting 

Code 

Internal 

Standard/

Surrogate 

Reference 

Compound Reporting 

Code 

Internal 

Standard/

Surrogate 

Reference 

Naphthalene C0N A/1 Benzo[a]anthracene BAA B/3 

C1-Naphthalenes C1N A/2 

C2-Naphthalenes C2N A/2 Chrysene C0C B/3 

C3-Naphthalenes C3N A/2 C1-Chrysenes C1C B/3 

C4-Naphthalenes C4N A/2 C2-Chrysenes C2C B/3 

 C3-Chrysenes C3C B/3 

Acenaphthylene ACEY A/2 C4-Chrysenes C4C B/3 

Acenaphthene ACE A/2 

Biphenyl BIP A/2 

 Benzo[b]fluoranthene BBF B/4 

Fluorene C0F A/2 Benzo[k]fluoranthene BKF B/4 

C1-Fluorenes C1F A/2 Benzo[e]pyrene BEP B/4 

C2-Fluorenes C2F A/2 Benzo[a]pyrene BAP B/4 

C3-Fluorenes C3F A/2 Perylene PER B/4 

 Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene IND B/4 

Anthracene C0A A/3 Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene DAH B/4 

Phenanthrene C0P A/3 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene BGP B/4 

C1-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes C1P/A A/3 

C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes C2P/A A/3 

C3-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes C3P/A A/3 

C4-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes C4P/A A/3 

 

Dibenzothiophene C0D A/3 

C1-Dibenzothiophenes C1D A/3 Surrogate Compounds 

C2-Dibenzothiophenes C2D A/3 Naphthalene-d8 D8N A/1 

C3-Dibenzothiophenes C3D A/3 Acenaphthene-d10 D10ACE A/2 

 Phenanthrene-d10 D10PH A/3 

Fluoranthene FLANT A/3 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 D12BAP B/4 

Pyrene PYR A/3 

C1-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes C1F/P A/3 Internal Standard 

C2-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes C2F/P A/3 Fluorene-d10 D10F A 

C3-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes C3F/P A/3 Chrysene-d12 D12C B 

Internal Standard/Surrogate Reference indicates internal standard used for quantitation and surrogate compound used to 

correct analytical results. 

2-ring PAHs include: naphthalenes, acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, biphenyl, and fluorenes 

3-ring PAHs include: anthracenes and phenanthrenes 

4-ring PAHs include: fluoranthenes, pyrenes, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysenes, benzo(b)fluoranthene, and 

benzo(k)fluoranthene 

5-ring PAHs include: benzo(e)pyrene, benzo(a)pyrene, perylene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene is a 6-ring PAH 
Table 2-4. Sterane and Triterpane Target List 

Compound Reporting 

Code 

Internal 

Standard/

Surrogate 

Reference 

Compound Reporting 

Code 

Internal 

Standard/

Surrogate 

Reference 

C23 Diterpane T4 A/1 Surrogate Compounds 

13b,17a-diacholestane(20S) S4 A/1 5b(H)-cholane 5B 2 

13b,17a-diacholestane(20R) S5 A/1 

C29 Tricyclictriterpane T9 A/1 Internal Standards 

C29 Tricyclictriterpane T10 A/1 Chrysene-d12 D12C A 

## 5a,14a,17a-cholestane(20R) S17 A/1 

18a(H)-22,29,30-trisnorhopane(TS) T11 A/1 

17a(H)-22,29,30-trisnorhopane(TM) T12 A/1 

5a,14a,17a,24-methylcholestane(20R) S24 A/1 

5a,14a,17a,24-ethylcholestane(20S) S25 A/1 

5a,14a,17a,24-ethylcholestane(20R) S28 A/1 

17a(H),21b(H)-30-norhopane T15 A/1 

18a(H)-oleanane T18 A/1 

17a(H),21b(H)-hopane T19 A/1 

22S-17a(H),21b(H)-30-homohopane T21 A/1 

22R-17a(H),21b(H)-30-homohopane T22 A/1 

## 17b(H),21b(H)-hopane T23 A/1 

Internal Standard/Surrogate Reference indicates internal standard used for quantitation and surrogate compound used to 

correct analytical results 

## Compound used in calibration, but not reported 
Table 2-5. Summary of Instrumental Methods and Method Detection Limits for 

Metal Analysis of Sediment 

Sediments 

Metal Method MDLs 

(μg metal/ 

g dry sediment) 

Ag – silver ZGFAAS 0.007 

Al – aluminum FAAS 10 

As – arsenic ZGFAAS 0.2 

Ba – barium ICP-MS 1 

Be – beryllium ICP-MS 0.1 

Cd – cadmium ICP-MS 0.02 

Co – cobalt ICP-MS 0.3 

Cr – chromium FAAS 1 

Cu – copper FAAS 2 

Fe – iron FAAS 10 

Hg – mercury CVAAS 0.001 

Mn – manganese FAAS 3 

Ni – nickel ICP-MS 0.5 

Pb – lead ICP-MS 0.2 

Sb – antimony ICP-MS 0.04 

Tl – thallium ICP-MS 0.04 

V – vanadium FAAS 10 

Zn – zinc FAAS 2 

Other Parameters 

Grain Size Sieve and Pipet --- 

TOC Shimadzu Carbon System 0.06% 

Notes: 

CVAAS = Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 

FAAS = Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 

GFAAS = Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 

ICP/MS = Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry 

MDL = Method Detection Limit 

ZGFAAS = Zeeman Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 
Table 2-6. Sample Containers, Preservation, and Laboratory List 

Sample Type Analysis Precleaned 

Container 

Storage/ 

Preservative 

Analytical Laboratory 

Sediment SHC, PAH, 

S/T 

250 mL glass Frozen -20°C ICF Consulting 

Sediment Metals, TOC Plastic jar Frozen -20°C Florida Institute of 

Technology 

Sediment Grain Size Plastic bag Stored at 4°C Florida Institute of 

Technology 
Table 2-7. Data Quality Objectives for Saturated Hydrocarbon and Polynuclear 

Aromatic Hydrocarbon Analyses 

Element or Sample Type Minimum Frequency DQO/Acceptance Criteria 

Initial Calibration Prior to every instrument 

sequence for PAH analysis and 

as needed for SHC analysis 

5-point curve, %RSD < 35% for 

all target analytes; 90% must be 

< 25% 

Continuing Calibration After every 12 samples or 16 

hours, whichever is more 

frequent, and at end of 

instrument sequence 

%D < 35% for all target analytes; 

90% must be < 25% 

Oil Reference Standard 

(North Slope Crude) 

One with each instrument 

sequence (North Slope Crude) 

%D < 35% from laboratory mean 

for target compounds (use 

surrogate-corrected values) 

except for compounds below the 

reporting limit 

Procedural Blank One per batch No analyte to exceed 5 times the 

MDL unless sample amount is > 

10 times blank amount 

Blank Spike One per batch Recovery between 35 and 125% 

for PAH, and 45 to 125% for 

SHC 

Instrument SRM (1491) One per instrument sequence 

(PAH only) 

Values must be <15% difference 

of true value for all certified 

analytes 

Sediment SRM (1944) One per batch as appropriate 

(PAH only) 

Values must be within 30% of 

the true value on average for all 

analytes, not to exceed 35% of 

true value for more than 30% of 

the analytes 

Laboratory Duplicate One per 40 field samples RPD < 30% for all analytes >10 

times the MDL; Mean RPD 

<30% 

Surrogate Recovery Every sample Recovery between 45 and 125% 

(35% for d8-naphthalene) 
Table 2-8. Data Quality Objectives for Sterane and Triterpane Analyses 

Element or Sample Type Minimum Frequency DQO/Acceptance Criteria 

Initial Calibration Prior to every instrument 

sequence 

4-point curve, %RSD < 25% for 

all target analytes 

Continuing Calibration After every 12 samples or 16 

hours, whichever is more 

frequent, and at end of 

instrument sequence 

%D < 25% for all analytes 

Oil Reference Standard (North 

Slope Crude) 

One with each instrument 

sequence (North Slope Crude) 

%D < 35% from laboratory mean 

for target compounds (use 

surrogate-corrected values) 

except for compounds below the 

reporting limit 

Procedural Blank One per batch No analyte to exceed 5 times the 

MDL unless sample amount is > 

10 times blank amount 

Surrogate Recovery Every sample Recovery between 45 and 125% 
Table 2-9. Data Quality Objectives and Criteria for Metals Analyses 

Element or Sample Type Minimum Frequency DQO/Acceptance Criteria 

Initial Calibration Prior to every batch of samples 3- to 5-point curve depending on 

the element and a blank. 

Standard Curve correlation 

coefficient r >0.999 for all 

analytes 

Continuing Calibration Must end every analytical 

sequence; for flame, repeat all 

standards every 5 samples; for 

graphite furnace and ICP/MS 

recheck standard after every 8 to 

10 samples 

%RSD <15% for all analytes 

Standard and Certified 

Reference Materials 

One per batch of 20 samples Values must be within 20% of 

accepted values for >85% of the 

certified analytes and within 25% 

for Hg. 

Method Blank One per batch of 20 samples No more than 2 analytes to 

exceed 5 times MDL unless 

analyte not detected in 

associated samples 

Matrix Spike and Spike Method 

Blank 

One per batch of 20 samples %RSD 80 to 120% 

Laboratory Duplicate One per batch of 20 samples RSD <25% for 65% of the 

analytes 
Figure 2-1 - ANIMIDA Task 2 Summer 2001

Sediment Core Survey Stations

Oliktok Point

Jones Islands

Kuparuk River

West Dock

Prudhoe Bay

Reindeer Island

Cross Island

Boulder Patch

Endicott

Development Is.

Narwhal Island

Jeanette Island

Stockton Islands

Bullen Point

Sagavanirktok

River

Northstar Island

Liberty Prospect

Thetis Is.

3A

6G

6B

6A

5D

N10

N01

L12

M01

P01

N05

N03

L03

L02

E01

N24A

N24A

5A N07

N02

N24A

150°W

150°W

149°W

149°W

148°W

148°W

147°W

147°W 70°N

70°N

70°15'N

70°15'N

70°30'N

70°30'N

70°45'N

0 4 8 12 16 20

Kilometers

0 2.5 5 7.5 10

Nautical Miles

Area of Detail

Beaufort Sea

AAll aa sskk aa

Locus Map

File Name: 72104010.mxd

SAMPLE TYPE

Sediment

Boulder Patch
3-1 

3.0 Results 

This section presents the results for the general chemistry, organic, and inorganic analyses for the 

sediment core samples collected from the Beaufort Sea during July and August 2001. 

3.1 Sediment Cores 

The results and general trends in the TOC, grain size, organic, and inorganic data from the 

sediment core samples collected during the summer 2001 ANIMIDA field survey are presented 

in this subsection. 

3.1.1 Geochronology of Sediments 

Collecting sediment cores suitable for age-dating in the coastal Beaufort Sea is complicated by 

bottom-fast ice, ice gouging, low net sediment accumulation rates, low activities of excess 210Pb 

and 137Cs, and storm-induced resuspension and transport of sediment offshore into deeper water. 

Even though our coring sites were chosen based on bathymetry (i.e., semi-restricted basins) or 

surface sediment composition (i.e., >90% silt + clay), only 8 of the 11 cores were viable for 

geochronology and chemistry measurements and only 3 of these yielded a reliable 

geochronology over the past 50 to 100 years. In many instances, extremely low levels or no 

detectable amounts of excess 210Pb (<0.2 dpm/g) or 137Cs (<0.02 dpm/g) were found, even in the 

top 0.5 cm of sediment. Such observations are consistent with previous reports that characterize 

this coastal area as a net erosional environment (Reimnitz and Wolf, 1998) and recent attempts at 

age-dating area sediments (Naidu et al., 2001). 

Detailed results for geochronology were obtained for three sites: (1) station P01 in Prudhoe Bay, 

(2) station E01, just east of the Endicott development near the mouth of the Sagavanirktok River, 

and (3) station 6G, near the eastern area of the Colville River delta (Figure 2-1). At stations L02, 

3A, N02, N03, and 6A, either no detectable excess 210Pb and 137Cs were found or very low levels 

were found only in the top 0.5 cm (Appendix A). The locations of these five sites with little or 

no detectable recent sediment extend across the study area and support the contention that 

deposition of modern sediment is patchy and thin. 

 

In Prudhoe Bay (station P01), the maximum activity of excess 210Pb in the surface layer of 

sediment is 0.84 dpm/g, with detectable decay to a depth of ~5 cm and a calculated 

sedimentation rate of 0.11 ± 0.02 cm/year (Figure 3-1). The vertical profile for 137Cs supports 

the results from excess 210Pb with a sedimentation rate of ~0.10 ± 0.02 cm/year based on the 

1950 appearance of 137Cs at ~5 cm and the observed 1963 peak at ~3.75 cm (Figure 3-1). 

Samples from depths >4 cm were most likely deposited before extensive development activities 

began around 1970 in the area of Prudhoe Bay. Preservation of such detail in the 

geochronological record over such a short depth interval for this site is surprising; however, boat 

traffic in the inner portion of the Prudhoe Bay is rare and water depths in the deepest portion of 

the bay (~3 m) are sufficient to minimize ice effects. Even if a combination of sediment 

deposition and winnowing at station P01 create an apparent sedimentation rate, it seems 

reasonable to suggest that the top 1 to 2 cm contain post-development sediment and that 

sediment found deeper than 4 to 5 cm is sediment deposited prior to development. 
3-2 

At station E01, the activity of excess 210Pb is 1.1 dpm/g at 0 to 0.5 cm and 1.5 dpm/g at 0.5 to 1.0 

cm (Figure 3-1). The calculated sedimentation rate based on excess 210Pb is about 0.04 ± 0.02 

cm/y. Activities of 137Cs are detectable to a depth of 3.25 cm, yielding a sedimentation rate of 

~0.06 ±0.02 cm/y, a value that is reasonably consistent with that obtained from the profile for 

excess 210Pb, considering the uncertainty in the data. These data for station E01 support the 

likelihood that sediments at depths >4 cm pre-date development. 

In the Colville River delta at station 6G, the maximum activity of excess 210Pb is 0.76 dpm/g and 

the calculated sedimentation rate is 0.04 ± 0.02 cm/year (Figure 3-1). The 137Cs profile supports 

a sediment accumulation rate of ~0.06 ± 0.02 cm/year. Once again, the record of sediment input 

since the 1950s is sequestered into the top 4 to 5 cm of sediment. At nearby station 6A, 

detectable levels of excess 210Pb at 0.27 dpm/g were observed only in the top 0.5 cm of the 

sediment column. 

3.1.2 Grain Size 

The choice of locations for sediment cores was based, as much as possible, on the presence of 

fine-grained sediments that would indicate a depositional area and increase the chance for 

obtaining a useful record of input of metals and organic substances. Thus, the mean fraction of 

the sediment that was silt plus clay in the cores collected during 2001 was 73.6%, relative to 

40.7% for surface sediments collected throughout the study area in 2000 (as shown in the inset 

table below and in Appendix A). The primary difference between the cores and the surface 

samples was in the amount of silt (61.5% average in 2001 cores versus 37.8% in the surface 

sediment from 2000). The most fine-grained sediment was collected at station N02 (average 

>80% silt plus clay). Sandy layers (>50% sand) were found in cores from stations 3A, 6A, 6G, 

and E01 (Appendix A). The grain-size data are used to help normalize concentrations of organic 

substances. 

Gravel

(%) 

Sand 

(%) 

Silt 

(%) 

Clay 

(%) 

Sediment Cores (2001) 

 Mean 0.5 25.8 61.5 12.1 

 Standard Deviation 2.3 18.6 17.2 6.5 

 Maximum 16.3 75.8 89.5 25.5 

 Minimum 0.0 1.6 15.5 1.3 

Surface Sediments (2000) 

 Mean 2.6 46.7 37.8 12.9 

 Standard Deviation 9.8 28.4 23.1 9.1 

 Maximum 60.3 98.8 86.8 35.5 

 Minimum 0.0 1.4 0.4 0.3 

 

3.1.3 Organics 

Concentrations of organics were determined for 60 samples from 8 sediment cores (P01, E01, 

6A, 6G, 3A, N02, N03, and L02). Each core was sectioned into 2-cm layers. Organic parameter 

results for the sediment core samples are summarized in Table 3-1. The summary results include 
3-3 

Total PAH (which includes the sum of all parent and alkyl PAHs), total petroleum hydrocarbons 

(TPHC; the sum of the resolved and unresolved saturated hydrocarbons n-C9 through n-C40), 

Total S/T (the sum of the sterane and triterpane target compounds), the percent of the fine grainsize fraction (the sum of the silt + clay grain-size fraction), and the ratio of pyrogenic PAHs to 

petrogenic PAHs. The results are separated into groupings by core locations. Descriptions of 

key diagnostic parameters, which are useful in describing the overall organics dataset are 

provided in Table 3-2. Vertical core profiles of 9 key parameters for each core are included in 

Figures 3-2 through 3-9. As discussed earlier, only 3 of the core samples (6G, E01, and P01) 

yielded geochronology results that allowed accurate determination of sedimentation rates, and 

thus estimates of deposition dates. According to the age-dating results (Figure 3-1), predevelopment sediment is clearly present at depths > 4 to 5 cm and post-development (since 

1970) sediment would most likely be found in the top 5 cm of the sediment column. As a 

conservative marker for development, a line representing 1950 is provided for the organic 

parameter core profiles in the 3 cores with accurate age dates (Figures 3-4, 3-5, and 3-9). The 

complete organics data, including concentrations for individual PAH, SHC, and S/T target 

compounds, are included in Appendix B. 

3.1.3.1 Saturated Hydrocarbons 

Concentrations of TPHC in sediment core samples from the summer 2001 survey ranged from 

3.2 to 17 mg/Kilogram (Kg) with one anomalous concentration of 31 mg/Kg detected at core 

station 6G in the 0- to 2-cm interval. However, when normalized to the clay fraction, the 0- to 2-

cm interval from core sample 6G falls within the range of results for the other 6G core intervals 

(see Figure 3-4), indicating that the observed enrichment of hydrocarbons was due to the 

accumulation of fine-grained material at the surface of this core. The mean TPHC 

concentrations for the 8 cores ranged from 4.6 to 11 mg/Kg (Table 3-1). 

The composition of SHCs through the depth of all the sediment cores was generally similar, 

indicating a common TPHC source relationship between pre-1970 and post-1970 sediments. For 

example, similar patterns are noted in the GC/FID chromatograms for the pre-1970 and post1970 sediments from cores P01 (Figures 4-6 and 4-7) and 6G (Figures 4-8 and 4-9). 

Overall, the levels of TPHC measured during the sediment core survey are within the range of 

values reported from previous studies of the region and other Alaskan coastal areas (Table 3-3). 

3.1.3.2 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

Concentrations of Total PAH in sediment core samples from the summer 2001 survey ranged 

from 284 to 932 μg/Kg, with one anomalous concentration of 1,990 μg/Kg detected at core 

station 6G in the 0- to 2-cm interval. However, when normalized to the clay fraction, the 0- to 2-

cm interval from core sample 6G falls within the range of results for the other 6G core sections 

and is no longer an outlier (see Figure 3-4), further supporting the earlier observation that the 

high result is due to a grain-size effect. The mean Total PAH concentrations for the 8 cores 

ranged from 383 to 657 μg/Kg (Table 3-1). 

As noted with the SHC composition, the composition of Total PAH in the pre-1970 and post1970 sediments was similar, indicating a common PAH source relationship. For example, 
3-4 

similar patterns are noted in the PAH histograms for the pre-1970 and post-1970 sediments from 

cores P01 (Figures 4-6 and 4-7) and 6G (Figures 4-8 and 4-9). 

 

Overall, the levels of PAH measured during the sediment core survey are within the range of 

values reported from previous studies of the region and other Alaskan coastal areas (Table 3-3). 

3.1.3.3 Steranes and Triterpanes 

Concentrations of Total S/T in sediment core samples from the summer 2001 survey ranged from 

22 to 129 μg/Kg. Similar to the PAH and SHC results, one anomalous concentration of 225 

μg/Kg was detected at the 0- to 2-cm interval in core 6G. Once again, when normalized to clay, 

the 0- to 2-cm interval from core sample 6G falls within the range of results for the other 6G core 

sections. The mean Total S/T concentrations for the 8 cores ranged from 31 to 94 μg/Kg (Table 

3-1). 

Overall, the levels of Total S/T measured during the sediment core survey are within the range of 

values reported from previous studies of the region and other Alaskan coastal areas (Table 3-3). 

3.1.4 Metals 

Concentrations of trace metals were determined for 104 samples from six cores (P01, E01, 6A, 

N02, 6G, and 3A). Each core was sectioned into 0.5- to 2.0-cm layers. Some variability in 

concentrations of metals is observed in each core (Table 3-4), mainly due to shifts in amounts of 

fine-grained sediment. However, the coefficient of variation (CV) for metal/Al ratios averaged 

<10% in each of the 6 cores for Ni, V, Zn, Fe, Cr, Ba, Co, Tl, Be, Pb, Sb, and Cu (Table 3-5). 

Such uniform deposition supports long-term sedimentation of uniform composition with no 

observable impact from diagenesis for these metals. Diagenetic effects were observed for Mn, 

As, and perhaps Cd, as described in more detail in Section 4. 

In Prudhoe Bay (station P01), concentrations of Al and Fe follow parallel trends downcore 

(Figure 3-10). Vertical distributions for Ba, Pb, Cr, V, and Zn (Figure 3-10), as well as Be, Cu, 

Ni, Sb and Tl (Figure 3-11), follow trends similar to those observed for Al and Fe, with the CVs 

for the metal/Al ratios all <8%. According to the age-dating results (Figure 3-1), predevelopment sediment is clearly present at depths >5 cm and post-development (since 1970) 

sediment would most likely be found in the top 5 cm of the sediment column. A depth of 5 cm 

was chosen as a separation point between pre- and post-development because the presence of 

137Cs is limited to the top 5 cm. Therefore, any biological and physical mixing of sediment that 

may carry post-development sediment downcore is probably limited to the top 5 cm. 

Where data for suspended sediment (source material) from the Sagavanirktok River are available 

for the metals mentioned above (Fe, Al, Pb, Cr, Zn; Figures 3-10 and 3-11), the metal 

concentrations or the metal/Al ratios for suspended sediment are coincident with values found in 

the surficial layers of the core. Such trends support long-term deposition of sediment with metal 

concentrations that are consistent with mixtures of river suspended matter containing varying 

amounts of coarser-grained, metal-poorer sands with no discernible diagenetic alteration of metal 

distributions. Variations in the Ag/Al ratio downcore are related to low levels of Ag and higher 

analytical variability at these low absolute levels of Ag. Sediment samples analyzed for Hg are 
3-5 

from separate, larger-spaced layers than for the other metals and we do not presently have Al 

data for normalization; this gap is being resolved now for the final report. 

Concentrations of TOC (and the TOC/Al ratio) are elevated by about 30% in the top 0.5 cm and 

by a factor of ~2 at about 20 cm (Figure 3-10). Coincident with elevated levels of TOC in the 

surface layer of sediment are increased concentrations of As/Al and Mn/Al (Figure 3-10). 

Furthermore, concentrations of Mn/Al are enriched above the layer at 20 cm, where 

concentrations of TOC are also high. These deviations from uniform vertical trends (including 

Cd) are related to early chemical diagenesis in the sediments and are discussed in more detail in 

Section 4. 

 

At the station located just east of Endicott Island (station E01), post-development sediment 

appears to be restricted to the top 4 cm of the sediment column (Figure 3-1). No discernible 

differences in metal/Al ratios (i.e., downcore variability <10%) are observed for all metals except 

As, Mn, Cd, and Ag (Figures 3-12 and 3-13), the same trend observed for the core from station 

P01. Concentrations of As, Mn, and Cd may be influenced by early chemical diagenesis, as 

discussed in Section 4. 

 

At station 6G, on the Colville River delta, post-development sediment appears to be restricted to 

the top 3 cm of the sediment column (Figure 3-1). Once again, no discernible differences in 

metal/Al ratios (i.e., downcore variability <10%) are observed for all metals except Mn, As, Cd, 

and Ag (Figure 3-14 and 3-15), the same trend observed for the cores from stations P01 and E01. 

The cores from stations N02 (Figures 3-16 and 3-17), 6A (Figures 3-18 and 3-19), and 3A 

(Figures 3-20 and 3-21) have no or only trace amounts of 137Cs or excess 210Pb in the top 1-2 cm. 

Therefore, these 3 sites are of limited value for comparing metal levels in pre- versus postdevelopment. However, the subsurface sediments from these cores help enrich the overall 

database for pre-development conditions. In the final report, we will use a combination of cores 

and surface sediments from 1989, 1999, 2000, and 2001 to more thoroughly address the 

contamination issue. Overall, variability in the core for the same 4 elements (As, Mn, Cd, and 

Ag) was observed. In addition, concentrations of Pb (stations N02 and 6A), Be (station 6A), Cu 

(all 3 sites) and Sb (stations N02 and 6A) were more variable (>10%). These additional 

deviations seem to be minor and unrelated to any diagenetic effects; they will be given further 

consideration during preparation of the final report. 

 

3.2 Quality Control Results 

This section provides an evaluation of the quality and usability of the environmental data based 

on the results for the laboratory QC samples analyzed during this program. Tables 3-6 through 

3-8 summarize the organic laboratory QC results. Tables 3-9 and 3-10 summarize the inorganic 

laboratory QC results. 

In general, no serious data quality issues were noted that would adversely affect the quality or 

use of the organic or inorganic data. All reported data are usable for project objectives. 
3-6 

3.2.1 Organics Quality Control 

Laboratory QC samples were analyzed to assess precision and accuracy of the sample 

preparation and analytical procedures. The number and type of laboratory QC samples was 

based on the total number of field samples and as specified in ICF’s SOPs and the Field 

Sampling and Logistics Plan (Arthur D. Little, 2001). For this program, the following laboratory 

QC samples and measures were used to evaluate accuracy and precision of the analytical data: 

surrogate recoveries, PBs, BSs, laboratory duplicates, SRMs, and oil reference standards (ORS). 

The results for the organic QC samples and measures are presented in Appendix B, along with 

the results for the associated environmental samples. Discussion and interpretation of the results 

are provided in the following sections. 

3.2.1.1 Surrogate Results 

Surrogate compounds were added to all environmental and QC samples prior to sample 

preparation. These compounds were added to determine the efficiency of the sample extraction 

and analysis procedures. Surrogate recoveries were evaluated to assess analytical method 

accuracy relative to sample matrix and laboratory performance. 

For the PAH analyses, all of the environmental and QC sample surrogate recoveries were within 

the recovery acceptance limits, with only one exception. The surrogate naphthalene-d8 

recovered low (33%) in sample 01-N02-01-12-PHC-SC. The associated result for the target 

analyte naphthalene in this sample should be considered an estimated value. 

For the SHC and S/T analyses, all of the environmental and QC sample surrogate recoveries 

were within the recovery acceptance limits, without exception 

 

3.2.1.2 Procedural Blanks 

A laboratory PB was prepared with each sample preparation batch by extracting a blank sample 

matrix (sodium sulfate) as if it were one of the environmental samples. PBs are used to assess 

the potential contamination introduced during sample preparation and analysis. PAH, S/T, and 

SHC analyses were performed on each PB. 

Between 13 and 23 target PAH compounds were detected at trace concentrations (less than the 

minimum reporting limit [MRL]) in all of the sediment PBs, with the exception of phenanthrene. 

Two PBs had phenanthrene detected at concentrations greater than the MRL. All associated 

samples had concentrations of phenanthrene greater than 10 times the blank concentration, thus 

no sample results were qualified due to this exceedance. Between 17 and 24 SHC target 

compounds ranging from n-C16 to n-C40 were detected at trace concentrations less than onefifth the MRL in the sediment PBs. No S/T target compounds were detected in the PBs. 

Environmental sample results that were within 5 times the associated PB concentration were 

qualified with a “B” to indicate that the compound was also present in the blank. Of the results 

that were qualified with a “B”, none of these results were at concentrations greater than 5 times 

the sample-specific MRL. 

Overall, the PB results met the DQOs specified in the laboratory QA plan for the program, and 

do not indicate concentrations of laboratory contamination that would adversely affect the 
3-7 

quality or usability of the associated sample data. Results that were qualified with a “B” may be 

biased high or could indicate a possible false-positive measurement. 

3.2.1.3 Blank Spike Sample Recoveries 

A BS sample was prepared with each sample preparation batch by spiking a blank sample matrix 

with known concentrations of a subset of the target compounds. Blank spike samples are used to 

assess the accuracy of the sample preparation and analysis procedures independent of sample 

matrix effects. PAH and SHC analyses were performed on each BS. S/T analyses were not 

performed on the BSs due to the availability and cost of native S/T compounds. 

For the PAH analyses, the recoveries of several compounds in the BS exceeded the acceptance 

criteria. The recovery of benzo[b]fluoranthene (130%) in one BS and the recoveries of 

benzo[b]fluoranthene (140%), benzo[k]fluoranthene (126%), dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (128%), 

and benzo(g,h,i)perylene (126%) in one BS slightly exceeded the upper recovery criterion; all 

other sediment BS recoveries were within acceptance limits. These BS recovery exceedances do 

not adversely affect the quality or usability of the associated sample data. 

For the SHC analyses, all of the BS recoveries were within the recovery acceptance limits, 

without exception. 

 

3.2.1.4 Laboratory Duplicates 

Laboratory duplicates were prepared with each sample preparation batch by extracting a second, 

separate aliquot of an arbitrarily selected environmental sample. Laboratory duplicates were 

evaluated to assess analytical precision related to laboratory performance and sample matrix. 

PAH, S/T, and SHC analyses were performed on each laboratory duplicate. 

For the sediment PAH, SHC, and S/T analyses, good laboratory duplicate precision was noted, 

with relative percent differences (RPDs) less than 30 percent for all of the compounds detected at 

concentrations above the MRL and for the majority of the compounds detected at concentrations 

below the MRL. The laboratory duplicate precision criterion does not apply to compounds 

detected below the MRL (or less than 10 times the MDL) due to increased variability at these 

low concentrations (RPD was calculated as the absolute difference between the two 

measurements divided by the mean of the two measurements). 

3.2.1.5 Standard Reference Materials 

Instrument SRMs were analyzed with each instrumental analytical sequence to assess accuracy 

of the instrument calibration (PAH only). A matrix-specific SRM was prepared and analyzed 

with each sample preparation batch to assess accuracy of the analytical method relative to sample 

preparation and analysis procedures. PAH analyses were performed on each SRM. SHC and 

S/T analyses were not performed on the SRMs since there are no certified values for these 

compounds. 

Instrument SRM. NIST SRM 1491 (a solution of parent PAHs in solvent with certified 

concentrations) was analyzed prior to each PAH analytical sequence. The percent differences 

(%Ds) of the measured values versus the certified values were within 15 percent for all 
3-8 

instrument SRMs, as required in the laboratory QA plan, indicating that the instrument 

performance and calibrations were acceptable. 

Sediment SRM. A sediment SRM (NIST SRM 1941a – a freeze-dried marine sediment with 

certified concentrations for PAHs) was prepared and analyzed for PAHs along with each 

sediment sample batch. The %Ds of the measured values versus the certified values for the PAH 

compounds were within the acceptance criteria of 30 percent on average per SRM and 35 percent 

for the individual compounds, with a few exceptions. The response for naphthalene in 5 of the 

sediment SRMs was greater than 30 percent lower than the certified value (-53.2%, -53.9%, -

60.3%, -61.4%, and -69.3%). The response for benzo[k]fluoranthene was also more than 30 

percent lower than the certified value (-41.3% and –40.9%) in 2 sediment SRM analyses. These 

results indicate that the measurement of naphthalene and benzo[k]fluoranthene in the sediment 

samples may be biased low. These SRM exceedances have a minor impact on the quality and 

usability of the associated sample data since the exceedances were not extreme and did not result 

in any data being considered unusable. 

3.2.1.6 Control Oil Analyses 

A North Slope Crude oil sample was analyzed prior to each analytical sequence for PAH, SHC, 

and S/T analysis. The results of the North Slope Crude oil analyses were used to evaluate 

accuracy of the analytical methods, provide a chromatographic pattern for comparison with 

samples, and provide an independent check of the quantitation for alkyl PAHs, S/Ts, and SHCs. 

Results of the control oil analyses were compared to laboratory mean values generated from 

multiple analyses of the oils. For the PAH, SHC, and S/T analyses, all of the results were within 

the acceptance limits. 

3.2.2 Metals Laboratory Quality Control 

Laboratory QC samples were analyzed to assess precision and accuracy of the sample 

preparation and analytical procedures. For this program, the following laboratory QC samples 

and measures were used to evaluate accuracy and precision of the analytical data: PBs, matrix 

spike samples, laboratory duplicates, and SRMs. The results for the inorganic QC samples and 

measures are presented in Table 3-9 and Appendix A, along with the results for the associated 

environmental samples. Discussion and interpretation of the results are provided in the 

following sections. 

3.2.2.1 Procedural Blanks 

Two method blanks were processed and analyzed with each batch of samples to monitor 

potential contamination resulting from laboratory reagents, glassware, and processing 

procedures. No contamination from any of these sources was noted and concentrations of 

analytes in the blanks do not exceed 5 times the MDLs. The MDLs for this study are given in 

Table 2-5. The DQOs are given in Table 2-9. 

3.2.2.2 Matrix Spike Sample 

Matrix spike samples were analyzed with each batch of sediment samples using the method of 

standard additions. Results from these analyses provide information on the extent of any signal 
3-9 

suppression or enhancement due to the matrix. Spike results for the sediment samples are shown 

in Table 2-5, and are within the 80- to 120-percent range specified in the DQOs (Table 2-9). 

3.2.2.3 Laboratory Duplicates 

Duplicate subsamples taken from individual sediment samples in the laboratory were analyzed in 

order to estimate analytical precision [RSD = (std. deviation/mean) x 100 percent]. Average 

analytical precision for sediment metal analyses (n = 4 pair of duplicate samples) ranged from 

0.8% RSD for V to 2.8% RSD for Be and V. Average analytical precision of sediment TOC 

analyses averaged 2.9% RSD (n = 7). 

3.2.2.4 Standard Reference Materials 

Certified and Standard Reference Materials were processed and analyzed for trace metals along 

with the experimental samples, as described in the Methods section (Section 2.2). The results of 

these analyses are shown in Table 3-10. The metal concentrations determined for each CRM and 

SRM were all within the range of certified values or within the DQO limits of the reference 

values provided by the certifying agencies. 

TOC analyses used the marine sediment CRM MESS-2 as a QA sample. This CRM is certified 

for total carbon content (inorganic plus organic), which is the reason the organic carbon value in 

Table 3-10 falls below the certified total carbon value. However, the TOC value determined for 

MESS-2 was consistently reproducible with percent RSD of ~ 1%. 
Table 3-1. Table of Concentration of Selected Organic Parameters in Sediment Core 

Samples 

Core Station/ 

Depth (cm) 

Total PAH (μg/Kg) TPHC (mg/Kg) Total S/T (μg/Kg) Silt+Clay (%) Pyrogenic/ 

Petrogenic (ratio) 

3A 

2 381 6.1 38 71 0.111 

4 388 5.3 40 78 0.111 

6 379 4.3 34 76 0.107 

10 330 3.2 28 46 0.111 

16 412 4.2 35 62 0.108 

20 405 4.8 42 67 0.107 

Mean (SD) 383 (28.8) 4.6 (1.0) 36 (5.1) 66 (11) 0.109 (0.002) 

 

6A 

2 932 14 105 86 0.108 

4 742 8.9 91 72 0.111 

6 582 6.8 57 62 0.104 

10 678 8.6 68 54 0.110 

14 419 4.6 41 26 0.112 

18 425 4.9 42 59 0.114 

Mean (SD) 630 (197) 8.0 (3.5) 67 (26) 60 (20) 0.110 (0.004) 

 

6G 

2 1990 31 225 86 0.117 

4 831 11 108 56 0.118 

6 619 9.6 87 61 0.129 

8 548 8.6 78 59 0.129 

10 586 8.9 83 63 0.134 

12 668 8.6 79 70 0.125 

14 616 10 88 64 0.123 

16 711 13 103 61 0.134 

18 800 17 129 75 0.145 

20 535 9.9 87 30 0.131 

Mean (SD) 657 (105) 11 (2.7) 94 (17) 60 (13) 0.130 (0.008) 

 

E01 

2 589 12 63 92 0.098 

4 365 5.6 32 83 0.093 

6 330 4.4 30 48 0.099 

8 284 3.4 23 42 0.108 

10 401 4.6 34 79 0.109 

12 347 4.5 30 63 0.119 

Mean (SD) 386 (107) 5.8 (3.1) 35 (14) 68 (20) 0.104 (0.009) 

 

L02 

2 285 4.6 23 56 0.107 

4 298 5.0 24 57 0.104 

6 431 6.3 29 57 0.104 

12 361 6.4 25 52 0.104 

16 632 11 47 83 0.107 

22 756 14 60 78 0.114 

Mean (SD) 460 (192) 7.9 (3.7) 35 (15) 64 (13) 0.107 (0.004) 

 
Table 3-1. Table of Concentration of Selected Organic Parameters in Sediment Core 

Samples (continued) 

Core Station/ 

Depth (cm) 

Total PAH (μg/Kg) Total PHC (mg/Kg) Total S/T (μg/Kg) Silt+Clay (%) Pyrogenic/ 

Petrogenic (ratio) 

N02 

2 535 8.8 57 72 0.120 

4 476 7.7 43 72 0.115 

6 502 7.6 46 83 0.114 

12 475 8.3 50 73 0.116 

16 331 5.2 27 79 0.113 

22 742 14 73 94 0.124 

Mean (SD) 510 (133) 8.6 (2.9) 50 (15) 79 (8.5) 0.117 (0.004) 

 

N03 

2 410 6.6 36 89 0.121 

4 407 6.7 35 92 0.114 

6 379 5.9 29 84 0.111 

10 474 11 39 92 0.120 

16 337 7.2 25 94 0.111 

20 289 6.5 22 83 0.113 

Mean (SD) 383 (64) 7.3 (1.8) 31 (6.8) 89 (4.8) 0.115 (0.004) 

 

P01 

2 701 17 81 95 0.085 

4 549 14 69 93 0.099 

6 523 9.6 53 97 0.100 

8 520 11 54 97 0.102 

10 588 12 68 96 0.106 

12 528 10 61 95 0.110 

14 548 9.4 58 98 0.109 

16 536 10 69 98 0.110 

18 540 9.6 71 98 0.121 

20 556 14 80 94 0.115 

22 800 16 98 93 0.119 

24 611 12 61 98 0.118 

26 613 8.8 71 94 0.119 

28 537 6.5 54 96 0.114 

Mean (SD) 582 (80) 11 (2.9) 68 (13) 96 (1.9) 0.109 (0.010) 

 
Table 3-2. Diagnostic Ratios and Parameters of Saturated Hydrocarbons, Polynuclear 

Aromatic Hydrocarbons, and Steranes and Triterpanes 

Parameter Relevance in Environmental Samples

Saturated Hydrocarbons (SHC) 

Isoprenoids The sum of selected branched isoprenoid alkanes including: phytane, pristane, farnesane 

[1470], and unidentified isoprenoids at relative retention indices 1380 and 1650. 

Isoprenoids are abundant in petroleum and are resistant to degradation relative to the 

corresponding n-alkanes. 

Lower-MolecularWeight Alkanes 

(LALK) 

The sum of lower-molecular-weight n-alkanes (n-C9 to n-C20) generally associated with 

“fresh” petroleum inputs. 

Total Alkanes (TALK) The sum of total alkanes, which includes those of biogenic and petrogenic origin (n-C9 to nC40). 

LALK/TALK Diagnostic alkane compositional ratio used to determine the relative abundance of LALK, 

which includes those of biogenic origin. 

Phytane/Pristane 

(PHY/PRIS) 

Source of phytane (PHY) is mainly petroleum, whereas pristane (PRIS) is derived from 

both biological matter and oil. In “clean” environmental samples, this ratio is very low and 

increases as oil is added. 

n-C16/(n-C15 +n-C17) The ratio of n-alkane hexadecane (n-C16) over pentadecane (n-C15) and heptadecane 

(n-C17). At “background” levels of total hydrocarbons n-C15 and n-C17 can be used as 

indicators of plankton (algal) hydrocarbon inputs. As plankton productivity increases, the 

ratio decreases. 

Carbon Preference 

Index (CPI) 

Describes the relative amounts of odd- and even-chain alkanes within a specific alkane 

boiling range [CPI = (n-C27+ n-C29+ n-C31)/(n-C26+ n-C28+ n-C30)]. CPI of 2 to 4 indicates 

terrestrial plants; as oil additions increase, the CPI is lowered to near 1.0. 

TPHC Total Saturated Hydrocarbons. The sum of the resolved plus unresolved saturated 

hydrocarbons. 

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)

Naphthalenes/ 

Phenanthrenes (N/P) 

The naphthalenes (N) to phenanthrenes/anthracenes (P) ratio is diagnostic for inputs of 

fresh petroleum and as a weathering indicator. Naphthalenes are characteristic of fresh 

crude oil; the ratio decreases with increased weathering. (N= Naphthalene series [C0N + 

C1N + C2N + C3N + C4N]; P= Phenanthrene/Anthracene Series [C0P/A + C1P/A + C2P/A 

+ C3P/A + C4P/A]). 

C2D/C2P Ratio of C2 alkyl dibenzothiophenes (D) and C2 alkyl phenanthrenes (P) is a useful 

diagnostic source ratio for petroleum. 

C3D/C3P Ratio of C3 alkyl dibenzothiophenes (D) and C3 alkyl phenanthrenes (P) is a useful 

diagnostic source ratio for petroleum. 

Perylene A biogenic PAH formed during the early diagenesis in marine and lacustrine sediments; 

may be associated with terrestrial plant source precursors. 

Total PAH The sum of all PAH target analytes; includes 2- through 6-ring parent PAH and C1 to C4 

alkyl-substituted PAH. 

Pyrogenic PAH The sum of combustion PAH compounds (4-, 5-, and 6-ring PAH: fluoranthene, pyrene, 

chrysene, benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, 

benzo[a]pyrene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, benzo[g,h,i]perylene, and indeno[1,2,3,-

c,d]pyrene. 

Petrogenic PAH The sum of petrogenic PAH compounds (2-, 3-, and 4-ring PAH: naphthalenes [C0 to C4], 

acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, fluorene [C0 to C3], phenanthrenes [C0 to C4], 

dibenzothiophenes [C0 to C3], chrysenes [C1 to C4], and fluoranthenes/pyrenes [C1 to 

C3]). 

Pyrogenic/Petrogenic The ratio of pyrogenic PAH compounds to petrogenic PAH compounds is useful for 

determining the relative contribution of pyrogenic and petrogenic hydrocarbons and in 

differentiating hydrocarbon sources. 
Table 3-2. Diagnostic Ratios and Parameters of Saturated Hydrocarbons, Polynuclear 

Aromatic Hydrocarbons, and Steranes and Triterpanes (continued) 

Parameter Relevance in Environmental Samples

Steranes/Triterpanes (S/T) 

Total S/T The sum of all sterane and triterpane biomarker target analytes. 

T21/T22 The ratio of C31-homohopane (22S) (T21) to C31-homohopane (22R) (T22); useful for 

determining the contribution of recent biogenic material. 

Hopane C30-Hopane (T19), commonly one of the most abundant triterpanes in petroleum. 

Ts/(Ts +Tm) Ratio of C27-trisnorhopane (Ts) to C27-trisnorhopane (Tm); used as a maturity indicator for 

petroleum and also as a source ratio for different crude oils. 

Oleanane/Hopane The ratio of C30-oleanane (T18) to C30-hopane (T19); indicates the relative amounts of 

oleanane, which is a marker of angiosperm (post-Cretaceous) contribution to petroleum 

diagenesis. 
Table 3-3. Average Total Organic Concentrations in Surficial Sediments from ANIMIDA Study Area, 

Alaska Marine Sediments, and Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait Sediments 

Total PAH (μg/g) Total PHCd (μg/g) Total S/T (μg/g)

Concentrations in Alaska 

Marine Sedimentsa 0.016 - 2.4 0.47 - 38 NA

Concentrations in Cook Inlet 

and Shelikof Strait Sedimentsb 0.001 – 1.080 0.9 - 69.0 0.009 – 0.087

Average (Range) 

Concentrations for ANIMIDA 

Study Area Surficial 

Sedimentsc 

0.49 (0.007 – 2.7) 9.0 (0.21 – 50) 0.051 (0.002 – 0.176)

Average (Range) 

Concentrations for ANIMIDA 

Study Area Sediment Cores 

0.54 (0.28 – 1.99) 9.0 (3.2 – 31) 0.059 (0.021 – 0.225) 

a Prince William Sound subtidal and Beaufort Sea (Bence et al., 1996; Boehm et al., 1991).

b ENRI - UAA, 1995, Hyland, et al.,1995; ADL, 1996; KLI, 1996; KLI, 1997; Boehm et al., 1999). c Brown et al., 2002. 

d

 Total PHC concentrations for the ANIMIDA studies included saturated hydrocarbons only, while Total PHC 

concentrations for the other studies included saturated and aromatic hydrocarbons. 

NA – not applicable.
Table 3-4. Summary Data for Metals, Total Organic Carbon (TOC), and Grain Size in Sediments from the C

Samples Ag (μg/g) Al (%) As (μg/g) Ba (μg/g) Be (μg/g) Cd (μg/g) Co (μg/g) Cr (μg/g

Surface 

Sediment 

1999 

& 2000 

Mean ± 

Std. Dev. 

(n = 88) 

0.11 

±0.05 

3.93 

±1.63 

11.1 

±4.1 

394 

±146 

1.2 

±0.50 

0.22 

±0.12 

7.3 

±3.3 

56.9 

±23.

Sediment 

Cores 2001 

Mean ± 

Std. Dev. 

(n = 104) 

0.12 

±0.05 

4.48 

±0.80 

9.3 

±3.2 

460 ±60 

1.1 

±0.2 

0.26 

±0.10 

9.0 

±2.0 

64.4 

±9.6 

All Data Range 0.03-0.44 1.1-7.3 4.2-28.4 155-753 0.3-2.3 0.03-0.82 2.2-18.6 12.7-1

Samples Hg (μg/g) Mn (μg/g) Ni (μg/g) Pb (μg/g) Sb (μg/g) Tl (μg/g) V (μg/g) Zn (μg/g

Surface 

Sediment 

1999 & 

2000 

Mean ± 

Std. Dev. 

(n = 88) 

0.041 

±0.029 

317 

±144 

24.3 

±10.5 

9.7 

±4.9 

0.50 

±0.21 

0.40 

±0.18 

92.6 

±40.1 

70.1 

±31.7 

Sediment 

Cores 

2001 

Mean ± 

Std. Dev. 

(n = 104) 

0.054 

±0.011 

294 

±117 

31.9 ±6.3 

10.3 

±2.5 

0.62 

±0.12 

0.47 

±0.07 

99.7 

±17.4 

91.5 

±22.6 

All Data Range 0.003- 0.20 62-898 6.0-48.4 3.2-22.3 0.15-1.14 0.12-0.92 26.9-173 14.8-15
Table 3-5. Summary of Results for Metal/Al Ratios in Sediment Cores 

Results presented in this table include the following locations: Prudhoe Bay (P01, n = 29), Endicott 

(E01, n = 13), Pole Island 3A (n = 10), Colville Delta (6A, n = 23; 6G, n = 14), Northstar 2 (n = 15). 

Metal (Metal/Al) 

(x 10-4) 

All 104 Samples 

Range for CV (%) for 

(Metal/Al) for All 6 

Cores 

Average CV (%) for 

(Metal/Al) 

from 6 Cores 

Ni/Al 7.1 ± 0.9 2-6 3.5 

V/Al 22.3 ± 1.2 3-6 3.6 

Zn/Al 20.3 ± 2.6 2-6 4.4 

Fe/Al 5100* 2-10 4.6 

Cr/Al 14.6 ± 1.8 4-6 5.1 

Ba/Al 105 ± 16 5-8 5.8 

Co/Al 2.0 ± 0.4 3-10 6.1 

Tl/Al 0.11 ± 0.01 4-11 6.4 

Be/Al 0.24 ± 0.3 5-14 7.7 

Pb/Al 2.3 ± 0.4 4-16 8.7 

Sb/Al 0.14 ± 0.02 5-15 9.4 

Cu/Al 4.8 ± 1.0 7-14 10.2 

Cd/Al 0.06 ± 0.02 12-19 14.8 

As/Al 2.1 ± 0.7 11-22 15.1 

Mn/Al 65 ± 19 8-42 20.4 

Ag/Al 0.03 ± 0.01 16-39 26.5 

 * Ratio for Fe/Al is 0.51. 
Table 3-6. Organic Quality Control Result Summary – Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon 

Analyses 

QC Sample or 

Measurement Type Acceptance Criteria Quality Control Result Summary 

Impact to Data 

Quality and Usability 

Initial Calibration %RSD <25% for all 

compounds (up to 10% of 

compounds can be >25%, 

but <35%) 

All criteria were met. None. 

Continuing 

Calibration 

%D <25% for all 

compounds (up to 10% of 

compounds can be >25%, 

but <35%) 

All criteria were met. None. 

Surrogate 

Recoveries 

45 to 125% recovery 

(35 – 125% for 

d8-naphthalene) 

All criteria were met, with 

the exception of a low d8-

naphthalene recovery in 

sample N02-12. 

Minor. The results for 

sample 01-N02-01—

12-PHC-SC should be 

considered estimated 

values due to low 

surrogate recoveries. 

Procedural Blank No compound to exceed 5 

times the MDL unless 

sample amount is >10 

times blank amount 

Several PAHs were 

detected in the sediment 

blanks at trace 

concentrations below the 

MRL. The associated 

sample concentrations 

were > 5 times the blank 

concentrations, with the 

exception of 

acenaphthylene. 

Minor. The 

acenaphthylene results 

within 5 times the 

blank result were 

qualified “B” and may 

be biased high or false 

positives. 

Blank Spike Sample 

Recoveries 

35 to 125% recovery for 

spiked compounds 

Several PAHs were 

recovered at >125% in the 

sediment BS. 

Minor. Results for 

these compounds in 

the associated 

samples may be 

biased high. 

Laboratory Duplicate RPD <30% for all 

compounds >10 times the 

MDL; mean RPD <30% 

All criteria were met. None. 

Instrument SRM 

(1491) 

Measured values must be 

within 15% of true value 

for all certified compounds 

All criteria were met. None. 

Sediment SRM 

(1944) 

Measured values must be 

within 30% of true value 

on average for all 

compounds, not to exceed 

35% of true value for 

more than 30% of the 

compounds 

All criteria were met for 

the sediment SRMs, with 

the exception of low 

responses for 

naphthalene in 5 of 5 

analyses and 

benzo[k]fluoranthene in 2 

of 5 analyses. 

Minor. The 

naphthalene and 

benzo[k]fluoranthene 

results in the 

associated sediment 

samples may be 

biased low. 

Oil Reference 

Standard (North 

Slope Crude) 

%D <35% for compounds 

above the reporting limit 

(RL). 

All criteria were met. None. 
Table 3-7. Organic Quality Control Result Summary – Saturated Hydrocarbon Analyses 

QC Sample or 

Measurement Type 

Acceptance Criteria Quality Control Result 

Summary 

Impact to Data 

Quality and Usability 

Initial Calibration %RSD <25% for all 

compounds (up to 10% of 

compounds can be >25%, 

but <35%) 

All criteria were met. None. 

Continuing Calibration %D <25% for all 

compounds (up to 10% of 

compounds can be >25%, 

but <35%) 

All criteria were met. None. 

Surrogate Recoveries 45 to 125% recovery All criteria were met. None. 

Procedural Blank No compound to exceed 5 

times the MDL unless 

sample amount is >10 

times blank amount 

Many SHCs were 

detected in the blanks at 

trace concentrations less 

than the MDL and/or less 

than 1/5 the MRL. 

Minor. Results within 

5 times the associated 

blank result were 

qualified with a “B” and 

may be biased high or 

may be false positives. 

All qualified results 

were less than 2 times 

the MRL. 

Blank Spike Sample 

Recoveries 

35 to 125% recovery for 

spiked compounds 

All criteria were met. None. 

Laboratory Duplicate RPD <30% for all 

compounds >10 times the 

MDL; mean RPD <30% 

All criteria were met. None. 

Oil Reference 

Standard (North Slope 

Crude) 

%D <35% for compounds 

above the RL 

All criteria were met. None. 
Table 3-8. Organic Quality Control Result Summary – Sterane and Triterpane Analyses 

QC Sample or 

Measurement Type Acceptance Criteria Quality Control Result Summary 

Impact to Data 

Quality and Usability 

Initial Calibration %RSD <25% for all 

compounds 

All criteria were met. None. 

Continuing Calibration %D <25% for all 

compounds 

All criteria were met. None. 

Surrogate Standards 45 to 125% recovery All criteria were met. None. 

Laboratory Duplicate RPD <30% for all 

compounds >10 times the 

MDL; mean RPD <30% 

All criteria were met. None. 

Procedural Blank No compound to exceed 5 

times the MDL unless 

sample amount is >10 

times blank amount 

All criteria were met. None. 

Oil Reference 

Standard (North Slope 

Crude) 

%D <35% for compounds 

above the RL 

All criteria were met. None. 
Table 3-9. Inorganic Quality Control Result Summary – Trace-Metal Analyses 

QC Sample or 

Measurement Type Acceptance Criteria Quality Control Result Summary 

Impact to Data Quality 

and Usability 

Initial Calibration Standard Curve 

correlation coefficient r

≥ 0.999 for a 3- to 5- 

point curve for all trace 

metals 

All criteria were met. None. 

Continuing Calibration %D <15% for all trace 

metals or repeat Initial 

Calibration and sample 

analyses 

All criteria were met. None. 

Matrix Spike 

Recoveries 

80 to 120% recovery 

for all trace metals 

All criteria were met. None. 

Procedural Blanks No more than 2 tracemetal concentrations to 

exceed 5 times the 

MDL unless analyte is 

not detected in 

associated samples 

All criteria were met. None. 

Laboratory Duplicates RSD <25% for 65% of 

the trace-metal 

concentrations 

All criteria were met. None. 

Sediment and Certified 

Reference Materials 

(MESS-2 and 1643d) 

Measured values must 

be within 20% of the 

certified or reference 

values for >85% of the 

SRM analyses or within 

25% of the certified HG 

value 

All criteria were met. None. 
Table 3-10. Results for Marine Sediment Certified and Standard Reference Materials and Metals Spike R

Sample ID Ag 

(μg/g) 

Al 

(%) 

As 

(μg/g) 

Ba 

(μg/g) 

Be 

(μg/g) 

Cd 

(μg/g) 

Co 

(μg/g) 

Cr 

(μg/g) 

CRM MESS-2 This Study, 2001 (n = 8-10) 

0.18 

±0.01 

8.45 

±0.12 

20.6 

±0.4 

1008 

±13 

2.27 

±0.05 

0.24 

±0.01 

13.4 

±0.4 

99.3 

±1.5 

CRM MESS-2 NRC Certified 

0.18 

±0.02 

8.57 

±0.26 

20.7 

±0.8 

-- 2.32 

±0.12 

0.24 

±0.01 

13.8 

±1.4 

106 

±8 

SRM #1643d This Study, 2001 (n = 4) 

-- -- -- 511.2 

±5.4 

-- -- -- -- 

SRM #1643d NIST Certified 

-- -- -- 506.5 

±8.9 

-- -- -- -- 

Spike Recovery (%) 2001 

87.6 

±10.5 

102.0 

±3.3 

99.6 

±5.3 

97.2 

±1.9 

94.9 

±3.6 

93.2 

±3.3 

92.6 

±2.4 

101.0 

±4.4 

Sample ID Hg 

(μg/g) 

Mn 

(μg/g) 

Ni 

(μg/g) 

Pb 

(μg/g) 

Sb 

(μg/g) 

Tl 

(μg/g) 

V 

(μg/g) 

Zn 

(μg/g) 

CRM MESS-2 This Study, 2001 (n = 8-10) 

0.093 

±0.005 

370 

±8 

48.2 

±1.2 

21.4 

±0.4 

1.17 

±0.02 

0.94 

±0.04 

247 

±1 

176 ±10 

CRM MESS-2 NRC Certified 

0.092 

±0.009 

365 ±12 

49.3 

±1.8 

21.9 

±1.2 

1.09 

±0.13 

(0.98) 252 

±10 

172 ±16 

SRM #1643d This Study, 2001 (n = 4) 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

SRM #1643d NIST Certified 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Spike Recovery (%) 2001 

87.7 ±9.5 

100.0 

±5.2 

91.9 

±4.0 

92.6 

±2.0 

100.4 

±1.6 

95.3 

±1.5 

117 

±6.0 

94.6 

±0.9 

Notes: CRM MESS-2 was issued by NRC and the SRM Trace Elements in Water #1643d was issued by NIST. 

Values in parenthesis are for reference only; SRM not certified by the NRC. N.A. = Not Available * Total Carbon (Inorganic plus Organic)
210Pb Activity (dpm/g)

-1 0 1 2 3 4

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

3

6

9

12

S = 0.12 ± 0.02 cm/y

r = 0.9

ln excess 210Pb

Total 210Pb 

Prudhoe Bay P01

 

137Cs Acitivity (dpm/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

3

6

9

12

S = 0.10 ± 0.02 cm/y 

1950

Prudhoe Bay P01

1963

210Pb Activity (dpm/g)

-1 0 1 2 3 4

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

3

6

9

12

S = 0.04 ± 0.02 cm/y

r = 0.9

ln excess 210Pb

Total 210Pb 

Endicott E01

 

137Cs Acitivity (dpm/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

3

6

9

12

S = 0.06 ± 0.02 cm/y 

1950

Endicott E01

1963

210Pb Activity (dpm/g)

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

3

6

9

12

S = 0.03 ± 0.02 cm/y

r = 0.98

Colville 6G

ln excess 210Pb

Total 210Pb

 

137Cs Acitivity (dpm/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

3

6

9

12

1950

Colville 6G

s = 0.06 ± 0.02 cm/y

Figure 3-1. Vertical Profiles Showing Activities of Excess 210Pb, Total 210Pb, and 

137Cs for Sediment Cores from Stations P01 (Prudhoe Bay), E01 (East of Endicott 

Island) and 6G (Eastern Portion of Colville River Delta)

Sedimentation rates (S) and correlation coefficients (r) for linear regression line are shown for excess 210Pb. 

Dates of 1950 and 1963 on 137Cs plots identify the dates of initial input (1950) and maximum input (1963), 

respectively, of 137Cs to the atmosphere from bomb testing. 
Figure 3-2. Vertical Profiles for Selected Organic Parameters in Sediment Core

from Near Pole Island (Station 3A)

0

5

10

15

20

0 50 100

Total S/T (ng/g)

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

0 5 10 15

Total Hydrocarbons (ug/g) Core Depth (cm)

TPHC/Silt+Clay

0

5

10

15

20

0 5 10 15

CPI 

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

0 50 100

Silt + Clay (%)

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

0 300 600 900

Total PAH (ng/g)

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

0.00 0.20 0.40

C2D/C2P

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

0.00 0.40 0.80

Ts/Ts+Tm

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60

nC16/nC15+nC17

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15

Pyrogenic/Petrogenic PAH Core Depth (cm)

TPAH/Silt+Clay
Figure 3-3. Vertical Profiles for Selected Organic Parameters in Sediment Core

from near Colville River Delta (Station 6A)

TPAH/Silt+Clay

0

5

10

15

20

0 50 100 150

Total S/T (ng/g)

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

0 10 20 30

Total PHC (ug/g)

Core Depth (cm)

TPHC/Silt+Clay

0

5

10

15

20

0246

CPI 

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

0 50 100

Silt + Clay (%)

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

0 1000 2000

Total PAH (ng/g)

Core Depth (cm)

TPAH/Silt+Clay

0

5

10

15

20

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60

C2D/C2P

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

0.00 0.20 0.40

Ts/Ts+Tm

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

0.00 0.10 0.20

Pyrogenic/Petrogenic PAH

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

0.00 0.50

nC16/nC15 + nC17

Core Depth (cm)
Figure 3-4. Vertical Profiles for Selected Organic Parameters in Sediment Core

from Colville River Delta (Station 6G)

TPAH/Silt+Clay

0

5

10

15

20

0 100 200 300

Total S/T (ng/g)

Core Depth (cm)

1950

0

5

10

15

20

0 50 100

Total PHC (ug/g)

Core Depth (cm)

TPHC/Clay x 0.3

1950

0

5

10

15

20

0 5 10

CPI 

Core Depth (cm)

1950

0

5

10

15

20

0 50 100

Silt + Clay (%)

Core Depth (cm)

1950

0

5

10

15

20

0 1500 3000

Total PAH (ng/g)

Core Depth (cm)

1950

TPAH/Clay x 0.5

0

5

10

15

20

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60

C2D/C2P

Core Depth (cm)

1950

0

5

10

15

20

0.00 0.20 0.40

Ts/Ts+Tm

Core Depth (cm)

1950

0

5

10

15

20

0.00 0.10 0.20

Pyrogenic/Petrogenic PAH

Core Depth (cm)

1950

0

5

10

15

20

0.00 0.30 0.60

nC16/nC15+nC17

Core Depth (cm)

1950
Figure 3-5. Vertical Profiles for Selected Organic Parameters in Sediment Core

from near Endicott Island (Station E01)

TPAH/Silt+Clay

0

5

10

0 50 100

Total S/T (ng/g)

Core Depth (cm)

1950

0

5

10

0 10 20

Total PHC (ug/g)

Core Depth (cm)

TPHC/Silt+Clay

1950

0

5

10

036

CPI 

Core Depth (cm)

1950

0

5

10

0 50 100

Silt + Clay (%)

Core Depth (cm)

1950

0

5

10

0 500 1000

Total PAH (ng/g)

Core Depth (cm)

1950

TPAH/Silt+Clay

0

5

10

0.00 0.30 0.60

C2D/C2P

Core Depth (cm)

1950

0

5

10

0.00 0.20 0.40

Ts/Ts+Tm

Core Depth (cm)

1950

0

5

10

0.00 0.10 0.20

Pyrogenic/Petrogenic PAH

Core Depth (cm)

1950

0

5

10

0.00 0.30 0.60

nC16/nC15+nC17

Core Depth (cm)

1950
Figure 3-6. Vertical Profiles for Selected Organic Parameters in Sediment Core 

from Near Liberty Prospect (Station L02)

TPAH/Silt+Clay

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 50 100

Total S/T (ng/g)

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 10 20 30

Total PHC (ug/g)

Core Depth (cm)

TPHC/Silt + Clay

0

5

10

15

20

25

036

CPI 

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 50 100

Silt + Clay (%)

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 500 1000 1500

Total PAH (ng/g)

Core Depth (cm)

TPAH/Silt + Clay

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.00 0.30 0.60

C2D/C2P

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.00 0.20 0.40

Ts/Ts+Tm

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.00 0.10 0.20

Pyrogenic/Petrogenic PAH

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.00 0.30 0.60

nC16/nC15+nC17

Core Depth (cm)
Figure 3-7. Vertical Profiles for Selected Organic Parameters in Sediment Core

from Near Northstar Island (Station N02)

0

5

10

15

20

25

036

CPI 

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 50 100

Total S/T (ng/g)

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.00 0.30 0.60

C2D/C2P

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 500 1000

Total PAH (ng/g)

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 10 20 30

Total PHC (ug/g)

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 50 100

Silt + Clay (%)

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.00 0.20 0.40

Ts/Ts+Tm

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.00 0.10 0.20

Pyrogenic/Petrogenic PAH

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.00 0.30 0.60

nC16/nC15+nC17

Core Depth (cm)
Figure 3-8. Vertical Profiles for Selected Organic Parameters in Sediment Core 

from Near Northstar Island (Station N03)

0

5

10

15

20

0 20 40 60

Total S/T (ng/g)

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

0 10 20

Total PHC (ug/g)

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

036

CPI 

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

0 50 100

Silt + Clay (%)

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

0 250 500 750

Total PAH (ng/g)

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

0.00 0.30 0.60

C2D/C2P

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

0.00 0.20 0.40

Ts/Ts+Tm

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

0.00 0.10 0.20

Pyrogenic/Petrogenic PAH

Core Depth (cm)

g

0

5

10

15

20

0.00 0.30 0.60

nC16/nC15+nC17

Core Depth (cm)
Figure 3-9. Vertical Profiles for Selected Organic Parameters in Sediment Core

from Prudhoe Bay (Station P01)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 50 100 150

Total S/T (ng/g)

Core Depth (cm)

1950

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 10 20 30

Total PHC (ug/g)

Core Depth (cm)

1950

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0369

CPI 

Core Depth (cm)

1950

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 50 100 150

Silt + Clay (%)

Core Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 500 1000

Total PAH (ng/g)

Core Depth (cm)

1950

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.00 0.30 0.60

C2D/C2P

Core Depth (cm)

1950

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.00 0.20 0.40

Ts/Ts+Tm

Core Depth (cm)

1950

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.00 0.10 0.20

Pyrogenic/Petrogenic PAH

Core Depth (cm)

1950

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.00 0.30 0.60

nC16/nC15+nC17

Core Depth (cm)

1950

1950
Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Fe and Al (%)

02468

Fe and Al (%)

02468

Prudhoe Bay

Fe Al

1950

 

Ba (μg/g)

0 200 400 600

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ba/Al

0 50 100 150 200

Ba/Al Ba

Prudhoe Bay

1950

(±5.4%)

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Pb (μg/g)

0 10 20

Pb/Al

0246

Pb/Al Pb

Prudhoe Bay

1950

(±5.0%)

 

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cr/Al

0 10 20 30

Cr (μg/g)

0 20 40 60 80

Cr/Al Cr

Prudhoe Bay

1950

(± 5.0%)

 

V (μg/g)

0 50 100

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

V/Al

0 20 40

V/Al

Prudhoe Bay

1950

(± 4.3%)

V

 

Zn (μg/g)

0 50 100 150

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Zn/Al

0 20 40 60

Zn/Al Zn

Prudhoe Bay

1950

(± 5.2%)

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

As/Al

0246

As (μg/g)

0 4 8 12

As/Al As

Prudhoe Bay (±21%)

 

TOC (%)

01234

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

TOC/Al

0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2

TOC/Al TOC

Prudhoe Bay (±29%)

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Mn (μg/g)

0 300 600 900

Mn/Al

0 100 200

Mn/Al

Mn

Prudhoe Bay (±42%)

Figure 3-10. Vertical Profiles for Metals and Total Organic Carbon in Sediment 

Core from Prudhoe Bay (Station P01)

Triangles at top of some profiles show mean values for suspended sediment from the Sagavanirktok River. 

Numbers in parentheses give CV for metal/Al ratio. Graphs with no line for 1950 (As, TOC and Mn) lack 

geochronological significance due post-depositional diagenesis/diffusion. 
MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Ag (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ag/Al

0.00 0.03 0.06

Ag/Al Ag

Prudhoe Bay

(±16%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Be (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Be/Al

0.0 0.3 0.6

Be/Al Be

Prudhoe Bay

(± 7.9%)

1950

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Cd (μg/g)

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cd/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Cd/Al

Cd

Prudhoe Bay (±19%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Co (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Co/Al

0246

Co/Al Co

Prudhoe Bay (± 10.4%)

1950

 

Cu (μg/g)

0 10 20 30

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cu/Al

0 4 8 12

Cu/Al Cu

Prudhoe Bay

1950

(± 8.3%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Hg (μg/g)

0.00 0.04 0.08

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Tl/Al

0.00 0.05 0.10

Hg

Prudhoe Bay

1950

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Ni (μg/g)

0 20 40

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ni/Al

0 5 10 15 20

Ni/Al Ni

Prudhoe Bay (± 6.1%)

1950

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Sb/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Sb (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0

Sb/Al Sb

Prudhoe Bay

1950

(± 4.9%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Tl (μg/g)

0.0 0.3 0.6

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Tl/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Tl/Al

Tl

Prudhoe Bay

1950

(± 5.5%)

Figure 3-11. Vertical Profiles for Metals in Sediment Core from Prudhoe Bay 

(Station P01)

Triangles at top of some profiles show mean values for suspended sediment from the Sagavanirktok River. 

Numbers in parentheses give CV for metal/Al ratio. Graphs with no line for 1950 lack geochronological 

significance due post-depositional diagenesis/diffusion (Cd) or large variability due to low concentrations 

(Ag). 
Depth (cm)

0

5

10

Fe and Al (%)

02468

Fe and Al (%)

02468

Fe Al

E01

1950

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Ba (μg/g)

0 200 400 600

Depth (cm)

0

5

10

Ba/Al

0 100 200 300

Ba/Al Ba

1950

E01

(±8.1%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Pb (μg/g)

0 10 20

Depth (cm)

0

5

10

Pb/Al

0246

Pb/Al Pb

1950

E01

(±4.3%)

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Cr (μg/g)

0 20 40 60 80

Depth (cm)

0

5

10

Cr/Al

0 10 20 30

Cr/Al Cr

E01

1950

(±5.6%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

V (μg/g)

0 50 100

Depth (cm)

0

5

10

V/Al

0 20 40

V/Al V

E01

1950

(±2.7%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Zn (μg/g)

0 50 100 150

Depth (cm)

0

5

10

Zn/Al

0 20 40 60

Zn/Al Zn

E01

1950

(±1.7%)

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

As (μg/g)

0 4 8 12

Depth (cm)

0

5

10

As/Al

0246

As/Al As

E01

(±11.1%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

TOC (%)

012

Depth (cm)

0

5

10

TOC/Al

0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2

TOC/Al

TOC

E01 (±37%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Mn (μg/g)

0 200 400

Depth (cm)

0

10

Mn/Al

0 50 100 150

Mn Mn/Al

E01 (±12.4%)

Figure 3-12. Vertical Profiles for Metals and Total Organic Carbon in Sediment 

Core from Near Endicott Island (Station E01)

Numbers in parentheses give CV for metal/Al ratio. Graphs with no line for 1950 (As, TOC and Mn) lack 

geochronological significance due post-depositional diagenesis/diffusion. 
MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Ag (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2

Depth (cm)

0

5

10

Ag/Al

0.00 0.03 0.06

Ag/Al Ag

E01

 (±34%)

(low levels)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Be (μg/g)

012

Depth (cm)

0

5

10

Be/Al

0.0 0.3 0.6

Be/Al Be

E01

(±4.9%)

1950

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Cd (μg/g)

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Depth (cm)

0

5

10

Cd/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Cd/Al Cd

E01 (±11.1%)

1950

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Co (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

Depth (cm)

0

5

10

0246

Co/Al Co

Co/Al

1950

(±3.1%) E01

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Cu (μg/g)

0 10 20 30

Depth (cm)

0

5

10

Cu/Al

0 5 10

Cu/Al Cu

E01

(±7.5%)

1950

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Hg (μg/g)

0.00 0.04 0.08

Depth (cm)

0

5

10

Cu/Al

0 5 10

Cu/Al Hg

E01

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Ni (μg/g)

0 20 40

Depth (cm) 0

5

10

Ni/Al

0 5 10 15 20

Ni/Al Ni

1950

(±2.3%) E01

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Sb (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0

Depth (cm)

0

5

10

Sb/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Sb/Al Sb

(±6.2%) E01

1950

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Tl (μg/g)

0.0 0.3 0.6

Depth (cm)

0

5

10

Tl/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Tl/Al Tl

1950

(±6.1%)

E01

 

Figure 3-13. Vertical Profiles for Metals in Sediment Core from Near Endicott 

Island (Station E01) 

Numbers in parentheses give CV for metal/Al ratio. Graphs with no line for 1950 lack geochronological significance 

due to large variability due to low concentrations (Ag) or inexact matches with depth for Al values (Hg). 

 
 X Axis 5

02468

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Fe and Al (%)

02468

Colville 6G

Fe Al

1950

 

Ba (μg/g)

0 200 400 600

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ba/Al

0 50 100 150 200

Ba/Al Ba

Colville 6G

1950

(±5.2%)

 

Pb (μg/g)

0 10 20

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Pb/Al

0246

Pb/Al Pb

Colville 6G

1950

(±4.9%)

 Cr (μg/g)

0 30 60 90

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cr/Al

0 10 20 30

Cr/Al Cr

Colville 6G

1950

(±4.4%)

 

V (μg/g)

0 50 100

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

V/Al

0 20 40

V/Al V

Colville 6G

1950

(±2.8%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Zn (μg/g)

0 50 100

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Zn/Al

0 20 40 60

Zn/Al Zn

Colville 6G

(±4.1%)

1950

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

As (μg/g)

0 4 8 12

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

As/Al

024

As/Al As

Colville 6G

(±10.7%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

TOC (%)

012

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

TOC/Al

0.0 0.5 1.0

TOC/Al TOC

(±20.8%)

Colville 6G

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Mn (μg/g)

0 300 600

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Mn/Al

0 50 100 150 200

Mn Mn/Al

Colville 6G

(±22.5%)

Figure 3-14. Vertical Profiles for Metals and Total Organic Carbon in Sediment 

Core from Colville River Delta (Station 6G)

Triangles at top of some profiles show mean values for suspended sediment from the Colville River. 

Numbers in parentheses give CV for metal/Al ratio. Graphs with no line for 1950 (As, TOC and Mn) lack 

geochronological significance due post-depositional diagenesis/diffusion. 
 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Ag (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ag/Al

0.00 0.03 0.06

Ag/Al Ag

Colville 6G

 (±21%)

(low levels)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Be (μg/g)

012

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Be/Al

0.0 0.3 0.6

Be/Al Be

Colville 6G

(±8.1%)

1950

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Cd (μg/g)

0.0 0.2 0.4

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cd/Al

0.00 0.05 0.10

Cd/Al Cd

Colville 6G

(±14.6%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Co (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

0246

Co/Al Co

Colville 6G

1950

Co/Al

(±4.3%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Cu (μg/g)

0 10 20 30

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cu/Al

0 5 10

Cu/Al Cu

Colville 6G

(±7.4%)

1950

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Hg (μg/g)

0.00 0.05 0.10

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Hg

Colville 6G

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Ni (μg/g)

0 20 40 60

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ni/Al

0 5 10 15 20

Ni/Al Ni

Colville 6G

1950

(±2.9%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Sb (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Sb/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Sb/Al Sb

Colville 6G

(±9.3%)

1950

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Tl (μg/g)

0.0 0.3 0.6

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Tl/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Tl/Al Tl

Colville 6G

(±5.2%)

1950

 Figure 3-15. Vertical Profiles for Metals in Sediment Core from Colville River Delta 

(Station 6G) 

Triangles at top of some profiles show mean values for suspended sediment from the Colville River. 

Numbers in parentheses give CV for metal/Al ratio. Graphs with no line for 1950 lack geochronological 

significance due large variability due to low concentrations (Ag), inexact matches with depth for Al values 

(Hg) or post-depositional diagenesis/diffusion (Cd). 
 Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Fe and Al (%)

02468

Fe and Al (%)

02468

N02

Fe Al

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Ba (μg/g)

0 200 400 600

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ba/Al

0 100 200 300

Ba/Al Ba

(±4.6%)

N02

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Pb (μg/g)

0 10 20

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Pb/Al

0246

Pb/Al

Pb

(±10.9%)

N02

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Cr (μg/g)

0 20 40 60 80

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cr/Al

0 10 20 30

Cr/Al Cr

(±5.9%)

N02

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

V (μg/g)

0 50 100

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

V/Al

0 20 40

V/Al V

(±3.2%)

N02

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Zn (μg/g)

0 50 100

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Zn/Al

0 20 40 60

Zn/Al Zn

(±6.4%)

N02

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

As (μg/g)

0 4 8 12

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

As/Al

0246

As/Al As

N02

(±17.5)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

TOC (%)

012

Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

TOC/Al

0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2

TOC/Al TOC

N02

(±25%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Mn (μg/g)

0 100 200 300

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Mn/Al

0 40 80 120

Mn/Al Mn

N02

(±14.8%)

Figure 3-16. Vertical Profiles for Metals and Total Organic Carbon in Sediment 

Core from Near Northstar Island (Station N02)

Numbers in parentheses give CV for metal/Al ratio. 
 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Ag (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ag/Al

0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09

Ag/Al Ag

N02

 (±34%)

(low levels)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Be (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Be/Al

0.0 0.3 0.6

Be/Al Be

(±6.8%)

N02

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Cd (μg/g)

0.0 0.2 0.4

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cd/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Cd/Al Cd

N02

(±15.1%)

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Co (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

0246

Co/Al Co

Co/Al

(±4.0%)

N02

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Cu (μg/g)

0 10 20 30

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cu/Al

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Cu/Al Cu

(±14.4%)

N02

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Hg (μg/g)

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Sb/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

0.00 0.03 0.06

Hg

N02

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Ni (μg/g)

0 20 40

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ni/Al

0 5 10 15 20

Ni/Al Ni

N02

(±3.1%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Sb (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Sb/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Sb/Al Sb

N02

(±11.9%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Tl (μg/g)

0.0 0.3 0.6

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Tl/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Tl/Al Tl

(±6.0%)

N02

Figure 3-17. Vertical Profiles for Metals in Sediment Core from Near Northstar 

Island (Station N02) 

Numbers in parentheses give CV for metal/Al ratio. 
 Fe and Al (%)

02468

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Fe and Al (%)

02468

Colville 6A

Fe Al

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Ba (μg/g)

0 200 400 600

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ba/Al

0 50 100 150 200

Ba/Al Ba

Colville 6A

(±6.8%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Pb (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Pb/Al

0246

Pb/Al Pb

Colville 6A

(±16.2%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Cr (μg/g)

0 20 40 60 80

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cr/Al

0 10 20 30

Cr/Al Cr

Colville 6A

(±4.6%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

V (μg/g)

0 50 100

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

V/Al

0 20 40

V/Al V

Colville 6A

(±5.6%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Zn (μg/g)

0 50 100

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Zn/Al

0 20 40 60

Zn/Al Zn

Colville 6A

(±5.3%)

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

As (μg/g)

0 4 8 12

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

As/Al

0246

As/Al As

Colville 6A

(±16.4%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

TOC (%)

0.0 0.5 1.0

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

TOC/Al

0.0 0.5 1.0

TOC/Al

TOC

Colville 6A

(±26%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Mn (μg/g)

0 200 400 600

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Mn/Al

0 50 100 150 200

Mn/Al Mn

Colville 6A

(±22.3)

Figure 3-18. Vertical Profiles for Metals and Total Organic Carbon in Sediment 

Core from Near Colville River Delta (Station 6A) 

Numbers in parentheses give CV for metal/Al ratio. 
 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Ag (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ag/Al

0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09

Ag/Al Ag

Colville 6A

 (±32%)

(low levels)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Be (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Be/Al

0.0 0.3 0.6

Be/Al Be

Colville 6A

(±14%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Cd (μg/g)

0.0 0.2 0.4

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cd/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Cd/Al Cd

Colville 6A

(±12.1%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Co (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

0246

Co/Al Co

Colville 6A

Co/Al

(±7.4%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Cu (μg/g)

0 10 20 30

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cu/Al

0 4 8 12

Cu/Al Cu

Colville 6A

(±11.6%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Hg (μg/g)

0.00 0.05 0.10

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ag/Al

0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09

Hg

Colville 6A

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Ni (μg/g)

0 20 40

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ni/Al

0 5 10 15 20

Ni/Al Ni

Colville 6A

(±2.2%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Sb (μg/g)

0.0 0.4 0.8

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Sb/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Sb/Al Sb

Colville 6A

(±15.0%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Tl (μg/g)

0.0 0.3 0.6

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Tl/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Tl/Al Tl

Colville 6A

(±11.3%)

Figure 3-19. Vertical Profiles for Metals in Sediment Core from Near Colville River 

Delta (Station 6A)

Numbers in parentheses give CV for metal/Al ratio. 
Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Fe and Al (%)

02468

Fe and Al (%)

02468

3A

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Ba (μg/g)

0 200 400 600

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ba/Al

0 50 100 150 200

Ba/Al Ba

3A

(±4.7%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Pb (μg/g)

0 10 20

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Pb/Al

0246

Pb/Al Pb

3A

(±7.8%)

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Cr (μg/g)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cr/Al

0 10 20 30

Cr/Al Cr

3A

(±5.1%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

V (μg/g)

0 50 100 150

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

V/Al

0 20 40 60

V/Al V

3A

(±2.8%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Zn (μg/g)

0 50 100 150

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Zn/Al

0 20 40 60

Zn/Al Zn

3A

(±3.8%)

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

As (μg/g)

0 4 8 12 16

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

As/Al

0246

As/Al As

3A

(±13.1%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

TOC (%)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

TOC/Al

0.0 0.5 1.0

TOC/Al TOC

3A

(±29%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Mn (μg/g)

0 200 400

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Mn/Al

0 40 80 120

Mn/Al

3A

Mn

(±8.1%)

Figure 3-20. Vertical Profiles for Metals and Total Organic Carbon in Sediment 

Core from Near Pole Island (Station 3A) 

Numbers in parentheses give CV for metal/Al ratio. 
MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Ag (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ag/Al

0.00 0.03 0.06

Ag/Al Ag

3A

(±15%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Be (μg/g)

012

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Be/Al

0.0 0.3 0.6

Be/Al Be

3A

(±4.6%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Cd (μg/g)

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cd/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Cd/Al Cd

3A

(±17%)

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Co (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Co/Al

0246

Co/Al Co

3A

(±7.3%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Cu (μg/g)

0 20 40

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cu/Al

0 5 10

Cu/Al Cu

3A

(±12.2%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Hg (μg/g)

0.00 0.04 0.08

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Sb/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Hg

3A

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Ni (μg/g)

0 20 40

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ni/Al

0 5 10 15 20

Ni/Al Ni

3A

(±4.6%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Sb (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Sb/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Sb/Al Sb

3A

(±8.9%)

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Tl (μg/g)

0.0 0.4 0.8

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Tl/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Tl/Al Tl

3A

(±4.1%)

Figure 3-21. Vertical Profiles for Metals in Sediment Core from Near Pole Island 

(Station 3A) 

Numbers in parentheses give CV for metal/Al ratio. 
4-1 

4.0 Discussion 

The summer 2001 field sampling program successfully obtained core samples suitable for 

age dating from eight stations. Of the eight cores, reliable and detailed results for 

geochronology were obtained for three stations: 1) station P01 in Prudhoe Bay, 2) station 

E01, just east of the Endicott development near the mouth of the Sagavanirktok River, 

and 3) station 6G near the eastern area of the Colville River delta (Figure 2-1). In this 

section of the report the results of the sediment core analyses for these three stations, as 

well as the others, will be further evaluated for general trends and relationships, and 

comparisons of the pre- and post-development results will be discussed.

4.1 Geochronology 

Previous efforts to reconstruct recent geochronology for coastal sediment from this 

nearshore area of the Beaufort Sea (Weiss and Naidu, 1986; Naidu et al., 2001) have 

encountered many of the same difficulties reported by us in Section 3. Weiss and Naidu 

(1986) used vertical profiles for the activity of total 210Pb to calculate sedimentation rates 

of 0.6 to 1 cm/year at sites in Simpson Lagoon, near our stations 6A and 6G; however, 

the total activities for 210Pb averaged <2 dpm/g with variable texture in each core. In 

recent work, Naidu et al. (2001) reported no excess 210Pb and no detectable 137Cs in a 

core from Simpson Lagoon. However, Naidu et al. (2001) reported excess 210Pb levels of 

0.9 to 1.2 dpm/g and 137Cs activities of 0.2 dpm/g at a site near our station 3B. Based on 

inherent difficulties with area sediments, a primary goal of our geochronology effort was 

to collect some sediment that was deposited prior to the onset of development during the 

late 1960s and some sediment that was deposited post-development. 

Our results show sedimentation rates that range from ~0.04 cm/year to ~0.10 cm/year, 

with several sites having little or no net accumulation of sediment during at least the past 

50 years. At three sites, we identify 3- to 5-cm thick layers of sediment that were 

deposited since development began (approximately 1970). Our overall results are 

consistent with those of Naidu et al. (2001) for the same area. We know from our 

previous work that the presence of fine-grained sediment at a given location can vary 

from year to year and that the sediments along much of the shallow, coastal Beaufort Sea 

are quite dynamic. 

Additional support for low sedimentation rates at stations P01 and E01 can be developed 

from data for river inputs of sediment. The Sagavanirktok River, the major river carrying 

sediment into this area, is estimated to have an annual sediment load of about 6 x 105

metric tons. The depositional area for this sediment in coastal Beaufort Sea is about 1000 

km2 (the approximate area bounded by the mainland to the south, the outer islands such 

as Cross Island to the north, and between 147.0° N and 148.5° W) to yield an estimated 

deposition rate of ~0.04 cm/year based on a sediment bulk density of 1.6 g/cm3

 ([0.6 x 

1012 g dry sediment/10 x 1012 cm

2

] x [(1.6 g wet sediment/cm3)/(2.6 g dry 

sediment/cm3

)]). As previously noted, however, the coastal Beaufort Sea in this area may 

be net erosional at this time (Reimnitz and Wolf, 1998). 
4-2 

Despite difficulties in determining sedimentation rates, we now have sediment samples 

that we know pre-date and post-date development. We also have surface sediments from 

1989, 1999, 2000, and 2002 cores that will be used in the final report to complete the 

analysis of any recent trends in deposition of potential contaminants. 

4.1.1 Geochronology of Hydrocarbons 

The hydrocarbon dataset for the core sediments from 2001 includes SHC, PAH, and S/T 

data from all eight core samples collected. As noted previously, three of the cores have 

reliable deposition rates and detailed geochronology. The remaining five cores were all 

analyzed for organic parameters to further expand our knowledge of the historical record 

of hydrocarbons in the study area. Even though we cannot accurately estimate the 

historical timeframe of these sediments, we do know that they primarily represent predevelopment (i.e., pre-1970) sediment levels and are likely much older. These data are 

assessed in part by using a suite of key diagnostic parameters and ratios (Table 3-2) that 

are useful in describing hydrocarbon trends in the marine environmental (Boehm et al., 

2001a; Brown et al., 2002). Some of the general trends observed in these data for several 

areas of interest are evaluated in this section. These areas include: 1) sources of 

hydrocarbons, 2) geochronology of hydrocarbons (comparisons over time), and 3) 

comparisons to sediment quality benchmarks or “guidelines.” 

To facilitate the presentation and discussion of the organics data, GC/FID chromatograms 

from the SHC analysis, PAH distribution plots, and triterpane extracted ion 

chromatogram profiles (EICPs) for representative samples from the core samples and 

selected source samples are presented in Figures 4-1 through 4-11. The samples selected 

for presentation are as follows: 

• North Slope Crude Oil – composite pipeline sample (Figure 4-1) 

• Colville River Sediment, Year 1999 - (Figure 4-2) 

• Sediment Core P01 – 0- to 2-cm interval (Figure 4-3) 

• Sediment Core P01 – 24- to 26-cm interval (Figure 4-4) 

• Sediment Core 6G – 0- to 2-cm interval (Figure 4-5) 

• Sediment Core 6G – 16- to 18-cm interval (Figure 4-6) 

• Sediment Core 3A – 0- to 2-cm interval (Figure 4-7) 

• Sediment Core E01 – 0- to 2-cm interval (Figure 4-8) 

• Sediment Core L02 – 0- to 2-cm interval (Figure 4-9) 

• Sediment Core N02 – 0- to 2-cm interval (Figure 4-10) 

• Sediment Core 6A – 0- to 2-cm interval (Figure 4-11) 

Saturated Hydrocarbons 

In general, the sediments in the core samples (GC/FID chromatograms in Figures 4-3 

through 4-11) exhibit a mixture of primarily terrestrial biogenic hydrocarbons and lower 

levels of petroleum hydrocarbons (Figure 4-1 shows a North Slope Crude Oil for 

reference). This assemblage is clearly dominated by plant wax normal (i.e., straightchain) alkanes in the n-C27 through n-C33 carbon range. This is further demonstrated by 

carbon preference index (CPI) values that range from 2.18 to 6.5 for most samples, which 
4-3 

is characteristic of sediments influenced by terrigenous plant inputs (Wakeham and 

Carpenter, 1976; Boehm, 1984). 

Traces of lower molecular weight alkanes (LALK; n-C9 through n-C20 alkanes), 

indicative of petroleum sources, are visible as more minor components relative to the 

plant wax alkanes in the core sediments and in the Colville River sample for comparison 

(Figures 4-2 through 4-11). This natural “background” petroleum alkane signature in the 

sediments has been well documented by previous studies in the region, including earlier 

ANIMIDA work (Boehm et al., 1987; Steinhauer and Boehm, 1992; Boehm et al., 1990; 

Boehm et al., 2001b; Brown et al., 2002). 

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

The PAH distributions for the core sediments show that the PAHs are primarily of a 

combined fossil fuel origin (i.e., petroleum and coal) and lesser contributions of 

pyrogenic or combustion-related compounds (e.g., 4-, 5-, and 6-ring PAHs), with a 

somewhat variable biogenic component (perylene). The petrogenic PAHs account for 

>85 percent of the Total PAH less perylene throughout the core samples. Perylene was 

abundant in the core sediments, and often the most abundant single PAH compound in 

the overall PAH distribution (Figures 4-3 through 4-11). Perylene is a naturally 

occurring PAH formed during early diagenesis in sediments from biological source 

precursors (Wakeham and Farrington, 1980; Wakeham et al., 1980). Perylene has also 

been shown to increase with depth in sediment cores, as historical diagenesis is enhanced 

in deeper core sections (Wakeham and Farrington, 1980). It may also be found in crude 

oil at very trace concentrations. In past studies, perylene was found at comparable 

concentrations in the BSMP surficial sediments (Boehm et al., 1990). 

The variations in PAH composition of representative core sediments from the region are 

shown in the PAH distribution plots in Figures 4-3 through 4-11. For comparison, the 

PAH distribution plot of a North Slope Crude oil is shown in Figure 4-1. The PAH 

distributions are generally similar in all the cores at surface and at depth, and are 

characterized by the presence of a full suite of relatively “unweathered” petroleum PAHs 

(i.e., naphthalenes > phenanthrenes) similar to the PAH distribution seen in the North 

Slope Crude oil. As noted previously, perylene dominates the overall PAH distribution 

as one of the most abundant individual PAHs in the samples. Perylene is found at equal 

or greater relative abundance in the river sediments and peat (Figure 4-2), which supports 

the relationship of the rivers as a source of the hydrocarbons in the nearshore sediments, 

as noted previously for the SHCs. Low levels of 4-, 5-, and 6-ring combustion PAHs are 

also present, but are generally only a minor component of the overall PAH composition 

in the sediments. 

Triterpanes 

In general, the triterpane distributions in the sediment core samples are indicative of a 

petroleum source (Figures 4-3 through 4-11), with varying abundances of a suite of 

recent organic material triterpane markers. For example, a characteristic petroleum 

triterpane pattern dominated by norhopane (T15) and C30-hopane (T19) is shown in 

Figure 4-1 for the North Slope Crude oil. The triterpane distributions for the sediment 

samples are composed of a mixture of these characteristic petroleum triterpanes, along 
4-4 

with recent organic or biogenic markers such as diploptene (the large peak to the right of 

the T21 and T22 doublet - Figure 4-5) and other unnamed triterpanes (the large peaks that 

elute prior to T15 and in the 44- to 47-minute range – Peters and Moldowan, 1993). In 

addition, the relative abundance of T22 at much greater levels than T21 in most samples 

provides further evidence of substantial recent organic matter inputs to the sediments. 

Most of the sediment core samples (with the exception of the core from 6G from near the 

mouth of the Colville River) contain trace levels of oleanane (T18), indicating the 

presence of a non-North Slope Crude, post-Cretaceous/Tertiary petroleum source; i.e., 

T18 is absent in bulk North Slope Crude oil (Bence et al., 1996). The origin of this 

petroleum signal is unknown, but it is likely from regional background inputs. Seep oils 

from Kavik and Angun may have trace oleananes as part of their biodegraded biomarker 

signature. The presence of oleanane has also been reported in Canadian McKenzie Delta 

crude oils far to the west of the study area (Banet, 1995). 

The triterpane distributions of the Colville River (Figure 4-2), Sagavanirktok River, and 

Kuparuk River sediments have recent organic matter and petroleum hydrocarbon 

triterpane patterns with some similarities to those observed in the sediment samples. This 

similarity suggests that there is a strong link between the river hydrocarbon sources – 

mostly erosional inputs of coal shale, peat, etc. (i.e., natural background) and the 

sediments. However, given the documented current transport regime of east to west in the 

study area, it is likely that the surficial sediments are also influenced by rivers to the east, 

as well as the Colville River. 

4.1.1.1 Comparisons of Hydrocarbons over Time 

The key diagnostic organic parameters (Table 3-2) calculated for sediment core sections 

are important in examining the historical trends of hydrocarbons in the sediment record. 

As discussed earlier, reliable geochronology could be established for only three of the 

eight sediment cores. As a result, the data set was too limited to allow meaningful 

multivariate statistical comparisons of pre- and post-development core samples as 

originally planned. However, comparisons of selected key diagnostic parameters in the 

form of core profiles (Figures 3-2 through 3-9), in conjunction with simple statistical 

treatments, allow an accurate assessment of pre- and post-development hydrocarbon 

trends over time. 

In general, comparisons of the core profiles for key diagnostic organic parameters for all 

of the cores do not show any clear trends that would indicate an increase in petroleum 

hydrocarbons over time. The core profiles from the five stations where geochronology 

could not be established (likely representing a historical pre-development record) are 

generally uniform and show little variability of the hydrocarbon parameters over time 

(CVs <16.2% for key source ratios, with the exception of CPI with a maximum CV of 26 

%, and CVs <57 % for bulk parameters). The cores for which pre- and post-development 

dates can be established (P01, E01, and 6G) generally show uniform distributions of key 

parameters throughout the cores, with some variability in specific core sections. 

However, there are several apparent trends or anomalies that merit further discussion. 

In the core from 6G, the surface interval (0- to 2-cm post-development) shows a 

significant increase in Total PAH, TPHC, and Total S/T, from the pre-development core 
4-5 

intervals [within the 95% confidence interval (CI) from the pre-development core mean). 

This could suggest a link between the observed increase and the onset of oil and gas 

development in the region. However, when the data are normalized to the fine-grained 

clay fraction, the surface interval falls within the range of the other core sections (Figure 

3-4) for the Total PAH, TPHC, and Total S/T parameters, indicating that the observed 

increase at the surface was due to a surface grain-size effect, and not a development 

effect. A similar trend is observed for the core from station E01, where the same three 

parameters show a significant increase (within the 95% CI from the pre-development 

core mean) at the surface interval (i.e., 0- to 2-cm post-development). Once again, when 

the data are normalized to silt plus clay (Figure 3-5) the surface interval falls within the 

range of the other core sections (with the exception of TPHC, which remains slightly 

higher than the upper 95% CI – 0.13 μg/g silt plus clay versus 0.11 μg/g silt plus clay), 

indicating surface hydrocarbon enrichment primarily due to a grain-size effect. The 

conclusion that the observed increase in hydrocarbons in the surface interval of these two 

cores is a grain-size effect is further supported by the uniform trend of other key 

hydrocarbon source and diagnostic parameters, which do not show any significant 

deviations from the core means (within the 95% CI) from pre-development core intervals. 

In the P01 Prudhoe Bay core, the surface interval (0- to 2-cm post-development) shows 

an increase in Total PAH, TPHC, and Total S/T from the pre-development core intervals. 

However, this observed increase is not significantly different from the pre-development 

core sections (within 95% CI for the pre-development core mean – with the exception of 

TPHC with a value of 17μg/g versus an upper 95% CI of 16.4 μg/g), primarily due to 

higher variability of these parameters at depth in the core (particularly the 18- to 20-cm 

core interval). However, the 0- to 2-cm surface interval of one of the key diagnostic 

parameters (pyrogenic/petrogenic PAH) shows a small but significant (less than lower 

95% CI from the pre-development core mean) post-development decrease. The observed 

decrease in this ratio indicates an increase in the petroleum component of the PAH 

assemblage. This result suggests a subtle increase in petroleum inputs at this station from 

composite of historical development activity sources in the Prudhoe Bay area. Although 

this trend cannot be confirmed by corresponding significant increases in the bulk 

hydrocarbon parameters, it does indicate that the parameters and techniques used are 

capable of detecting and beginning to identify very subtle changes in the hydrocarbon 

inputs to the region. 

4.1.1.2 Comparisons of Hydrocarbons in Cores and Surface Sediments 

In examining hydrocarbon trends in all of the cores, one useful technique (discussed 

earlier) involves examining the relationship between the organic parameter of interest and 

TOC content or alternatively, the percent silt plus clay. The natural background 

concentrations of organics will often vary as a function of fine-grained sediment (silt plus 

clay) and TOC. Thus, samples enriched in organics from anthropogenic sources can be 

identified by normalizing the target organic parameter and generating a linear regression 

line and prediction interval on a cross-plot. This regression plot technique was used 

effectively for the 1999 and 2000 ANIMIDA surface sediment data to identify sediments 

enriched in hydrocarbons and data outliers (Brown et al., 2002). 
4-6 

A plot of all the 2001 core data and the 1999 and 2000 surface sediment data for total 

PAH minus perylene versus silt plus clay is shown in Figure 4-12. The Total PAH less 

perylene is used to reduce variability introduced to the Total PAH data by perylene, 

which can vary widely in abundance based on sediment type and core depth (Hyland et 

al., 1995; Boehm et al., 2001a). In this plot a regression and 95% prediction intervals are 

shown for all data, where the regression defines the natural geological/geochemical 

background of all the sediments. The plot shows that all the 2001 core samples fall 

within the 95% prediction intervals, indicating that the 2001 core sediment samples are 

not different in Total PAH content from the historical natural background of the region. 

Another examination of the PAH data for the core samples can be summarized by a 

comparison of the pyrogenic-to-petrogenic PAH ratios. This ratio was discussed 

previously for core P01 and a comparison of this ratio for all core intervals from all 

stations is provided in Figure 4-13. This figure reveals a generally consistent abundance 

of petrogenic PAH relative to pyrogenic PAH across all core samples. There are several 

significant increases in this ratio for three of the pre-development core sections from core 

6G, likely associated with recent organic matter (e.g., peat) inputs entrained in the 

sediment from this core from near the mouth of the Colville River (i.e., a known source 

of recent organic material). A significant decrease in the ratio (>2 x standard deviation 

[SD] versus all samples) is noted in the 0- to 2-cm surface interval from core P01 which, 

as discussed earlier, is likely an indicator of petrogenic inputs from oil and gas 

development activities since 1970 at this station located in central Prudhoe Bay. Overall, 

this ratio in the core samples indicates a generally uniform regional background of 

petrogenic and, to a lesser degree, pyrogenic hydrocarbons in sediments throughout the 

region. 

Another evaluation of the sources of PAH in the core samples was performed using a 

dibenzothiophene-to-phenanthrene source ratio plot, which has been used in similar 

investigations of PAH sources in the environment and in previous ANIMIDA studies 

(Brown and Boehm, 1993; Page, 1998; Boehm et al., 2001a; Brown et al., 2002). An 

examination of the source plot for all the 2001 core sediments and additional source 

samples (i.e., river sediments and peat) is shown in Figure 4-14, and reveals that the 

source compositions of PAH in the core samples are generally similar (i.e., the data 

points cluster together on the plot) with some variability that can be attributed to local 

riverine source influences. For example, the data points for cores P01 and E01 cluster 

above and to the right of the main grouping of data points and intermediate to the 

Sagavanirktok and Kuparuk River sediments, indicating a Sagavanirktok River influence 

in these cores, which are adjacent to the Sagavanirktok River delta. Similarly, the data 

points from core 6A (near the Colville River delta) tend to cluster adjacent to the Colville 

River sediment data. Another source ratio plot of all the 2001 core samples, source 

samples, and 1999 and 2000 surface sediment samples (Figure 4-15) shows that the 2001 

core data fall well within the range defined by the cluster of all of the surface sediment 

samples from the area. This provides further evidence that the sediment core data are 

representative of the regional hydrocarbon background, and do not indicate any 

substantial influence from post-development anthropogenic hydrocarbon inputs from the 

Prudhoe Bay area. 
4-7 

Overall, the organic analyses of the sediment cores collected during 2001 have provided 

an important historical perspective on hydrocarbons in the sediments from the study area. 

The results have shown that the concentrations and sources of hydrocarbons are generally 

uniformly consistent over the past 50 or more years and represent a regional background 

assemblage. For most organic hydrocarbon parameters, there are no significant increases 

(after geochemical normalization) of hydrocarbons in the sedimentary record post oil and 

gas development in the Prudhoe Bay area. In one case (the Prudhoe Bay core - P01) a 

significant difference in one key diagnostic parameter ratio suggests a slight increase in 

petroleum inputs at this station from development activity sources. Although this result 

cannot be confirmed by corresponding significant increases in other hydrocarbon 

parameters, is does indicate that monitoring techniques and data evaluation approaches 

used are very sensitive and capable of identifying subtle changes and incremental 

anthropogenic inputs to the system. 

4.1.1.3 Sediment Quality Guidelines 

Another technique of evaluating the significance of the measured sediment hydrocarbons 

to overall ecological risk of the region involves comparisons to sediment quality 

guidelines. Sediment quality guidelines have been developed to assess possible adverse 

biological effects from metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and PAH. 

The commonly utilized criteria are the effects range-low (ERL) and effects range-median 

(ERM) presented by Long et al. (1995). The general applications of the guidelines have 

been to state that adverse biological effects are “rarely” observed when PAH levels are 

less than the ERL, “occasionally” observed when contaminants are present at levels 

between the ERL and ERM, and “frequently” observed when concentrations exceed the 

ERM. 

ERL and ERM values have been developed for 13 individual PAH compounds and 3 

classes of PAH (low- and high-molecular-weight PAH, and Total PAH). A comparison 

of the Total PAH from all ANIMIDA core sediments to the ERL and ERM criteria is 

shown in Figure 4-16. None of the Total PAH concentrations determined in this study 

exceed the ERL. The station 6G surface interval (0- to 2-cm), which had the highest 

measured Total PAH at 1,990 μg/Kg, was still well below the ERL value of 4,022 μg/Kg. 

The mean Total PAH values from each core were generally an order of magnitude lower 

than the ERL. Similarly, the individual PAH concentrations did not exceed the ERL for 

the individual 13 PAH, which could be compared directly. The target parameter C1-

naphthalenes, which was reported in this study, is the sum of the two individual PAH 

compounds – 1-methylnaphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene. The C1-naphthalenes 

value at station 6G (0- to 2-cm interval) of 100 μg/Kg was higher than the ERL value 

listed for the single 2-methylnaphthalene isomer (70 μg/Kg). However, this value would 

be less than the ERL using an estimate of 50 percent contribution of 2-methylnaphthalene 

to the C1-naphthalenes target parameter. In summary, based on sediment quality criteria, 

the concentrations of PAH found in the sediment core samples are not likely to pose 

immediate ecological risk to marine organisms in the area. 
4-8 

4.1.2 Geochronology of Metals - Concentrations of Metals over Time 

Considerable variability is observed for concentrations of all 18 metals, TOC, and 

granulometry in surface and subsurface sediments from the study area, as suggested by 

the ranges in Table 3-4. Such a patchwork of metal concentrations can result from 

natural variations, anthropogenic inputs, or diagenetic impacts. We previously showed 

(Crecelius et al., 1991) that sediment grain size was a primary variable controlling metal 

concentrations in surface sediment from the study area where levels of silt plus clay range 

from 1 to 98.8%. To help resolve observed variability, sediment metal values from our 

study were initially normalized to concentrations of Al. Natural levels of Al and many 

trace metals vary collectively as a function of sediment grain size, organic carbon 

content, and mineralogy, with higher metal levels in fine-grained aluminosilicates (clays) 

and lower metal levels in coarse-grained quartz sand and carbonate shell fragments. 

Normalization is a useful precursor to more detailed discussion of historical trends, as 

well as possible diagenetic effects on metal concentrations, as discussed in more detail 

below. 

In sediment from this study, positive linear relationships are observed for Al versus 

percent silt plus clay (r = 0.89; Figure 4-17a), percent clay (r = 0.75), and TOC (r = 0.74). 

Aluminum concentrations also correlate well with levels of Fe (r = 0.94) throughout the 

study area using data for surface samples from 1999 and 2000 and all sediment core data 

from 2001 (Figure 4-17b). Aluminum and Fe are present at percent levels in the 

sediment, relative to concentrations in parts per million (μg/g) for trace metals and Al and 

Fe are not commonly introduced to marine sediment in sizeable amounts by 

anthropogenic processes. Therefore, any fractional changes in concentrations of Al and 

Fe are expected to be small relative to possible shifts in concentrations of trace metals 

due to anthropogenic or diagenetic influences. Concentrations of Fe can be altered 

during early chemical diagenesis; however, the net effect on solid-phase concentrations 

of Fe is generally small (e.g., <10% change in Fe/Al ratio, Trefry and Presley, 1982). 

Mean concentrations of Al and Fe in suspended sediments collected during 2000 and 

2001 from the Sagavanirktok and Colville Rivers that supply sediment to the study area 

fit the 99% prediction intervals developed for bottom sediment (Figure 4-17b). 

Furthermore, concentrations of Al and Fe in the river suspended sediment plot at the 

higher end of the continuum in Figure 4-17b are due to a greater fraction of clay-rich 

particles suspended in the rivers. Suspended sediment from the Kuparuk River has 

higher levels of Fe during part of the summer, when concentrations of suspended solids 

are low (<2 mg/L) (Rember and Trefry, 2003), thereby shifting the point on Figure 4-17b. 

Under natural conditions, concentrations of selected trace metals in sediments will 

commonly follow a strong linear trend versus Al and/or Fe in a given depositional 

environment. For example, concentrations of V correlate well with Al (r = 0.97, Figure 

4-17c) and Fe (r = 0.96) in all surface and subsurface sediment samples collected from 

1999 to 2001. The broad range in V concentrations, yet good linear fit for Al (and Fe) 

versus V, is consistent with mixing of relatively uniform composition, metal-rich 

aluminosilicate phases with metal-poor quartz sand and carbonate shell. Vanadium levels 

in natural sediment from the Beaufort Sea are predicted to follow the trend presented in 
4-9 

Figure 4-17c. Crecelius et al. (1991) used V, in the absence of data for Al and Fe, to 

normalize concentrations of other trace metals during a previous study of metal 

distribution in the coastal Beaufort Sea. All V concentrations in the 2001 sediment cores 

fit the prediction interval shown in Figure 4-17c. This result shows that the V/Al ratio 

observed in very recent, surficial sediments is consistent with the long-term V/Al ratio 

found in sediments that were deposited more than 50 years ago, well before the onset of 

development in the area. In other words, no significant, recent changes in the V/Al ratio 

are observed. 

Plots of Al versus Pb, Cu, Cr and Ni (Figure 4-18), as well as Co, Sb, and Tl (Figure 4-

19), also show strong (r>0.8) linear relationships. Once again, all data for the sediment 

cores fit the prediction intervals. Available metal data for suspended sediment from 

source rivers (Pb, Cu, Cr, Zn, Ba, As; Figures 4-18 and 4-19) also show that the metal/Al 

ratios fit within the prediction intervals found for bottom sediment in the coastal Beaufort 

Sea. The linkage between river source material and bottom sediment can be used to help 

confirm the constancy of metal/Al ratios and to help identify possible diagenetic impacts 

on the historical record for these metals in sediments. As observed for Al and Fe, 

concentrations of metals in the river suspended matter (Figure 4-18) generally plot at the 

higher end of the metal/Al continuum because the river suspended sediment is finer 

grained and naturally richer in clays and metals. 

In contrast with the metals discussed above, concentrations at one or more locations have 

been previously shown to be above the upper prediction interval on the metal versus Al 

plots for Zn, Hg, and Ba (Figures 4-18 and 4-19). An anomalous Zn value was observed 

in surficial sediment collected from site 5H (near the Endicott Development Island) 

during 1999, and anomalous points for Hg and Ba are observed near Northstar Island for 

surficial samples collected during 1999 and 2000 (Figures 4-18 and 4-19). None of these 

anomalies were observed in samples from the 2001 cores. Considerable industrial 

activity is common to both areas; however, the degree of metal enrichment is generally 

<25% greater than the value calculated for a given concentration of Al at the upper 

prediction interval at the few sites where such anomalies are encountered. 

In addition to the anomalies from the 1999 to 2000 data for Ba described above, 

concentrations of Ba in samples collected during 1989 from sites 7A and 7G in western 

Harrison Bay also plot above the upper limit of the 99% prediction interval. Elevated Ba 

levels at sites 7A and 7G in Harrison Bay during 1989 are consistent with exploratory 

drilling and drilling residues in the area, as previously described (Snyder-Conn et al., 

1990; Crecelius et al., 1991). The sensitivity of normalizing to Al is demonstrated by 

introducing the concept of excess Ba, calculated as total Ba minus natural Ba (with the 

natural Ba level determined from Figure 4-19a as the value for Ba at the upper prediction 

interval for a given Al concentration). The most anomalous sample point in Figure 4-19a 

has an excess Ba level of 400 μg/g (1,100 μg/g – 700 μg/g) that can be explained by the 

presence of barite at only 0.07% of the total sediment mass (where pure barite contains 

Ba at 588,000 μg/g). Subtle enhancement in the Ba value at site L08 (1999) may be a 

remnant of exploratory drilling in the area in 1982 and 1997 (URSGWC, 2001). 

Although these various anomalies are minor, and are identified only at low levels of Al, 
4-10 

they do support the sensitivity of Al versus Ba graphs and serve as indicators of locations 

to focus future efforts. No Ba anomalies are observed in the 2001 sediment cores. 

Barium concentrations in predevelopment layers of sediment from the cores help define 

very well natural Ba levels for the area. 

Concentrations of Cr are also elevated in western Harrison Bay based on the 1989 data 

(stations 7A, 7B, and 7G) and western Camden Bay (2E), as shown in Figure 4-18c. 

Snyder-Conn et al. (1990) previously noted that Cr levels were as high as 331 μg/g 

adjacent to a mud discharge area near Cross Island. Again, the anomalous values can be 

clearly identified. No positive Cr anomalies were observed in the sediment data from the 

2001 cores. 

Concentrations of Ag and Be are low and somewhat more variable (Table 3-4); therefore 

the correlations versus Al are weaker (Ag, r = 0.57; Be, r = 0.69). Background levels of 

As in the study area are high relative to average marine sediment. This point was 

previously noted throughout the Beaufort Sea by Valette-Silver et al. (1999). We find As 

levels in suspended sediment from local rivers to average 15 ± 5 μg/g (n = 17). Several 

points on the As/Al graph are above the upper prediction interval. These points are 

related to diagenetic impacts, as discussed below. Concentrations of Mn also are affected 

by diagenesis. 

Collectively, the data for cores from Prudhoe Bay (station P01), near Endicott Island 

(station E01) and east of the Colville River delta (6G) show that normalized 

concentrations of Ba, Be, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Sb, Tl, and V are constant with time, supporting 

no detectable anthropogenic contributions and no impacts due to early chemical 

diagenesis. The continuum of uniform metal/Al values from river suspended sediment to 

recent bottom sediment to older bottom sediment provides strong support for the very 

limited impacts with respect to trace metals in sediments in the study area. 

Diagenetic effects discernibly alter the vertical distributions of Mn, As, and perhaps Cd 

in the 2001 cores from this study. Diagenetic impacts on Mn are well studied and lead to 

either Mn-depleted sediment (relative to incoming suspended sediment) or to Mn-rich 

layers at the sediment surface or sometimes preserved at some depth in the sediment 

column (Trefry and Presley, 1982; Gobeil et al., 1997). Such diagenetic impacts for Mn 

are clearly observed in the surficial centimeters of the cores from stations P01, E01, 6G, 

and 6A (Figures 3-10, 3-12, 3-14, and 3-18). Likewise, the peaks in concentrations of As 

and Cd also are most likely due to diagenetic processes (Gobeil et al., 1997; Anawar et 

al., 2002). 

4.1.2.1 Comparison of Metals to Sediment Quality Guidelines 

Various investigators have developed sediment quality guidelines to assess possible 

adverse biological effects from trace metals (e.g., Long et al., 1995; MacDonald et al., 

1996; Field et al., 1999). The guidelines introduced by Long et al. (1995) use an Effects 

Range-Low (ERL) and Effects Range-Median (ERM) that are based on field, laboratory, 

and modeling studies conducted in North America that coupled concentrations of 

contaminants in sediment with adverse biological effects. The ERL is defined as the 
4-11 

concentration of a substance that affects 10 percent of the test organisms. The ERM is 

defined as the concentration of a substance in the sediment that results in an adverse 

biological effect in about 50 percent of the test organisms. For general use, the 

guidelines have been applied as follows: adverse biological effects are “rarely” observed 

when metal levels are <ERL, “occasionally” observed when contaminants are present at 

levels between the ERL and ERM, and “frequently” observed when concentrations are 

>ERM. 

Nine (Ag, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, and Zn) of the 16 metals investigated during this 

study have been assigned ERL and ERM concentrations by Long et al. (1995). These 

guidelines are evolving, as demonstrated by the extensive efforts of Field et al. (1999) to 

validate values for Hg, Pb and Zn. Some difficulties still exist with ERL values for Cr, 

Cu, and Ni, as discussed below. Overall, the sediment quality data should be used 

primarily as guidelines at this time. No concentrations of any of the nine metals in 

surficial sediments or the 2001 core samples exceed their respective values for the ERM 

(Table 4-1). Therefore, adverse biological effects are not expected to be a frequent 

occurrence at any site in the study area as the result of trace metals. Furthermore, no 

concentrations of Ag, Cd, Hg, Pb, or Zn from this study exceed the respective values for 

the ERL (Table 4-1) and thus adverse biological effects from these four metals would be 

rare. 

The Hg values for surficial sediment from sites N10 and N17 (2000) and from core 6G 

(2001) are slightly above the predicted natural level, but well below the ERL (Figure 4-

18). No ERL or ERM is available for Ba and previous studies suggest that sediment Ba 

levels of several thousand μg/g do not induce adverse biological effects in sediment 

(Tagatz and Tobia, 1978). 

Many points on the Al versus Cu and Cr plots exceed the present ERL (Figure 4-18). 

However, the ERL for each of these metals is less than or very close to the values for 

average crustal abundance and natural levels found in many types of sediment (Naidu et 

al., 1997; Valette-Silver et al., 1999; Boehm et al., 2001b). These discrepancies may 

occur if some of the Cu, Ni, and Cr values in the database compiled by Long et al. (1995) 

were obtained following an acid leach of the sediment rather than a total digestion. For 

example, Sinex et al. (1980) found that only 40 ± 18% of the total Cr was removed using 

a concentrated 9:1 HNO3:hydrochloric acid (HCl) treatment of 12 randomly selected 

sediment samples. Thus, an acid-leachable Cr value equal to the ERL level of 82 μg/g is 

more likely comparable with a total Cr level closer to 200 μg/g, a value considerably 

higher than Cr values for continental crust or any samples from this study. A similar 

situation exists for Cu and Ni. However, for other metals such as Cd, Pb, and Zn, a 

higher fraction of the total metal content (50 to 90%, Trefry and Presley, 1976; Sinex et 

al., 1980) is solubilized with an acid leach, especially when a large fraction of the total 

metal concentration is derived from anthropogenic sources. Thus, the ERL and ERM 

values for Cr, Cu, and Ni most likely need to be revised in subsequent iterations of these 

sediment quality guidelines. Certainly, the method for digesting the sediment needs to be 

noted along with the guidelines. 
4-12 

Early detection of potential environmental problems near industrial sites is the goal at 

many locations around the earth, including the coastal waters of the western Beaufort 

Sea. Because many trace metals are a ubiquitous part of modern industry, metals in 

sediment can offer the potential for identifying subtle increases in the accumulation of 

potential pollutants before they lead to an adverse environmental consequence. For 

example, in sediment with an Al concentration of 6.0%, natural Pb levels in the coastal 

Beaufort Sea are predicted to be 15 ± 6 μg/g with 99% confidence. As metal levels rise 

to the upper limit of 21 μg/g, a caution can be signaled before sediment Pb concentrations 

reach the ERL of 47 μg/g. Then, additional samples can be collected near this “warm” 

spot before it develops into a “hot” spot. Other sensitive components of a more 

comprehensive assessment also may be investigated. 

Overall, the sediment cores collected during 2001 have provided an important look back 

in time to show that present-day concentrations of metals in bottom sediments and river 

suspended sediments are statistically the same as found in sediments that are >50 years 

old and pre-date development in the study area. The core data have also identified 

diagenetic alterations of sediment concentrations of Mn, As, and Cd. Although such 

alterations are quite reasonable and common, they may provide a useful tracer of future 

changes in the area as they record the present-day redox state in the sediments. Subtle 

impacts in sediment redox state due to future climatological shifts, or changes due to 

regional development, may be recorded in the vertical profiles for Mn, As, Cd, and TOC. 
Table 4-1. Values for the Effects Range-Low (ERL) and Effects Range-Median 

(ERM) from Long et al. (1995) and Results from this Study 

 

Metal ERL 

(μg/g) 

ERM 

(μg/g) 

Maximum 

Value 

this Study 

(μg/g) 

Sites with 

Values >Upper 

Prediction 

Interval (UPI) 

Sites with 

Values 

>UPI and 

>ERL 

Ag 1.0 3.7 0.44 

N13 (99) N14(99) 

N22 (00) None 

As 8.2 70 27.3 5D (99) 5D (99) 

Cd 1.2 9.6 0.79 5D (99) None 

Cr (81)* 370 126 7A, &B, 7G, 2E 

(all 89) 

N17 (00) 

[7A, 7B, 7G, 

2E in 89]* 

Cu (34)* 270 46.9 

5D (99), N14 (00), 

N17 (00), N23(00)

[5D (99), N14 

(00), 

N23(00)]* 

Hg 0.150 0.710 0.200 

5D (99) 

N10 (00) 

N17 (00) 

5D (99) 

Ni (20.9)* 51.6 48.4 

5D (99) 

N17 (00) 5D (99) 

Pb 46.7 218 22.3 5D (99) None 

Zn 150 410 131 

5H (99) 

N17 (00) None 

*ERL comparable with or lower than value for average continental crust and in need of 

reevaluation.
Figure 4-1. North Slope Crude Oil – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH Distribution 

Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

60000

Time

Response_

10219911.D\FID2B

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

C0N

C1N

C2N

C3N

C4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0F

C1F

C2F

C3F

C0A

C0P

C1P/A

C2P/A

C3P/A

C4P/A

C0D

C1D

C2D

C3D

FL

PYR

C1F/P

C2F/P

C3F/P

BAA

C0C

C1C

C2C

C3C

C4C

BBF

BKF

BEP

BAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHP

Compounds

Concentration mg/Kg

"BQ06: NORTH SLOPE CRUDE O IL"

PAH

38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): W1148.D

n-C17 n-C27 T15 T19 T21 T22 
Figure 4-2. Colville River Sediment, Year 1999 – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH 

Distribution Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

3 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

60000

Time

Response_

11089973.D\FID2B

0

5 0

100

150

200

250

C0N

C1N

C2N

C3N

C4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0F

C1F

C2F

C3F

C0A

C0P

C1P/A

C2P/A

C3P/A

C4P/A

C0D

C1D

C2D

C3D

FL

PYR

C1F/P

C2F/P

C3F/P

BAA

C0C

C1C

C2C

C3C

C4C

BBF

BKF

BEP

BAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHP

Compounds

Concentration ug/Kg

"99A4758: 99-C0L-02-PH C-S SEDIM ENT"

PAH

38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

110000

120000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): W1162.D

n-C17 

n-C27 

T15 

T19 

T21 T22 
Figure 4-3. Sediment Core P01 Interval 0-2 cm – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH 

Distribution Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

22000

Time

Response_

05300235.D\FID2B

S edim ent C ore P 01 0-2 cm

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAAC0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHP

Compounds

Total PAH (ug/Kg)

36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): W0611.D

T22

T21

T19

T18

T15

T12

T4 T11

n-C17 

n-C27 
Figure 4-4. Sediment Core P01 Interval 24-26 cm – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH 

Distribution Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Time

Response_

05300250.D\FID1A

S edim ent C ore P 01 24-26 cm

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

140

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAAC0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHP

Compounds

Total PAH (ug/Kg)

36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

60000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): W0678.D

T22

T21

T19

T18

T15

T12

T4 T11

n-C17 

n-C27 
Figure 4-5. Sediment Core 6G Interval 0-2 cm – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH 

Distribution Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

Time

Response_

05300220.D\FID1A

S edim ent C ore 6G 0-2 cm

0

5 0

100

150

200

250

300

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAAC0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHP

Compounds

Total PAH (ug/Kg)

36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

110000

120000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): W0662.D

T22

T21

T19 T15

T12

T11 T4

n-C17 

n-C27 
Figure 4-6. Sediment Core 6G Interval 16-18 cm – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH 

Distribution Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Time

Response_

06060208.D\FID2B

S edim ent C ore 6G 16-18 cm

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

140

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAAC0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHP

Compounds

Total PAH (ug/Kg)

36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

60000

65000

70000

75000

80000

85000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): W0673.D

T22

T21

T19

T15

T12

T4 T11

n-C17 

n-C27 
Figure 4-7. Sediment Core 3A Interval 0-2 cm – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH 

Distribution Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

 

10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000

Time

Response_

07240219.D\FID2B

S edim ent C ore 3A 0-2 cm

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

3 5

4 0

4 5

5 0

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAAC0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHP

Compounds

Total PAH (ug/Kg)

38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

22000

24000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): W1196.D

T22

T21

T19

T18

T15

T12

T11

T10

T9

n-C17 

n-C27 
Figure 4-8. Sediment Core E01 Interval 0-2 cm – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH 

Distribution Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Time

Response_

05300219.D\FID2B

S edim ent C ore E 01 0-2 cm

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAAC0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHP

Compounds

Total PAH (ug/Kg)

36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): W0605.D

T23

T22

T21

T19

T18

T15

T12

T10T11

T4 T9

n-C17 

n-C27 
Figure 4-9. Sediment Core L02 Interval 0-2 cm – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH 

Distribution Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

Time

Response_

07270219.D\FID2B

S edim ent C ore L02 0-2 cm

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

3 5

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAAC0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHP

Compounds

Total PAH (ug/Kg)

34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): W1225.D

T22

T21

T19

T18

T15

T12

T10T11

T9 T4

n-C17 

n-C27 
Figure 4-10. Sediment Core N02 Interval 0-2 cm – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH 

Distribution Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000

15000

16000

Time

Response_

07240231.D\FID2B

S edim ent C ore N 02 0-2 cm

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAAC0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHP

Compounds

Total PAH (ug/Kg)

34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): W1203.D

T22

T21

T19

T18

T15

T12

T10T11 T9 T4

n-C17 

n-C27 
Figure 4-11. Sediment Core 6A Interval 0-2 cm – GC/FID Chromatogram (top), PAH 

Distribution Histogram (middle), Triterpane Ion Chromatogram (bottom) 

10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Time

Response_

07240220.D\FID1A

S edim ent C ore 6A 0-2 cm

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAAC0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHP

Compounds

Total PAH (ug/Kg)

36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): W1206.D

T22

T21

T19

T15

T12

T10T11 T4 T9

n-C17 

n-C27 
Silt+Clay(%)

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LN Total PAH less perylene (ug/Kg)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

YEAR

 2001

 2000

 1999

Total Population

Rsq = 0.5197 

5D

4C

L01

N08

N04

N15

N11

N01

Figure 4-12. Regression Plot of Total PAH less Perylene versus Silt + Clay for 2001 

Sediment Samples and 1999 and 2000 Surficial Sediment Samples 

The linear regression and 95% prediction intervals are based on the total population. 
0.000

0.0200.0400.0600.0800.1000.1200.1400.160

3A-2

3A-4

3A-6

3A-10

3A-16

3A-20

6A-2

6A-4

6A-6

6A-10

6A-14

6A-18

6G-2

6G-4

6G-6

6G-8

6G-10

6G-12

6G-14

6G-16

6G-18

6G-20

E01-2

E01-4

E01-6

E01-8

E01-10

E01-12

L02-2

L02-4

L02-6

L02-12

L02-16

L02-22

N02-2

N02-4

N02-6

N02-12

N02-16

N02-22

N03-2

N03-4

N03-6

N03-10

N03-16

N03-20

P01-2

P01-4

P01-6

P01-8

P01-10

Sediment Core ID - Depth

Pyrogenic PAH:Petrogenic PAH Ratio

Figure 4-13. Pyrogenic/Petrogenic PAH Ratios for 2001 Sediment Cores – all Depth Intervals 

Dotted lines represent upper and lower 95% confidence intervals for all samples. 
0.00

0.200.400.600.801.001.20

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.

C2D/C2P

C3D/C3P

North Slope Crude

Sag River Sediments and Peat

Kuparuk River Sediments

Kuparuk River Peat

Colville River Sediments

Coleville River Peat

Figure 4-14. Double Source Ratio Plot of C2 D/C2P vs C3D/C3P for all Core Samples and Source Samples 
.00

.20.40.60.80

1.001.20

.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 

C2D/C2P

Nort h Slope Crude

Sag River Sediment s and Peat

Kuparuk River Peat

Kuparuk River Sediment s

Colville River Sediment s

Coleville River Peat

Figure 4-15. Double Source Ratio Plot of C2D/C2P vs C3D/C3P for all 2001 Core Samples, Source Sa2000 Surficial Sediment Samples 
1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

3A 6A 6G E01 L02 N02 N03 

Sediment Core IDs

Total PAH (ug/Kg) - Log Scale 

ERM 44,000 ug/Kg

ERL 4,022 ug/Kg

Figure 4-16. Comparison of 2001 Core Sample Total PAH Concentrations to Sediment Quality Guideline Effeand Effects Rang Median (ERM) Values (Long et al., 1995) -- Note y-axis log scale 
Al (%)

02468

Silt + Clay (%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Y = 17.2X -18.7

r = 0.89, n = 87

2000 1999

 (b) 

 Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Fe (%)

0

2

4

6

8

2000 1999

y = 0.49x + 0.18

r = 0.94, n = 196

2001

C

K

S

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

V (μg/g)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2000 1999

y = 22.7 + 0.22

r = 0.97, n = 196

2001

Figure 4-17. Plots of Al versus (a) Silt plus Clay, (b) Iron, and (c) Vanadium for Surficial 

Sediments from 1999 and 2000 and Sediment Cores from 2001 

Solid line shows linear regression line, dashed lines show 99% prediction interval. Equations are from linear 

regressions and r is correlation coefficient and n is number of samples. Large marks with letters represent 

suspended sediments from the Sagavanirktok (S), Kuparuk (K) and Colville (C) rivers. 

(a)

(c)
 Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Pb (μg/g)

0

10

20

30

40

Y = 2.4X - 0.3

r = 0.87, n = 196

2001 2000 1999

C

K S

ERM = 218 μg/g

ERL = 46.7 μg/g

 Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Cu (μg/g)

0

20

40

60

80

Y = 5.8X - 4.6

r = 0.94, n = 196

2001 2000 1999

C

K S

ERM = 270 μg/g

ERL

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Cr (μg/g)

0

50

100

150

Y = 12.4X + 8.1

r = 0.91, n = 191

2001 2000 1999

C

S

ERM = 370 μg/g

ERL 

 Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Ni (μg/g)

0

20

40

60

Y = 6.4x + 0.99

r = 0.91, n = 196

2001 2000 1999

 

 

 Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Hg (μg/g)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

Y = 0.013X- 0.012

r = 0.88, n = 133 

N10

2000 1999

N17

2001

6G

ERL

ERM = 0.71 μg/g

 

 

 

Figure 4-18. Plots of Al versus (a) Lead, (b) Copper, (c) Chromium, (d) Nickel, (e) Zinc 

and (f) Mercury for Surficial Sediments from 1999 and 2000 and Sediment Cores from 

2001 

Solid line shows linear regression line, dashed lines show 99% prediction interval. Equations are from linear 

regressions and r is correlation coefficient and n is number of samples. Large marks with letters represent 

suspended sediments from the Sagavanirktok (S), Kuparuk (K) and Colville (C) rivers. Effects Range Low (ERL) 

and Effects Range Median (ERM) from Long et al. (1995) also shown on some graphs. 

(a) (b) 

(c) (d) 

(e) (f) 

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Zn (μg/g)

0

50

100

150

200

Y = 20.5X - 5.5

r = 0.92, n = 195

2001 2000 1999

S C

K

5H

ERL

ERM = 410 μg/g
 Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Ba (μg/g)

0

300

600

900

1200

N14

N12

N13

L08

Y = 72.9X +115

r = 0.82, n = 192

2000

N22

2001 1999

C

K S

 Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

As (μg/g)

0

10

20

30

40

50

 Y = 1.3X + 4.4

r = 0.53, n = 194

2001 2000 1999

C

S

ERM = 70μg/g

 

 Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Ag (μg/g)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Y = 0.017X + 0.034

r = 0.57, n = 184

N14

2000 1999

N22

2001

ERM = 3.7 μg/g

ERL = 1.0 μg/g

 Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Co (μg/g)

0

5

10

15

20

25 2000 1999

y = 1.6x + 1.1

r = 0.85, n = 195

2001

 Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Sb (μg/g)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Y = 0.11x + 0.11

r = 0.84, n = 195

2001 2000 1999

 Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Tl (μg/g)

0.0

0.5

1.0

Y = 0.090X + 0.054

r = 0.86, n = 196

2001 2000 1999

Figure 4-19. Plots of Al versus (a) Barium, (b) Arsenic, (c) Silver, (d) Cobalt, (e) Antimony 

and (f) Thallium for Surficial sediments from 1999 and 2000 and Sediment Cores from 

2001. Solid line shows linear regression line, dashed lines show 99% prediction interval. Equations are from 

linear regressions and r is correlation coefficient and n is number of samples. Large marks with letters represent 

suspended sediments from the Sagavanirktok (S), Kuparuk (K) and Colville (C) rivers. Effects Range Low (ERL) 

and Effects Range Median (ERM) from Long et al. (1995) also shown on some graphs. 

 

(a) (b) 

(c) (d) 

(e) (f) 
5-1 

5.0 Recommendations 

Based on the results, interpretations, and discussion of the sediment core samples 

collected during the 2001 field program, there are a number of recommendations for 

future work under ANIMIDA Phase II Task 2. The recommendations for future work 

should serve to increase the focus of monitoring on the potential bioavailability of 

contaminants in the study area. Some of these recommendations incorporate Task 2 work 

that has already been initiated in 2002, while others may be added to future Task 2 work. 

• Perform another year of BSMP/Liberty/Northstar sediment chemistry monitoring to 

further evaluate the observed trend in hydrocarbons at Northstar (ANIMIDA year 4 

monitoring was completed in the summer of 2002 as part of Task 2 and will be 

incorporated into the Task 2 Final Report) 

• Perform sediment and biota chemistry monitoring adjacent to any newly proposed or 

modified Liberty Prospect development to establish a pre-construction baseline for 

future monitoring 

• Focus future collection and analysis on tissue samples (bivalves, amphipods, and fish) 

co-sampled with sediments to increase the interpretative power of the analyses and 

evaluate the bioavailability of organic and inorganic contaminants 

• Augment the tissue sample collections with caged bivalves and semi-permeable 

membrane devices (SPMDs) to further investigate the bioavailability of contaminants 

(SPMDs and caged mussels were successfully deployed in the summer of 2002 and 

results will be incorporated into the Task 2 Final Report) 

• Future (post-2003) sampling should include re-sampling historic BSMP stations 

throughout the region (Cape Halkett to Barter Island) to re-evaluate the organic and 

inorganic sedimentary regime and establish additional baseline data offshore of 

Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska 

• Collect and analyze additional river sediment samples (Canning and McKenzie 

Rivers) for metals and hydrocarbons to evaluate other regional sources of sediment 

(Canning River sediment was collected in the summer of 2002) 

• Continue to analyze additional North Slope field oils (particularly Northstar 

production oil), and seep oils/source rock/coal samples to enhance the differentiation 

of hydrocarbon sources 

• Future core sampling and geochronology work offshore of the study area should be 

considered to further identify and evaluate depositional areas where contaminants 

could be entrained in bottom sediments 

 
6-1 

6.0 References 

Arthur D. Little, Inc. 2001. 2001 Field Sampling and Logistics Plan for the Minerals 

Management Service ANIMIDA Field Survey. Prepared for Minerals Management Service. July. 

Anawar, H.M., K. Komaki, J. Akai, J. Takada, T. Ishizuka, T. Takahashi, T. Yoshioka, and K. 

Kato. 2002. Diagenetic Control on Arsenic Partitioning in Sediments of the Meghna River 

Delta, Bangaladesh. Environmental Geology 41:816-825. 

Banet, Arthur C., Jr., 1995. A Comparison of Crude Oil Chemistry on America’s North Slope: 

Chukchi Sea – McKenzie Delta, BLM – Alaska Technical Report No. 16. 

Bence, A.E., K.A. Kvenvolden, and M.S. Kennicutt, II. 1996. Organic Geochemistry Applied to 

Environmental Assessments of Prince William Sound, Alaska, after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. 

Org. Geochem. 24:7-42. January. 

Boehm, P.D. 1984. Aspects of the Saturated Hydrocarbon Geochemistry of Recent Sediments in 

the Georges Bank Region. Org. Geochem. 7:11-23. 

Boehm, P.D., E. Crecelius, J.M. Neff, C.E. Tuckfield, and M. Steinhauer. 1987. Final Report on 

Beaufort Sea Monitoring Program: Analysis of Trace Metals and Hydrocarbons from Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) Activities. Submitted to Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS 

Region, Anchorage, AK. 

Boehm, P.D., L. LeBlanc, J. Trefry, P. Marajh-Whittemore, J. Brown, A. Schutzberg, and A. 

Kick. 1990. Monitoring Hydrocarbons and Trace Metals in Beaufort Sea Sediments and 

Organisms. Final Report to U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Anchorage, Alaska. 

Boehm, P.D. et al. 2001a. Sediment Quality in Depositional Areas of Shelikof Strait and 

Outermost Cook Inlet. Final Report to U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Boehm, P.D. et al. 2001b. ANIMIDA Phase I: Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring in the 

Development Area - Final Report. OCS Study MMS2001-104, Anchorage, AK: Minerals 

Management Service, U.S. Department of Interior. 

Brown, J.S. and P.D. Boehm. 1993. The Use of Double Ratio Plots of Polynuclear Aromatic 

Hydrocarbon (PAH) Alkyl Homologues for Petroleum Source Identification. In Proceedings, 

1993 International Oil Spill Conference (Prevention, Preparedness, Response). American 

Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC. Pp. 799-804. 

Brown, J. et al. 2002. ANIMIDA Task 2: Hydrocarbon and Metal Characterization of 

Sediments, Bivalves and Amphipods in the ANIMIDA Study Area. Interim Report to U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 
6-2 

Crecelius, E.A., J.H. Trefry, M.S. Steinhauer, and P.D. Boehm. 1991. Trace Metals in Sediments 

from the Inner Continental Shelf of the Western Beaufort Sea. Environmental Geology and 

Water Science 18: 71-79. 

Field, L.J., D.D. MacDonald, S.B. Norton, C.G. Severn, and C.G. Ingersoll. 1999. Evaluating 

Sediment Chemistry and Toxicity Data using Logistic Regression Modeling. Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 18(6):1311-1322. 

Folk, R. L. 1974. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Austin, Texas: Hemphill Publishing Co. pp. 

182. 

Gobeil, C, R.W. MacDonald, and B. Sundby. 1997. Diagenetic Separation of Cadmium and 

Manganese in Suboxic Continental Margin Sediments. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta.

61(21):4647-4654. 

Hyland, J.L., J.S. Brown, T.C. Sauer, Jr., S. Tate, and H.J. Tsomides. 1995. Cook Inlet Pilot 

Monitoring Study, Phase I of Design and Implementation of a Prototype Environmental 

Sampling Program for Cook Inlet, Alaska, Final Report. Prepared for Cook Inlet Regional 

Citizens Advisory Council, Kenai, Alaska. March. 

ICF. 2003. Cruise Report for the Summer 2001 Minerals Management Service Field Survey. 

Prepared for Minerals Management Service. January. 

Kang, W-J., J.H. Trefry, T.A. Nelsen, and H.R. Wanless. 2000. Direct Atmospheric Inputs 

versus Runoff Fluxes of Mercury to the Lower Everglades and Florida Bay. Environmental 

Science & Technology 34:4058-4063. 

Long, E.R., D.D. Macdonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of Adverse 

Biological Effects within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine 

Sediments. Environ. Management 19: 81-97. 

MacDonald, D.D., R.S. Carr, F.D. Calder, and E.R. Long. 1996. Development and Evaluation of 

Sediment Quality Guidelines for Florida Coastal Waters. Ecotoxicology 5:253-278. 

Naidu, A.S., A. Blanchard, J.J. Kelley, J.J. Goering, M.J. Hameed, and M. Baskaran. 1997. 

Heavy Metals in Chukchi Sea Sediments as Compared to Selected Circum-Arctic Shelves. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin 35(7-12):260-269. 

Naidu, A.S., J.J. Goering, J.J. Kelley, and M.I. Venkatesan. 2001. Historical Changes in Trace 

Metals and Hydrocarbons in the Inner Shelf Sediments, Beaufort Sea: Prior and Subsequent to 

Petroleum-related Industrial Developments. Final Report to MMS, OCS Study, MMS2001-061, 

80 pp. 

Page, D.S., P.D. Boehm, G.S. Douglas, A.E. Bence, W.A. Burns, and P.J. Mankiewicz. 1998. 

Petroleum Sources in the Western Gulf of Alaska/Shelikof Strait Area. Marine Pollution Bulletin

36(12): 1004-1021. 
6-3 

Peters, K.E. and J.M Moldowan. 1993. The Biomarker Guide. Interpreting Molecular Fossils in 

Petroleum and Ancient Sediments. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 

Reimnitz, E. and S.C. Wolf. 1998. Are North Slope Surface Alluvial Fans Pre-Holocene Relics 

USGA Professional Paper 1605, 9 pp. 

Rember, R.D. and J.H. Trefry. 2003. Increased Concentrations of Dissolved Trace Metals and 

Organic Carbon during the Spring Snowmelt in Rivers of the Alaskan Arctic. In review: 

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 

Ridgway, L.M. and N.B. Price. 1987. Geochemical Associations and Post-depositional Mobility 

of Heavy Metals in Coastal Sediments: Loch Etive, Scotland. Marine Chemistry 21:229-248. 

Salomons, W., and U. Förstner. 1984. Metals in the Hydrocycle. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 

Schropp, S.J., F.G. Lewis, H.L. Windom et al. 1990. Interpretation of Metal Concentrations in 

Estuarine Sediments of Florida using Aluminum as a Reference Element. Estuaries 13:227-235. 

Sinex, W.A., A.Y. Cantillo, and G.R. Helz. 1980. Accuracy of Acid Extraction Methods 

forTrace Metals in Sediments. Analytical Chemistry 52:2342-2346. 

Snyder-Conn, E., D. Densmore, C. Moitoret, and J. Stroebele. 1990. Persistence of Trace Metals 

in Shallow Arctic Marine Sediments Contaminated by Drilling Effluents. Oil & Chemical 

Pollution 7:225-247. 

Steinhauer, M.S. and P.D. Boehm. 1992. The Composition and Distribution of Saturated and 

Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Nearshore Sediments, River Sediments, and Coastal Peat of the 

Alaskan Beaufort Sea: Implications for Detecting Anthropogenic Inputs. Marine Environmental 

Research 33: 223-253.

Sweeney, M.D., and A.S. Naidu. 1989. Heavy Metals in Sediments of the Inner Shelf of the 

Beaufort Sea, Northern Arctic Alaska. Marine Pollution Bulletin 20(3):140-143. 

Tagatz, M.E., and M. Tobia. 1978. Effect of Barite (BaSO4) on Development of Estuarine 

Communities. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 7(4):401-407. 

Trefry, J.H. and S. Metz. 1984. Selective Leaching of Trace Metals from Sediments as a 

Function of pH. Analytical Chemistry 56(4):745-749. 

Trefry, J.H. and B.J. Presley. 1982. Manganese Fluxes from Mississippi Delta Sediments. 

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 46:1715-1726. 

 

Trefry, J.H. and B.J. Presley. 1976. Heavy Metals in Sediment from San Antonio Bay and the 

Northwest Gulf of Mexico. Environmental Geology 1: 283-294. 

URSGWC. 2001. Liberty Development 2001 Sediment Quality Study. Final Report to B.P. 

Exploration (Alaska), Inc. 
6-4 

URSGWC. 1998. In Support of the Liberty Development Project US Army Corps of Engineers 

Permit Application. Section 103 Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act Dredged 

Material Disposal Site Evaluation. Prepared for BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. 

USAEDA. 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Beaufort Sea Oil and Gas 

Development/Northstar Project. Volumes I – IV. Appendices A – K. Anchorage, Alaska. 

USDOI. 1990. Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Beaufort Sea Planning Area. Oil and Gas Lease 

Sale 124. Environmental Impact Statement. OCS EIS/EA, MMS 90-0063. Anchorage, Alaska. 

USDOI. 1996. Beaufort Sea Planning Area. Oil and Gas Lease Sale 144. Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. OCS EIS/EA, MMS 90-0012. Anchorage, Alaska. 

USDOI. 2002. Liberty Development and Production Plan Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. OCS EIS/EA, MMS 2002-0019. Anchorage, Alaska. 

U.S. EPA. 1991. Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples. Office of 

Research & Development, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-846, Third Edition. Office of Solid 

Waste, Washington, D.C. August. 

Valette-Silver, N., M.J. Hameed, D.W. Efurd, and A. Robertson. 1999. Status of the 

Contamination in Sediments and Biota from the Western Beaufort Sea (Alaska). Marine 

Pollution Bulletin 38 (8):702-722. 

Wakeham, S.G. and R. Carpenter. 1976. Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in Sediments of Lake 

Washington. Limnol. Oceanogr. 21:711-723. 

Wakeham, S.G. and J.W. Farrington. 1980. Hydrocarbons in Contemporary Aquatic Sediments. 

In: Contaminants and Sediments, Volume 1. Edited by R.A. Baker. pp. 3-27.

Wakeham, S.G., C. Schaeffiner, and W. Giger. 1980. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in 

Recent Lake Sediments-II, Compounds Derived from Biogenic Precursors During Early 

Diagenesis. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 44:415-429. 

Wedepohl, K.H. 1995. The Composition of the Continental Crust. Geochimica et 

Cosmochimica Acta 59 (7): 1217-1232. 

Weiss, H.V. and A.S. Naidu. 1986. 210Pb Flux in an Arctic Coastal Region. Arctic 39(1): 59-64. 
Core Sediment Sample Weight Percent Total Ra-226 Excess Cs-137

Interval Size Basis Water Pb-210 Pb-210

(cm) (g) (g) (dpm/g) (dpm/g) (dpm/g) (dpm/g)

01-L02 0.0-0.5 10.725 Dry 25.9 1.94 1.82 0.12 0.13

01-3A 0.0-0.5 11.439 Dry 29.9 1.62 1.63 0 0.07

01-3A 0.5-1.0 11.186 Dry 25.7 1.32 1.65 0 0.1

01-3A 1.5-2.0 11.153 Dry 25.9 1.9 1.58 0.32 0.08

01-N02 0.0-0.5 11.984 Dry 27.1 1.07 1.53 0 0.06

01-N02 0.5-1.0 11.456 Dry 21.1 1.3 1.63 0 0.05

01-N02 5.0-6.0 10.939 Dry 26.7 1.74 1.81 0 0

01-N03 0.0-0.5 9.757 Dry 33.2 2.69 2.02 0.67 0.08

01-N03 0.5-1.0 9.317 Dry 30.5 1.55 2.09 0 0.02

01-N03 1.0-1.5 9.429 Dry 28.9 1.14 2.09 0 0.09

01-6A 0.0-0.5 9.492 Dry 37.2 2.05 1.78 0.27 0.06

01-6A 0.5-1.0 9.965 Dry 29.7 0.96 1.76 0 0.05

01-6A 3.0-3.5 10.894 Dry 24.6 1.48 1.58 0 0.02

01-6A 5.0-6.0 10.852 Dry 24.6 0.91 1.41 0 0.01

01-P01 0.0-0.5 9.328 Dry 48.8 3.42 2.58 0.84 0.31

01-P01 0.5-1.0 9.27 Dry 45.5 2.47 1.7 0.76 0.19

01-P01 1.0-1.5 9.913 Dry 39.1 2.23 1.75 0.48 0.21

01-P01 1.5-2.0 9.672 Dry 35.9 2.69 1.76 0.93 0.18

01-P01 2.0-2.5 9.629 Dry 35.2 2.19 1.74 0.44 0.24

01-P01 2.5-3.0 9.756 Dry 35.1 2.15 1.69 0.47 0.27

01-P01 3.0-3.5 9.365 Dry 37.7 2.01 1.71 0.31 0.32

01-P01 3.5-4.0 9.269 Dry 33.3 2.08 1.68 0.4 0.35

01-P01 4.0-4.5 9.554 Dry 30.4 1.57 1.66 0 0.15

01-P01 4.5-5.0 10.297 Dry 29.5 1.28 1.78 0 0.02

01-P01 5.0-6.0 10.442 Dry 31.8 1.34 1.77 0 0.01

01-P01 6.0-7.0 10.485 Dry 31.6 1.22 1.74 0 0

01-P01 7.0-8.0 9.923 Dry 34.1 1.43 1.79 0 0

01-P01 8.0-9.0 9.241 Dry 31.7 1.17 1.87 0 0

01-P01 9.0-10.0 9.944 Dry 30.5 1.21 1.4 0 0

01-E01 0.0-0.5 8.946 Dry 45.8 3.04 1.99 1.06 0.06

01-E01 0.5-1.0 9.221 Dry 34.7 4.52 3.03 1.49 0.21

01-E01 1.0-1.5 10.225 Dry 26.1 2.44 1.9 0.55 0.11

01-E01 1.5-2.0 10.394 Dry 24.8 2.3 1.85 0.46 0.14

01-E01 2.0-2.5 10.43 Dry 24.1 2.16 1.85 0.31 0.08

01-E01 2.5-3.0 10.177 Dry 24 2.08 1.89 0.19 0.13

01-E01 3.0-3.5 10.677 Dry 22.7 2.11 1.81 0.3 0.04

01-6G 0.0-0.5 11.24 Dry 44 2.47 1.72 0.76 0.1

01-6G 0.5-1.0 11.364 Dry 36 2.08 1.46 0.62 0.09

01-6G 1.0-1.5 9.086 Dry 31.9 1.97 1.68 0.29 0.06

01-6G 1.5-2.0 9.491 Dry 30.9 1.73 1.59 0.15 0.11
01-6G 2.0-2.5 9.298 Dry 28.1 1.9 1.75 0.15 0.08

01-6G 2.5-3.0 10.007 Dry 30.7 1.72 1.65 0.08 0.04

01-6G 3.0-3.5 9.987 Dry 26.9 1.16 1.61 0 0.01

01-6G 4.0-4.5 10.418 Dry 27.2 0.97 1.39 0 0.03

01-N15 0.0-0.5 6.27 Dry 60.2 3.53 1.71 1.82 0.25

01-N15 0.5-1.0 5.893 Dry 58.3 3.63 1.74 1.89 0.27

01-N15 1.0-1.5 6.981 Dry 52.3 3.65 1.98 1.67 0.25

01-N15 1.5-2.0 7.068 Dry 48.9 3.05 1.87 1.18 0.21

01-N15 2.0-3.0 7.441 Dry 46.5 2.44 1.93 0.51 0.13

01-N15 3.0-4.0 7.641 Dry 43.7 2.17 1.81 0.36 0.17

01-N15 4.0-5.0 7.525 Dry 47.7 2.23 1.81 0.42 0.21

01-N15 5.0-6.0 7.63 Dry 41.7 1.81 1.78 0.03 0.11

01-N15 6.0-7.0 8.837 Dry 38.3 1.81 1.75 0.06 0.14
MMS Beaufort Sea ANIMDA Project: Summer 2001 Sampling

Station Data for Sediment Cores

Sample Station Station Collection Sectioning Comments

Identification Identification Grouping Date Interval

01-3A-01-MET-S 3A Liberty 2 cm to a depth of 20 cm Sediment Core (Hg, Grain Size and Organics)

01-3A-02-MET-S 3A Liberty 0.5 cm to a depth of 5 cm, Sediment Core (Metals and Age Dating)

then 1 cm to a depth of 16 cm

01-6A-01-MET-S 6A Colville Delta 2 cm to a depth of 18 cm Sediment Core (Hg, Grain Size and Organics)

01-6A-02-MET-S 6A Colville Delta 0.5 cm to a depth of 5 cm, Sediment Core (Metals and Age Dating)

then 1 cm to a depth of 18 cm

01-6G-01-MET-S 6G Colville Delta 2 cm to a depth of 20 cm Sediment Core (Hg, Grain Size and Organics)

01-6G-02-MET-S 6G Colville Delta 0.5 cm to a depth of 5.5 cm, Sediment Core (Metals and Age Dating)

then 1 cm to a depth of 16.5 cm

01-E01-01-MET-S E01 Endicott 2 cm to a depth of 12 cm Sediment Core (Hg, Grain Size and Organics)

01-E01-02-MET-S E01 Endicott 0.5 cm to a depth of 5 cm, Sediment Core (Metals and Age Dating)

then 1 cm to a depth of 7 cm

01-L02-01-MET-S L02 Liberty 2 cm to a depth of 24 cm Sediment Core (Hg, Grain Size and Organics)

01-L02-02-MET-S L02 Liberty 0.5 cm to a depth of 5 cm, Sediment Core (Metals and Age Dating)

then 1 cm to a depth of 18 cm

01-N02-01-MET-S N02 Northstar 2 cm to a depth of 24 cm Sediment Core (Hg, Grain Size and Organics)

01-N02-02-MET-S N02 Northstar 0.5 cm to a depth of 5 cm, Sediment Core (Metals and Age Dating)

then 1 cm to a depth of 21 cm

01-N03-01-MET-S N03 Northstar 2 cm to a depth of 20 cm Sediment Core (Hg, Grain Size and Organics)

01-N03-02-MET-S N03 Northstar 0.5 cm to a depth of 5 cm, Sediment Core (Metals and Age Dating)

then 1 cm to a depth of 17 cm

01-P01-01-MET-S P01 Prudhoe Bay 2 cm to a depth of 28 cm Sediment Core (Hg, Grain Size and Organics)

01-P01-02-MET-S P01 Prudhoe Bay 0.5 cm to a depth of 5 cm, Sediment Core (Metals and Age Dating)

then 1 cm to a depth of 24 cm
Key Organic Parameters

Field ID Station ID Matrix Percent SolidsWeight BasisPerylene (ug/Kg)N/P C2D/C2PC3D/C3P

01-3A-02-2-PHC-SC3A Sedimen 72.90 Dry 44.00 .86 .30 .34

01-3A-02-4-PHC-SC3A Sedimen 75.90 Dry 44.00 .85 .30 .34

01-3A-02-6-PHC-SC3A Sedimen 78.20 Dry 42.00 .86 .30 .34

01-3A-02-10-PHC-SC3A Sedimen 81.50 Dry 40.00 .84 .30 .31

01-3A-02-16-PHC-SC3A Sedimen 79.30 Dry 48.00 .81 .28 .29

01-3A-02-20-PHC-SC3A Sedimen 78.00 Dry 50.00 .80 .27 .29

01-6A-01-2-PHC-SC6A Sedimen 68.30 Dry 100.00 ### .33 .30

01-6A-01-4-PHC-SC6A Sedimen 72.30 Dry 87.00 ### .37 .31

01-6A-01-6-PHC-SC6A Sedimen 75.40 Dry 68.00 ### .44 .42

01-6A-01-10-PHC-SC6A Sedimen 78.50 Dry 78.00 ### .38 .39

01-6A-01-14-PHC-SC6A Sedimen 82.90 Dry 50.00 .92 .40 .39

01-6A-01-18-PHC-SC6A Sedimen 79.60 Dry 56.00 .82 .39 .41

01-6G-01-2-PHC-SC6G Sedimen 59.60 Dry 260.00 ### .32 .30

01-6G-01-4-PHC-SC6G Sedimen 70.30 Dry 120.00 ### .38 .41

01-6G-01-6-PHC-SC6G Sedimen 72.40 Dry 97.00 .92 .31 .34

01-6G-01-8-PHC-SC6G Sedimen 72.40 Dry 90.00 .89 .34 .34

01-6G-01-10-PHC-SC6G Sedimen 71.10 Dry 92.00 .87 .32 .36

01-6G-01-12-PHC-SC6G Sedimen 70.70 Dry 98.00 .94 .33 .34

01-6G-01-14-PHC-SC6G Sedimen 72.70 Dry 91.00 .95 .33 .34

01-6G-01-16-PHC-SC6G Sedimen 71.80 Dry 110.00 .92 .33 .31

01-6G-01-18-PHC-SC6G Sedimen 69.80 Dry 120.00 .97 .33 .33

01-6G-01-20-PHC-SC6G Sedimen 70.00 Dry 79.00 .99 .32 .30

01-E01-01-2-PHC-SCE01 Sedimen 65.30 Dry 76.00 .77 .45 .46

01-E01-01-4-PHC-SCE01 Sedimen 74.60 Dry 45.00 .76 .42 .48

01-E01-01-6-PHC-SCE01 Sedimen 76.30 Dry 59.00 .73 .40 .43

01-E01-01-8-PHC-SCE01 Sedimen 81.50 Dry 72.00 .71 .38 .42

01-E01-01-10-PHC-SE01 Sedimen 76.20 Dry 120.00 .70 .44 .48

01-E01-01-12-PHC-SE01 Sedimen 82.20 Dry 100.00 .69 .40 .43

01-L02-01-2-PHC-SCL02 Sedimen 75.10 Dry 33.00 .87 .34 .33

01-L02-01-4-PHC-SCL02 Sedimen 76.70 Dry 34.00 .90 .35 .35

01-L02-01-6-PHC-SCL02 Sedimen 71.40 Dry 50.00 .96 .35 .34

01-L02-01-12-PHC-SL02 Sedimen 74.60 Dry 42.00 .95 .33 .35

01-L02-01-16-PHC-SL02 Sedimen 70.40 Dry 82.00 .95 .38 .36

01-L02-01-22-PHC-SL02 Sedimen 67.70 Dry 81.00 .98 .29 .25

01-N02-01-2-PHC-SCN02 Sedimen 68.40 Dry 70.00 .83 .33 .36

01-N02-01-4-PHC-SCN02 Sedimen 73.60 Dry 62.00 .80 .32 .35

01-N02-01-6-PHC-SCN02 Sedimen 71.50 Dry 66.00 .84 .32 .40

01-N02-01-12-PHC-SN02 Sedimen 75.00 Dry 57.00 .97 .35 .36

01-N02-01-16-PHC-SN02 Sedimen 76.10 Dry 40.00 .98 .37 .36

01-N02-01-22-PHC-SN02 Sedimen 67.80 Dry 97.00 .91 .37 .33

01-N03-01-2-PHC-SCN03 Sedimen 74.00 Dry 51.00 .93 .35 .36

01-N03-01-4-PHC-SCN03 Sedimen 73.40 Dry 52.00 .94 .35 .36

01-N03-01-6-PHC-SCN03 Sedimen 74.60 Dry 48.00 .97 .36 .39

01-N03-01-10-PHC-SN03 Sedimen 73.00 Dry 60.00 .94 .34 .38

01-N03-01-16-PHC-SN03 Sedimen 77.40 Dry 40.00 .97 .36 .39

01-N03-01-20-PHC-SN03 Sedimen 79.20 Dry 36.00 .93 .36 .38
01

-P01-01-2-PHC-SCP01Sedimen 53.60Dry 74.00.82.44.50

01-P01-01-4-PHC-SCP01Sedimen 63.20Dry 66.00.81.41.42

01-P01-01-6-PHC-SCP01Sedimen 66.80Dry 70.00.77.40.42

01-P01-01-8-PHC-SCP01Sedimen 66.70Dry 78.00.73.46.55

01-P01-01-10-PHC-SP01Sedimen 65.80Dry 92.00.71.44.46

01-P01-01-12-PHC-SP01Sedimen 67.90Dry 91.00.73.38.45

01-P01-01-14-PHC-SP01Sedimen 67.20Dry 99.00.74.38.43

01-P01-01-16-PHC-SP01Sedimen 66.50Dry 95.00.77.39.43

01-P01-01-18-PHC-SP01Sedimen 64.50Dry 97.00.72.34.42

01-P01-01-20-PHC-SP01Sedimen 61.80Dry 100.00.84.44.50

01-P01-01-22-PHC-SP01Sedimen 57.80Dry 150.00.83.38.47

01-P01-01-24-PHC-SP01Sedimen 68.80Dry 110.00.82.37.44

01-P01-01-26-PHC-SP01Sedimen 67.50Dry 120.00.78.38.42

01-P01-01-28-PHC-SP01Sedimen 68.50Dry 97.00.77.38.42
Total PAH (ug/KgTotal PAH less perylene (ug/KgPyrogenic PAH (ug/KgPetrogenic PAH (ug/Kg

381.16 337.16 32.49 292.33

388.06 344.06 33.25 298.25

378.85 336.85 31.31 293.48

330.38 290.38 27.96 252.62

411.80 363.80 34.38 317.46

405.36 355.36 33.25 310.36

931.95 831.95 78.90 731.35

742.15 655.15 63.80 574.35

582.15 514.15 46.94 451.94

677.74 599.74 57.70 523.44

418.95 368.95 36.00 321.90

425.38 369.38 36.73 321.53

1987.79 1727.79 176.40 1502.09

831.40 711.40 73.00 617.70

619.03 522.03 57.77 448.15

548.09 458.09 50.83 393.24

586.01 494.01 56.60 422.60

668.01 570.01 61.30 491.36

615.61 524.61 55.80 452.85

711.17 601.17 69.10 514.44

800.06 680.06 83.50 577.06

535.38 456.38 51.28 392.45

589.42 513.42 44.40 453.60

365.46 320.46 26.39 284.77

329.99 270.99 23.65 239.36

284.01 212.01 20.01 185.25

400.59 280.59 26.70 245.14

347.45 247.45 25.37 214.05

284.77 251.77 23.41 219.76

297.69 263.69 23.98 230.52

431.19 381.19 34.78 333.78

360.79 318.79 29.07 278.74

632.42 550.42 51.70 481.05

755.75 674.75 66.90 589.05

534.60 464.60 48.05 399.84

476.09 414.09 41.13 358.28

501.68 435.68 42.92 376.44

474.85 417.85 41.99 361.74

330.81 290.81 28.57 252.54

741.51 644.51 68.40 553.53

410.05 359.05 37.44 309.34

407.34 355.34 35.27 308.41

379.46 331.46 32.09 288.20

473.55 413.55 42.72 356.68

337.02 297.02 28.78 259.26

289.00 253.00 24.78 220.05
701

.46 627.46 47.43 561.27

548.78 482.78 41.99 426.18

522.96 452.96 39.91 399.77

520.25 442.25 39.60 388.63

587.78 495.78 46.09 433.71

528.00 437.00 41.95 381.50

547.79 448.79 42.68 392.43

536.09 441.09 42.42 384.89

540.36 443.36 46.38 383.52

555.53 455.53 45.57 397.36

799.70 649.70 67.00 561.37

610.86 500.86 51.15 433.65

612.90 492.90 50.58 426.74

536.61 439.61 43.51 382.64
Pryogenic/PetrogenicTotalST (ug/KgT21/T22Ts/(Ts+Tm)Oleane/HopanTe PH Resolved (mg/KgTPHC (mg/Kg .111 37.57 .81 .32 .08 4.40 6.10

.111 40.13 .79 .24 .05 4.30 5.30

.107 33.84 .88 .22 .05 3.60 4.30

.111 27.63 .69 .21 .05 2.70 3.20

.108 34.82 .66 .23 .05 3.40 4.20

.107 41.83 .81 .24 .05 4.00 4.80

.108 104.96 .28 .14 .00 7.60 14.00

.111 90.65 .29 .12 .00 6.30 8.90

.104 57.47 .39 .15 .00 5.20 6.80

.110 68.37 .49 .15 .00 6.20 8.60

.112 41.34 .53 .15 .00 3.80 4.60

.114 41.58 .38 .16 .00 3.80 4.90

.117 225.40 .31 .15 .00 23.00 31.00

.118 108.01 .24 .13 .00 11.00 11.00

.129 87.02 .23 .15 .00 8.60 9.60

.129 78.35 .20 .15 .00 7.70 8.60

.134 82.81 .21 .16 .00 7.60 8.90

.125 79.16 .23 .18 .00 7.60 8.60

.123 88.12 .24 .17 .00 8.20 10.00

.134 102.96 .23 .13 .00 10.00 13.00

.145 129.48 .23 .10 .00 12.00 17.00

.131 87.11 .22 .11 .00 7.60 9.90

.098 62.97 .35 .24 .09 7.20 12.00

.093 32.13 .19 .29 .10 3.50 5.60

.099 29.52 .21 .25 .12 3.10 4.40

.108 23.34 .25 .20 .13 2.50 3.40

.109 33.67 .20 .23 .11 3.80 4.60

.119 30.23 .22 .28 .11 3.30 4.50

.107 23.32 .42 .25 .05 3.10 4.60

.104 23.92 .45 .28 .07 3.20 5.00

.104 29.40 .52 .25 .05 4.30 6.30

.104 24.94 .51 .28 .06 3.50 6.40

.107 47.00 .60 .20 .05 6.20 11.00

.114 59.93 .47 .19 .07 9.20 14.00

.120 57.45 .64 .23 .03 6.50 8.80

.115 43.48 .53 .20 .03 5.30 7.70

.114 46.06 .68 .20 .03 5.40 7.60

.116 49.82 .49 .20 .03 5.00 8.30

.113 27.39 .49 .21 .06 3.20 5.20

.124 73.23 .54 .24 .03 8.10 14.00

.121 36.33 .45 .22 .04 4.30 6.60

.114 34.61 .43 .21 .04 4.10 6.70

.111 28.53 .48 .23 .07 3.60 5.90

.120 38.77 .50 .21 .03 4.90 11.00

.111 25.38 .47 .23 .03 2.80 7.20

.113 21.56 .43 .22 .05 2.50 6.50
.085 80

.99.27.22.11 11.00 17.00

.099 68.84.27.26.098.60 14.00

.100 52.61.25.19.096.109.60

.102 54.00.27.20.097.40 11.00

.106 67.52.26.20.088.50 12.00

.110 60.78.27.22.087.30 10.00

.109 57.71.26.23.086.909.40

.110 69.30.24.17.087.90 10.00

.121 70.69.23.19.087.909.60

.115 79.70.34.19.00 11.00 14.00

.119 97.97.36.20.07 13.00 16.00

.118 61.27.35.25.108.10 12.00

.119 71.11.28.19.097.308.80

.114 54.06.25.21.095.606.50
ISOPRENOIDLAS LK (mg/KgTALK (mg/KgPristane/PhytanePhytane/PristaneC16/(C15+C17)CPI .12 .47 2.66 2.08 .48 .35 ###

.13 .50 2.63 2.04 .49 .35 ###

.12 .48 2.24 2.13 .47 .37 ###

.09 .36 1.71 2.11 .47 .39 ###

.12 .46 2.16 2.00 .50 .39 ###

.12 .48 2.58 1.96 .51 .35 ###

.22 .71 5.22 1.98 .51 .44 ###

.19 .61 4.24 2.03 .49 .44 ###

.15 .56 3.64 2.07 .48 .40 ###

.15 .60 4.42 2.10 .48 .41 ###

.09 .41 2.70 2.17 .46 .47 ###

.11 .41 2.65 2.25 .44 .51 ###

.47 1.96 16.18 2.32 .43 .39 ###

.19 .84 7.50 2.33 .43 .42 ###

.15 .71 5.69 2.30 .44 .42 ###

.14 .66 4.74 2.25 .44 .43 ###

.14 .63 4.76 2.23 .45 .38 ###

.16 .72 4.99 2.37 .42 .38 ###

.16 .68 5.24 2.72 .37 .37 ###

.18 .78 6.59 2.39 .42 .44 ###

.20 .87 6.93 2.42 .41 .37 ###

.14 .61 4.67 3.05 .33 .38 ###

.17 .78 4.46 2.21 .45 .35 ###

.10 .42 1.95 2.40 .42 .42 ###

.08 .37 1.80 2.38 .42 .45 ###

.06 .27 1.44 2.00 .50 .45 ###

.08 .37 1.94 2.21 .45 .48 ###

.08 .32 1.69 2.00 .50 .40 ###

.10 .37 1.83 2.35 .43 .38 ###

.10 .39 2.01 2.05 .49 .38 ###

.13 .50 2.82 2.08 .48 .39 ###

.12 .46 2.10 2.09 .48 .39 ###

.19 .74 3.86 2.32 .43 .38 ###

.25 .88 5.87 2.56 .39 .40 ###

.18 .73 4.22 2.00 .50 .33 ###

.14 .58 3.93 1.94 .52 .40 ###

.15 .61 3.78 2.14 .47 .36 ###

.15 .56 3.28 2.00 .50 .38 ###

.10 .37 2.32 1.86 .54 .39 ###

.22 .88 5.71 2.00 .50 .38 ###

.12 .44 3.15 2.04 .49 .39 ###

.12 .44 2.96 1.96 .51 .40 ###

.11 .42 2.58 1.96 .51 .39 ###

.15 .57 3.54 2.03 .49 .38 ###

.09 .34 2.05 2.00 .50 .45 ###

.09 .31 1.79 1.95 .51 .40 ###
.20

1.146.892.35.42.34 ###

.15.845.302.38.42.33 ###

.13.633.882.27.44.38 ###

.13.724.802.17.46.35 ###

.15.825.622.15.47.37 ###

.13.664.782.00.50.36 ###

.13.654.572.27.44.37 ###

.13.695.202.26.44.35 ###

.13.665.072.30.43.36 ###

.17.898.212.30.43.35 ###

.181.029.372.44.41.33 ###

.15.765.072.32.43.37 ###

.13.655.322.25.44.37 ###

.13.563.852.32.43.37 ###
LALK/TALKSilt+Clay(%)Clay (%) .18 70.75 19.70

.19 77.78 21.60

.21 75.76 22.10

.21 45.86 15.60

.21 61.90 17.70

.18 67.14 4.60

.14 86.13 12.20

.14 71.86 8.10

.15 62.12 11.90

.14 54.11 17.10

.15 25.50 9.50

.15 58.59 13.00

.12 86.05 23.20

.11 56.31 5.90

.13 61.32 5.60

.14 59.32 6.30

.13 62.92 8.70

.14 70.38 6.80

.13 63.66 5.30

.12 61.38 6.10

.13 74.72 6.20

.13 29.91 4.00

.18 91.64 12.50

.22 83.41 9.30

.21 47.52 3.70

.19 42.35 2.50

.19 79.26 1.30

.19 62.53 2.50

.20 56.30 10.40

.19 56.55 10.40

.18 57.02 7.20

.22 52.00 10.70

.19 83.20 14.70

.15 78.46 3.90

.17 72.08 23.90

.15 72.25 13.10

.16 83.42 11.60

.17 73.10 25.50

.16 79.22 20.90

.15 93.69 19.70

.14 89.00 23.20

.15 92.22 24.10

.16 83.84 17.20

.16 91.72 10.60

.16 94.29 15.30

.17 82.61 11.80
.17 95

.41 17.90

.16 93.14 15.40

.16 96.62 14.10

.15 96.75 20.60

.15 96.23 22.70

.14 94.91 17.60

.14 97.90 23.00

.13 97.82 12.70

.13 98.40 11.50

.11 93.666.10

.11 92.778.90

.15 97.848.30

.12 94.15 10.80

.15 96.189.20
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID 01-3A-02-2-PHC-SC 01-3A-02-4-PHC-SC 01-3A-02-6-PHC-SC 01-3A-02-10-PHC-SC

Lab ID 21A1901 21A1902 21A1903 21A1905

Lab Batch B2140 B2140 B2140 B2140

SDG ICF3998 ICF3998 ICF3998 ICF3998

File S5473.D S5474.D S5475.D S5476.D

Sample Type N N N N

Matrix SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

Sample Size 21.91 g 22.78 g 23.48 g 24.45 g

Weight Basis DRY DRY DRY DRY

Associated Blank DW-S-31PB DW-S-31PB DW-S-31PB DW-S-31PB

Field Date 08/03/01 08/03/01 08/03/01 08/03/01

Extract Date 07/18/02 07/18/02 07/18/02 07/18/02

Analysis Date 07/26/02 07/26/02 07/26/02 07/26/02

Date Received 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

Percent Solids 72.9 75.9 78.2 81.5

Dilution Factor 111 1

Percent Lipids NA NA NA NA

Report Method 8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD

Min Reporting Limit 0.57 0.55 0.53 0.51

Units ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Naphthalene 6.1 5.9 6.3 4.8

C1-Naphthalenes 14 15 16 12

C2-Naphthalenes 28 28 28 22

C3-Naphthalenes 23 24 22 20

C4-Naphthalenes 14 13 13 12

Acenaphthylene 0.045 JB 0.043 JB 0.039 JB 0.034 JB

Acenaphthene 0.78 0.81 0.84 0.69

Biphenyl 4.6 4.7 4.8 3.6

Fluorene 3.4 3.4 3.5 2.8

C1-Fluorenes 6 6.3 6.1 5.6

C2-Fluorenes 8.3 8.7 8.4 7.9

C3-Fluorenes 8 8.1 8.2 7.3

Anthracene 0.64 0.66 0.66 0.5 J

Phenanthrene 17 17 17 14

C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 28 28 27 24

C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 24 25 24 21

C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 16 16 16 14

C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 13 14 14 11

Dibenzothiophene 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.2

C1-Dibenzothiophenes 5.6 5.2 5.9 4.8

C2-Dibenzothiophenes 7.1 7.4 7.2 6.3

C3-Dibenzothiophenes 5.4 5.5 5.4 4.4

Fluoranthene 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.2

Pyrene 4.5 4.7 4.6 4

C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 12 13 13 12

C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 12 13 12 10

C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 8.4 9 8.8 7.4

Benzo[a]anthracene 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3

Chrysene 9 9.6 8.9 7.8

C1-Chrysenes 10 10 9.8 8.9

C2-Chrysenes 10 10 9.9 8.9

C3-Chrysenes 5.4 5.3 4.3 4.9

C4-Chrysenes 4.3 3.9 4 3.7

Benzo[b]fluoranthene 5.4 5.4 5.2 4.6

Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.42 J 0.4 J 0.41 J 0.49 J

Benzo[e]pyrene 7.1 7.2 6.6 5.7

Benzo[a]pyrene 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2

Perylene 44 44 42 40

Indeno[1,2,3,-c,d]pyrene 1.1 1.2 1 0.86

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 0.67 0.75 0.7 0.61

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 5.1 5 4.5 3.9

d8-Naphthalene 50 52 58 51

d10-Acenaphthene 72 77 74 71

d10-Phenanthrene 86 91 87 90

d12-Benzo[a]pyrene 80 88 86 89

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 1 of 15 Appendix B - PAH Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarb

Naphthalene

C1-Naphthalenes

C2-Naphthalenes

C3-Naphthalenes

C4-Naphthalenes

Acenaphthylene

Acenaphthene

Biphenyl

Fluorene

C1-Fluorenes

C2-Fluorenes

C3-Fluorenes

Anthracene

Phenanthrene

C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

Dibenzothiophene

C1-Dibenzothiophenes

C2-Dibenzothiophenes

C3-Dibenzothiophenes

Fluoranthene

Pyrene

C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

Benzo[a]anthracene

Chrysene

C1-Chrysenes

C2-Chrysenes

C3-Chrysenes

C4-Chrysenes

Benzo[b]fluoranthene

Benzo[k]fluoranthene

Benzo[e]pyrene

Benzo[a]pyrene

Perylene

Indeno[1,2,3,-c,d]pyrene

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene

d8-Naphthalene

d10-Acenaphthene

d10-Phenanthrene

d12-Benzo[a]pyrene

01-3A-02-16-PHC-SC 01-3A-02-20-PHC-SC 01-6A-01-2-PHC-SC 01-6A-01-4-PHC-SC

21A1908 21A1910 21A1992 21A1993

B2140 B2140 B2140 B2140

ICF3998 ICF3998 ICF3998 ICF3998

S5477.D S5478.D S5483.D S5484.D

N NNN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

23.81 g 23.45 g 20.49 g 21.73 g

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DW-S-31PB DW-S-31PB DW-S-31PB DW-S-31PB

08/03/01 08/03/01 07/30/01 07/30/01

07/18/02 07/18/02 07/18/02 07/18/02

07/26/02 07/26/02 07/26/02 07/26/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

79.3 78 68.3 72.3

1 111

NA NA NA NA

8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD

0.52 0.53 0.61 0.58

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

5.6 5.1 19 15

14 11 39 36

29 27 79 64

25 26 63 49

14 15 43 35

0.045 JB 0.036 JB 0.051 JB 0.05 JB

0.81 0.82 1.9 1.4

4.1 3.9 8.2 6.4

3.6 3.7 7.3 4.9

7.1 7.6 15 9.5

10 10 21 15

9.1 9.8 20 15

0.66 0.65 1.5 1.2

18 17 38 28

30 30 61 47

26 26 54 41

18 17 43 35

15 14 19 16

2.6 2.5 5.8 4.4

6.2 6 18 14

7.2 6.9 18 15

5.3 4.9 13 11

4 3.5 11 8.8

5.1 4.9 12 9.8

14 14 38 31

14 14 31 24

9.5 9.9 19 14

1.4 1.2 3.7 3.8

9.7 9.9 19 14

11 11 22 16

11 11 20 16

6.3 5.3 14 11

5.1 4.8 9.3 6.1

5.6 5.4 13 11

0.52 0.48 J 2 1.7

7.2 7.2 12 9.4

1.4 1.3 5.5 4.8

48 50 100 87

1.1 1 2.9 2.5

0.76 0.77 1.4 1.1

4.8 4.8 8.4 6.3

47 41 39 59

70 71 72 78

87 94 88 93

85 90 90 92

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 2 of 15 Appendix B - PAH Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarb

Naphthalene

C1-Naphthalenes

C2-Naphthalenes

C3-Naphthalenes

C4-Naphthalenes

Acenaphthylene

Acenaphthene

Biphenyl

Fluorene

C1-Fluorenes

C2-Fluorenes

C3-Fluorenes

Anthracene

Phenanthrene

C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

Dibenzothiophene

C1-Dibenzothiophenes

C2-Dibenzothiophenes

C3-Dibenzothiophenes

Fluoranthene

Pyrene

C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

Benzo[a]anthracene

Chrysene

C1-Chrysenes

C2-Chrysenes

C3-Chrysenes

C4-Chrysenes

Benzo[b]fluoranthene

Benzo[k]fluoranthene

Benzo[e]pyrene

Benzo[a]pyrene

Perylene

Indeno[1,2,3,-c,d]pyrene

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene

d8-Naphthalene

d10-Acenaphthene

d10-Phenanthrene

d12-Benzo[a]pyrene

01-6A-01-6-PHC-SC 01-6A-01-10-PHC-SC 01-6A-01-14-PHC-SC 01-6A-01-18-PHC-SC

21A1994 21A1996 21A1998 21A2000

B2140 B2140 B2140 B2140

ICF3998 ICF3998 ICF3998 ICF3998

S5485.D S5486.D S5487.D S5488.D

N N NN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

22.64 g 23.57 g 24.87 g 23.91 g

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DW-S-31PB DW-S-31PB DW-S-31PB DW-S-31PB

07/30/01 07/30/01 07/30/01 07/30/01

07/18/02 07/18/02 07/18/02 07/18/02

07/26/02 07/26/02 07/26/02 07/26/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

75.4 78.5 82.9 79.6

1 1 11

NA NA NA NA

8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD

0.55 0.53 0.5 0.52

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

10 12 6.4 6.2

26 28 16 15

46 54 31 28

36 43 24 24

25 28 17 14

0.041 JB 0.044 JB 0.11 J 0.25 J

1.2 1.2 0.69 0.78

5.8 6.5 3.5 3.7

4.7 5.7 3.2 3.2

8.7 11 6.5 6.2

12 16 9.7 9.4

12 16 9.4 9.3

0.87 1.1 0.65 0.62

23 26 16 17

38 44 27 28

36 40 24 25

26 28 17 18

12 13 18 18

3.8 5 2.9 2.7

13 14 7.2 7

16 15 9.5 9.7

11 11 6.6 7.3

5.5 6.9 4.4 4.7

6.6 8.2 5.2 5.2

21 25 16 16

18 24 14 14

12 15 9.4 9.5

2 2.3 1.5 1.7

13 14 9 9.6

13 16 9.6 10

13 15 9.4 11

9.4 10 6.4 6.8

5.1 7.5 4.9 5.2

7.9 11 6.4 6.1

0.59 1.1 0.77 0.67

8.6 11 6.9 6.8

2.7 3.4 1.9 1.9

68 78 50 56

1.8 2.2 1.3 1.4

0.95 1 0.73 0.76

5.9 7.6 4.8 4.7

56 48 51 50

72 75 69 68

88 95 89 88

87 93 87 88

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 3 of 15 Appendix B - PAH Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarb

Naphthalene

C1-Naphthalenes

C2-Naphthalenes

C3-Naphthalenes

C4-Naphthalenes

Acenaphthylene

Acenaphthene

Biphenyl

Fluorene

C1-Fluorenes

C2-Fluorenes

C3-Fluorenes

Anthracene

Phenanthrene

C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

Dibenzothiophene

C1-Dibenzothiophenes

C2-Dibenzothiophenes

C3-Dibenzothiophenes

Fluoranthene

Pyrene

C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

Benzo[a]anthracene

Chrysene

C1-Chrysenes

C2-Chrysenes

C3-Chrysenes

C4-Chrysenes

Benzo[b]fluoranthene

Benzo[k]fluoranthene

Benzo[e]pyrene

Benzo[a]pyrene

Perylene

Indeno[1,2,3,-c,d]pyrene

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene

d8-Naphthalene

d10-Acenaphthene

d10-Phenanthrene

d12-Benzo[a]pyrene

01-6G-01-2-PHC-SC 01-6G-01-4-PHC-SC 01-6G-01-6-PHC-SC 01-6G-01-8-PHC-SC

21A1935 21A1936 REF 21A1937 21A1938

B2103 B2103 B2103 B2103

ICF3952 ICF3952 ICF3952 ICF3952

W0639.D S5031.D W0641.D W0642.D

NN NN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

17.89 g 21.15 g 21.77 g 21.75 g

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DU-S-65PB DU-S-65PB DU-S-65PB DU-S-65PB

07/30/01 07/30/01 07/30/01 07/30/01

05/14/02 05/14/02 05/14/02 05/14/02

06/02/02 06/08/02 06/02/02 06/02/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

59.6 70.3 72.4 72.4

51 11

NA NA NA NA

8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD

0.7 0.59 0.57 0.57

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

44 14 12 10

99 34 27 23

160 62 43 37

110 62 31 27

78 37 18 16

0.086 J ND 0.048 J 0.051 J

4 1.3 1.1 0.89

19 6.9 5.9 5

16 5 4 3.5

29 9.3 7.6 6.3

42 14 11 9.4

42 15 12 10

2.3 0.8 0.71 0.62

82 31 25 22

130 52 40 36

110 48 35 32

87 32 26 24

42 17 15 12

12 5 3.4 3

27 18 10 9.5

35 18 11 11

26 13 8.9 8.1

23 11 8.5 7.6

28 12 9.2 8.4

84 33 26 22

76 28 24 21

45 19 15 13

8.2 3.4 2.5 2.1

39 16 13 11

41 17 14 12

43 15 14 13

22 9.7 8.6 7.6

16 8.4 5.5 3.9

32 13 10 9

3.4 2.2 0.97 0.93

28 13 9.5 8.4

12 4.6 3.3 2.9

260 D 120 97 90

7.4 1.9 2.4 2.1

3.4 1.1 1.2 1

20 7.8 6.7 5.8

40 47 47 49

57 74 69 66

73 83 80 77

79 67 87 81

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 4 of 15 Appendix B - PAH Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarb

Naphthalene

C1-Naphthalenes

C2-Naphthalenes

C3-Naphthalenes

C4-Naphthalenes

Acenaphthylene

Acenaphthene

Biphenyl

Fluorene

C1-Fluorenes

C2-Fluorenes

C3-Fluorenes

Anthracene

Phenanthrene

C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

Dibenzothiophene

C1-Dibenzothiophenes

C2-Dibenzothiophenes

C3-Dibenzothiophenes

Fluoranthene

Pyrene

C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

Benzo[a]anthracene

Chrysene

C1-Chrysenes

C2-Chrysenes

C3-Chrysenes

C4-Chrysenes

Benzo[b]fluoranthene

Benzo[k]fluoranthene

Benzo[e]pyrene

Benzo[a]pyrene

Perylene

Indeno[1,2,3,-c,d]pyrene

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene

d8-Naphthalene

d10-Acenaphthene

d10-Phenanthrene

d12-Benzo[a]pyrene

01-6G-01-10-PHC-SC 01-6G-01-12-PHC-SC 01-6G-01-14-PHC-SC 01-6G-01-16-PHC-SC

21A1939 21A1940 21A1941 21A1942

B2103 B2103 B2103 B2103

ICF3952 ICF3952 ICF3952 ICF3952

W0643.D W0644.D W0645.D W0648.D

NNNN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

21.36 g 21.24 g 21.88 g 21.55 g

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DU-S-65PB DU-S-65PB DU-S-65PB DU-S-65PB

07/30/01 07/30/01 07/30/01 07/30/01

05/14/02 05/14/02 05/14/02 05/14/02

06/02/02 06/02/02 06/02/02 06/02/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

71.1 70.7 72.7 71.8

1111

NA NA NA NA

8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD

0.58 0.59 0.57 0.58

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

10 12 16 14

22 31 28 30

39 49 44 50

30 35 31 36

17 19 20 24

0.067 J 0.055 J 0.071 J 0.036 J

0.93 1.1 0.98 1.1

4.9 6.6 5.6 5.8

3.7 4.5 3.8 4.1

7 8 7 7.9

11 12 10 12

12 13 11 13

0.61 0.75 0.76 0.83

23 28 25 29

38 45 41 46

34 39 36 40

25 29 28 32

15 14 15 19

3.1 3.8 3.2 3.7

9.8 11 9.8 11

11 13 12 13

9.1 9.8 9.4 10

8.1 8.7 7.9 9.8

9.4 10 9.4 11

24 27 24 29

24 26 24 27

13 15 14 15

2.4 3.2 2.6 3.5

12 13 12 14

14 15 13 16

14 16 14 16

8.5 9.3 7.4 9.1

4.4 5.8 5.2 6.5

10 11 10 13

1.2 1.1 1 1.5

9.3 10 9.6 11

3.3 3.5 3.1 4.3

92 98 91 110

2.4 2.4 2.3 3

1.2 1.3 1.2 1.4

6.6 7.1 6.3 7.6

40 57 48 43

65 68 64 66

81 77 74 77

86 81 73 80

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 5 of 15 Appendix B - PAH Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarb

Naphthalene

C1-Naphthalenes

C2-Naphthalenes

C3-Naphthalenes

C4-Naphthalenes

Acenaphthylene

Acenaphthene

Biphenyl

Fluorene

C1-Fluorenes

C2-Fluorenes

C3-Fluorenes

Anthracene

Phenanthrene

C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

Dibenzothiophene

C1-Dibenzothiophenes

C2-Dibenzothiophenes

C3-Dibenzothiophenes

Fluoranthene

Pyrene

C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

Benzo[a]anthracene

Chrysene

C1-Chrysenes

C2-Chrysenes

C3-Chrysenes

C4-Chrysenes

Benzo[b]fluoranthene

Benzo[k]fluoranthene

Benzo[e]pyrene

Benzo[a]pyrene

Perylene

Indeno[1,2,3,-c,d]pyrene

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene

d8-Naphthalene

d10-Acenaphthene

d10-Phenanthrene

d12-Benzo[a]pyrene

01-6G-01-18-PHC-SC 01-6G-01-20-PHC-SC 01-E01-01-2-PHC-SC 01-E01-01-4-PHC-SC

21A1943 21A1944 21A1883 21A1884

B2103 B2103 B2102 B2102

ICF3952 ICF3952 ICF3949 ICF3949

W0649.D W0650.D W0582.D W0583.D

N NNN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

20.94 g 21.06 g 19.63 g 22.4 g

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DU-S-65PB DU-S-65PB DU-S-62PB DU-S-62PB

07/30/01 07/30/01 08/04/01 08/04/01

05/14/02 05/14/02 05/10/02 05/10/02

06/02/02 06/02/02 05/29/02 05/29/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

69.8 70 65.3 74.6

1 111

NA NA NA NA

8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD

0.6 0.59 0.64 0.56

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

16 13 8.9 5.5

37 25 22 13

58 40 40 24

41 28 34 21

25 18 18 14

0.06 J 0.059 J 0.096 J 0.044 JB

1.1 0.79 1 0.63

6.5 4.3 6.9 4.4

4.2 3 4.8 3

8.3 5.2 7.6 4.9

12 8.3 11 6.9

13 9 11 7.4

1 0.65 0.52 J 0.3 J

31 21 26 16

51 34 43 27

45 31 38 26

36 24 26 16

18 14 26 17

4.5 2.6 3.9 2.4

12 9.2 13 9.1

15 10 17 11

12 7.3 12 7.7

14 7.5 5.6 3.4

15 8.6 6.5 4.2

33 22 19 11

32 20 19 11

19 11 13 7.5

4.3 2.5 1.8 1.1

17 11 12 7.1

18 12 13 7.7

21 13 14 8.2

8.2 6.9 7.2 3.8

5.7 4.1 5.1 3

14 9 7.4 4.3

1.3 0.88 0.8 0.52 J

12 7.7 8 4.6

4.8 3.1 2.2 1.3

120 79 76 45

3.3 2.2 1.7 0.99

1.5 1 1 0.58

8.3 5.5 5.4 2.9

39 45 52 49

46 60 69 63

54 69 79 79

58 73 82 83

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 6 of 15 Appendix B - PAH Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarb

Naphthalene

C1-Naphthalenes

C2-Naphthalenes

C3-Naphthalenes

C4-Naphthalenes

Acenaphthylene

Acenaphthene

Biphenyl

Fluorene

C1-Fluorenes

C2-Fluorenes

C3-Fluorenes

Anthracene

Phenanthrene

C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

Dibenzothiophene

C1-Dibenzothiophenes

C2-Dibenzothiophenes

C3-Dibenzothiophenes

Fluoranthene

Pyrene

C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

Benzo[a]anthracene

Chrysene

C1-Chrysenes

C2-Chrysenes

C3-Chrysenes

C4-Chrysenes

Benzo[b]fluoranthene

Benzo[k]fluoranthene

Benzo[e]pyrene

Benzo[a]pyrene

Perylene

Indeno[1,2,3,-c,d]pyrene

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene

d8-Naphthalene

d10-Acenaphthene

d10-Phenanthrene

d12-Benzo[a]pyrene

01-E01-01-6-PHC-SC 01-E01-01-8-PHC-SC 01-E01-01-10-PHC-SC 01-E01-01-12-PHC-SC

21A1885 21A1886 21A1887 21A1888

B2102 B2102 B2102 B2102

ICF3949 ICF3949 ICF3949 ICF3949

W0584.D W0585.D W0586.D W0587.D

NN N N

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

22.93 g 24.52 g 22.89 g 24.73 g

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DU-S-62PB DU-S-62PB DU-S-62PB DU-S-62PB

08/04/01 08/04/01 08/04/01 08/04/01

05/10/02 05/10/02 05/10/02 05/10/02

05/29/02 05/29/02 05/29/02 05/29/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

76.3 81.5 76.2 82.2

11 1 1

NA NA NA NA

8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD

0.54 0.51 0.55 0.5

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

4.7 3.6 4.3 4.1

11 9 9.6 9.2

20 15 19 16

17 12 17 14

10 7 9.6 8.6

0.053 JB 0.046 JB 0.049 JB 0.042 JB

0.61 0.6 0.79 0.61

3.6 2.9 3.8 3.3

2.8 2.5 3.4 2.6

4.2 3.5 5 4.2

5.6 4.9 7.1 5.9

6.4 4.9 7.4 6.3

0.28 J 0.35 J 0.35 J 0.33 J

14 11 14 12

23 17 23 19

21 17 20 18

14 11 14 13

14 9.7 14 13

2.1 1.7 2.3 1.8

7.9 4.9 5.8 4.4

8.5 6.4 8.7 7.2

6 4.6 6.7 5.6

3.2 2.8 3.6 3.2

3.7 3.2 4.2 4

10 8.6 12 11

10 8.6 12 11

6.5 5.6 7.7 7

0.99 0.79 1 1

6.5 5.3 6.5 6.1

7.1 5.6 7.6 7

7.2 6.1 8.1 7.4

3.5 2.7 3.6 3.2

2.2 1.7 2.4 1.9

3.8 3.2 4.6 4.4

0.39 J 0.32 J 0.48 J 0.54

4.1 3.5 4.6 4.4

1.2 0.98 1.5 1.4

59 72 120 100

0.83 0.68 0.98 1

0.44 J 0.44 J 0.64 0.63

2.6 2.3 3.2 3.1

52 60 42 50

64 66 60 60

78 80 76 74

84 86 81 80

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 7 of 15 Appendix B - PAH Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarb

Naphthalene

C1-Naphthalenes

C2-Naphthalenes

C3-Naphthalenes

C4-Naphthalenes

Acenaphthylene

Acenaphthene

Biphenyl

Fluorene

C1-Fluorenes

C2-Fluorenes

C3-Fluorenes

Anthracene

Phenanthrene

C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

Dibenzothiophene

C1-Dibenzothiophenes

C2-Dibenzothiophenes

C3-Dibenzothiophenes

Fluoranthene

Pyrene

C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

Benzo[a]anthracene

Chrysene

C1-Chrysenes

C2-Chrysenes

C3-Chrysenes

C4-Chrysenes

Benzo[b]fluoranthene

Benzo[k]fluoranthene

Benzo[e]pyrene

Benzo[a]pyrene

Perylene

Indeno[1,2,3,-c,d]pyrene

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene

d8-Naphthalene

d10-Acenaphthene

d10-Phenanthrene

d12-Benzo[a]pyrene

01-L02-01-2-PHC-SC 01-L02-01-4-PHC-SC 01-L02-01-6-PHC-SC 01-L02-01-12-PHC-SC

21A1889 21A1890 21A1891 21A1894

B2141 B2141 B2141 B2141

ICF4000 ICF4000 ICF4000 ICF4000

S5505.D S5506.D S5507.D S5508.D

NNN N

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

22.56 g 23.07 g 21.42 g 22.38 g

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DW-S-34PB DW-S-34PB DW-S-34PB DW-S-34PB

08/03/01 08/03/01 08/03/01 08/03/01

07/22/02 07/22/02 07/22/02 07/22/02

07/28/02 07/28/02 07/28/02 07/28/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

75.1 76.7 71.4 74.6

111 1

NA NA NA NA

8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD

0.55 0.54 0.58 0.56

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

4.3 4.5 6.3 5.3

10 11 15 14

19 20 30 25

20 22 33 26

12 12 20 17

0.062 JB 0.069 JB 0.078 JB 0.063 JB

0.6 0.65 0.9 0.88

3.3 3.6 4.9 4.4

2.4 2.7 3.8 3.4

3.9 4.3 6.9 5.6

5.9 6.4 9.9 7.6

6 6.4 9.5 7.7

0.4 J 0.39 J 0.63 0.48 J

13 13 18 15

21 22 31 26

17 17 24 21

13 13 19 15

11 12 16 14

1.8 1.9 2.8 2.4

3.6 3.7 5.5 4.4

5.7 5.9 8.5 7

4.3 4.6 6.4 5.2

2.8 2.8 3.8 3.2

3.8 3.8 5.4 4.5

9.2 9.6 14 12

8.4 8.8 12 10

6.4 6.8 9.7 7.9

1 1.1 1.7 1.2

6.6 6.5 9.6 8.5

7.3 7.6 11 9

6.8 7.2 10 8.7

4.3 4.6 6.3 4.8

2.8 2.8 4.2 3.8

3.6 3.8 5.4 4.5

0.38 J 0.4 J 0.62 0.5 J

4.9 5.2 7.1 6.1

0.98 1 1.6 1.2

33 34 50 42

0.76 0.76 1.2 0.94

0.49 J 0.52 J 0.76 0.63

3 3.3 4.7 3.9

52 49 44 52

72 72 69 70

88 89 90 88

76 77 84 81

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 8 of 15 Appendix B - PAH Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarb

Naphthalene

C1-Naphthalenes

C2-Naphthalenes

C3-Naphthalenes

C4-Naphthalenes

Acenaphthylene

Acenaphthene

Biphenyl

Fluorene

C1-Fluorenes

C2-Fluorenes

C3-Fluorenes

Anthracene

Phenanthrene

C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

Dibenzothiophene

C1-Dibenzothiophenes

C2-Dibenzothiophenes

C3-Dibenzothiophenes

Fluoranthene

Pyrene

C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

Benzo[a]anthracene

Chrysene

C1-Chrysenes

C2-Chrysenes

C3-Chrysenes

C4-Chrysenes

Benzo[b]fluoranthene

Benzo[k]fluoranthene

Benzo[e]pyrene

Benzo[a]pyrene

Perylene

Indeno[1,2,3,-c,d]pyrene

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene

d8-Naphthalene

d10-Acenaphthene

d10-Phenanthrene

d12-Benzo[a]pyrene

01-L02-01-16-PHC-SC 01-L02-01-22-PHC-SC 01-N02-01-2-PHC-SC 01-N02-01-4-PHC-SC

21A1896 21A1899 21A1923 21A1924

B2141 B2141 B2140 B2140

ICF4000 ICF4000 ICF3998 ICF3998

S5509.D S5511.D S5479.D S5480.D

N NNN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

21.14 g 20.35 g 20.56 g 22.13 g

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DW-S-34PB DW-S-34PB DW-S-31PB DW-S-31PB

08/03/01 08/03/01 07/31/01 07/31/01

07/22/02 07/22/02 07/18/02 07/18/02

07/28/02 07/28/02 07/26/02 07/26/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

70.4 67.7 68.4 73.6

1 111

NA NA NA NA

8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD

0.59 0.61 0.61 0.56

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

8.1 10 8.2 7

22 28 18 16

43 57 38 33

44 60 31 27

29 38 18 16

0.048 JB 0.052 JB 0.044 JB 0.048 JB

1.7 1 1 0.93

6.7 5.8 5.9 5.2

5.4 4.2 4.1 3.8

9.5 9.3 7.9 7

14 13 11 9.4

13 14 9.9 9.7

0.97 1 0.81 0.78

26 33 23 21

44 54 37 34

34 41 33 31

25 32 22 19

24 36 20 18

4.5 3.4 3.9 3.4

14 15 8.9 7.7

13 12 11 9.8

9 8.1 7.9 6.6

5.8 8.2 4.8 4.4

8 11 6.6 5.5

21 29 17 15

18 22 16 14

14 15 11 9.7

2.2 3.6 1.8 1.6

14 17 13 12

15 18 14 13

15 18 14 13

8.9 11 6.8 6.8

5.9 7 7.2 6.4

8.2 10 8 6.8

1.1 1.4 0.85 0.48 J

10 12 10 8.7

2.4 3.3 2.2 1.8

82 81 70 62

1.7 2.3 1.9 1.5

1.1 1.5 1.2 0.95

7.2 8.6 7.7 6.1

46 46 42 45

71 74 77 72

86 90 91 89

80 84 88 92

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 9 of 15 Appendix B - PAH Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarb

Naphthalene

C1-Naphthalenes

C2-Naphthalenes

C3-Naphthalenes

C4-Naphthalenes

Acenaphthylene

Acenaphthene

Biphenyl

Fluorene

C1-Fluorenes

C2-Fluorenes

C3-Fluorenes

Anthracene

Phenanthrene

C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

Dibenzothiophene

C1-Dibenzothiophenes

C2-Dibenzothiophenes

C3-Dibenzothiophenes

Fluoranthene

Pyrene

C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

Benzo[a]anthracene

Chrysene

C1-Chrysenes

C2-Chrysenes

C3-Chrysenes

C4-Chrysenes

Benzo[b]fluoranthene

Benzo[k]fluoranthene

Benzo[e]pyrene

Benzo[a]pyrene

Perylene

Indeno[1,2,3,-c,d]pyrene

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene

d8-Naphthalene

d10-Acenaphthene

d10-Phenanthrene

d12-Benzo[a]pyrene

01-N02-01-6-PHC-SC 01-N02-01-12-PHC-SC 01-N02-01-16-PHC-SC 01-N02-01-22-PHC-SC

21A1925 21A1928 21A1930 21A1933

B2140 B2141 B2141 B2141

ICF3998 ICF4000 ICF4000 ICF4000

S5481.D S5512.D S5513.D S5514.D

NNNN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

21.48 g 22.55 g 22.89 g 20.37 g

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DW-S-31PB DW-S-34PB DW-S-34PB DW-S-34PB

07/31/01 07/31/01 07/31/01 07/31/01

07/18/02 07/22/02 07/22/02 07/22/02

07/26/02 07/28/02 07/28/02 07/28/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

71.5 75 76.1 67.8

1111

NA NA NA NA

8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD

0.58 0.55 0.55 0.61

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

7.4 6.7 4.8 9.7

18 15 12 23

35 32 23 48

28 36 24 51

19 22 16 32

0.051 JB 0.068 JB 0.058 JB 0.13 JB

0.99 0.97 0.78 1.7

6.1 4.7 3.5 7.6

4.2 4.1 2.6 5.8

7.3 7.8 4.7 11

10 10 6.8 15

9.6 10 6.7 14

0.82 0.72 0.4 J 0.98

22 19 13 30

36 32 23 51

31 26 19 41

19 19 14 30

19 18 12 27

3.8 3.2 2.3 5.2

7.4 11 4.6 16

10 9.2 7.1 15

7.6 6.8 5 10

4.2 4.4 3.1 7

5.8 6.2 4.5 10

16 15 11 24

15 14 9.8 22

10 11 7.4 16

1.6 1.4 1.1 2.6

12 11 7.9 18

14 11 8.2 19

13 10 7.1 17

7 6.7 4.2 11

6.1 5.2 3.4 8

7.7 7.2 4.7 12

0.42 J 0.73 0.35 J 1.5

9.4 8.7 5.8 14

1.9 2 1.3 3

66 57 40 97

1.6 1.7 1 2.9

1 0.96 0.62 1.4

6.7 6.4 4 10

55 33 & 48 38

77 61 71 64

91 84 88 79

89 78 82 74

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 10 of 15 Appendix B - PAH Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarb

Naphthalene

C1-Naphthalenes

C2-Naphthalenes

C3-Naphthalenes

C4-Naphthalenes

Acenaphthylene

Acenaphthene

Biphenyl

Fluorene

C1-Fluorenes

C2-Fluorenes

C3-Fluorenes

Anthracene

Phenanthrene

C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

Dibenzothiophene

C1-Dibenzothiophenes

C2-Dibenzothiophenes

C3-Dibenzothiophenes

Fluoranthene

Pyrene

C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

Benzo[a]anthracene

Chrysene

C1-Chrysenes

C2-Chrysenes

C3-Chrysenes

C4-Chrysenes

Benzo[b]fluoranthene

Benzo[k]fluoranthene

Benzo[e]pyrene

Benzo[a]pyrene

Perylene

Indeno[1,2,3,-c,d]pyrene

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene

d8-Naphthalene

d10-Acenaphthene

d10-Phenanthrene

d12-Benzo[a]pyrene

01-N03-01-2-PHC-SC 01-N03-01-4-PHC-SC 01-N03-01-6-PHC-SC 01-N03-01-10-PHC-SC

21A1945 21A1946 21A1947 21A1949

B2141 B2141 B2141 B2141

ICF4000 ICF4000 ICF4000 ICF4000

S5515.D S5516.D S5517.D S5518.D

NNN N

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

22.26 g 22.02 g 22.45 g 21.96 g

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DW-S-34PB DW-S-34PB DW-S-34PB DW-S-34PB

07/28/01 07/28/01 07/28/01 07/28/01

07/22/02 07/22/02 07/22/02 07/22/02

07/28/02 07/28/02 07/28/02 07/28/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

74 73.4 74.6 73

111 1

NA NA NA NA

8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD

0.56 0.57 0.56 0.57

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

6.5 5.5 6.5 6.2

14 14 14 17

27 28 25 32

30 30 28 34

18 18 17 21

0.12 JB 0.047 JB 0.068 JB 0.084 JB

0.92 0.96 0.83 1.1

4.2 4.1 4.1 5.2

3.3 3.2 3 3.9

5.9 5.9 5.6 6.8

8.1 8.4 7.8 9.4

8.2 8.5 7.7 9.2

0.67 0.66 0.47 J 0.65

16 16 15 21

29 28 26 32

24 24 22 28

17 17 16 19

16 16 14 16

2.8 2.7 2.6 3.3

5.4 5.3 5.1 6.5

8.5 8.3 8 9.5

6.2 6.2 6.3 7.3

3.9 4 3.5 4.8

5.6 5.7 5.1 6.5

13 14 13 16

12 12 11 14

9 8.8 8.2 10

1.5 1.5 1.3 1.6

9.4 9.4 8.4 12

9.6 9.7 8.9 12

9.3 9.1 8.3 11

5.5 5.8 5 6.3

4 3 3.3 4.1

6.3 5.5 5.2 6.9

0.83 0.68 0.57 1

7.4 6.9 6.6 8.3

1.8 1.6 1.5 1.8

51 52 48 60

1.7 1.3 1.2 1.5

0.81 0.69 0.72 0.82

5.6 4.9 4.6 5.8

43 52 42 52

74 76 58 74

90 93 74 89

85 87 68 84

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 11 of 15 Appendix B - PAH Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarb

Naphthalene

C1-Naphthalenes

C2-Naphthalenes

C3-Naphthalenes

C4-Naphthalenes

Acenaphthylene

Acenaphthene

Biphenyl

Fluorene

C1-Fluorenes

C2-Fluorenes

C3-Fluorenes

Anthracene

Phenanthrene

C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

Dibenzothiophene

C1-Dibenzothiophenes

C2-Dibenzothiophenes

C3-Dibenzothiophenes

Fluoranthene

Pyrene

C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

Benzo[a]anthracene

Chrysene

C1-Chrysenes

C2-Chrysenes

C3-Chrysenes

C4-Chrysenes

Benzo[b]fluoranthene

Benzo[k]fluoranthene

Benzo[e]pyrene

Benzo[a]pyrene

Perylene

Indeno[1,2,3,-c,d]pyrene

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene

d8-Naphthalene

d10-Acenaphthene

d10-Phenanthrene

d12-Benzo[a]pyrene

01-N03-01-16-PHC-SC 01-N03-01-20-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-2-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-4-PHC-SC

21A1952 21A1954 21A1978 21A1979

B2141 B2141 B2102 B2102

ICF4000 ICF4000 ICF3949 ICF3949

S5519.D S5520.D W0588.D W0591.D

N N NN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

23.25 g 23.78 g 16.08 g 18.98 g

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DW-S-34PB DW-S-34PB DU-S-62PB DU-S-62PB

07/28/01 07/28/01 08/01/01 08/01/01

07/22/02 07/22/02 05/10/02 05/10/02

07/28/02 07/29/02 05/29/02 05/30/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

77.4 79.2 53.6 63.2

1 1 11

NA NA NA NA

8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD

0.54 0.52 0.78 0.66

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

4.7 4.2 12 9.3

11 9.9 30 22

22 19 55 40

26 21 43 32

17 14 22 19

0.15 JB 0.042 JB 0.073 J 0.083 J

0.71 0.61 1.2 1.1

3.1 2.8 9.4 6.9

2.5 2.1 6.1 5.3

5.2 4 9.7 8.3

7.5 5.5 13 11

7.6 5.8 14 11

0.48 J 0.37 J 0.66 J 0.61 J

13 12 34 26

23 20 55 42

20 17 50 37

14 12 30 24

13 12 28 21

2.1 1.9 5.2 4

4.4 3.8 16 11

7.1 6.1 22 15

5.4 4.6 15 10

3.5 2.9 6.6 5.8

4.7 4 7.8 6.8

12 10 22 18

10 8.4 22 17

7.5 6.1 14 10

1.2 0.97 1.9 1.7

8 6.8 13 11

8.2 7.2 15 12

7.5 6.4 16 12

4.8 3.8 7.8 5.2

2.9 2.6 3.2 2.9

4.5 4 7.5 6.9

0.73 0.28 J 0.56 J 0.52 J

5.4 5 8.7 7.1

1.2 1.1 2.2 2.1

40 36 74 66

0.88 0.91 1.6 1.5

0.57 0.52 0.97 0.87

3.5 3.3 5.3 4.8

43 52 48 48

61 71 66 64

85 88 75 78

84 81 78 81

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 12 of 15 Appendix B - PAH Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarb

Naphthalene

C1-Naphthalenes

C2-Naphthalenes

C3-Naphthalenes

C4-Naphthalenes

Acenaphthylene

Acenaphthene

Biphenyl

Fluorene

C1-Fluorenes

C2-Fluorenes

C3-Fluorenes

Anthracene

Phenanthrene

C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

Dibenzothiophene

C1-Dibenzothiophenes

C2-Dibenzothiophenes

C3-Dibenzothiophenes

Fluoranthene

Pyrene

C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

Benzo[a]anthracene

Chrysene

C1-Chrysenes

C2-Chrysenes

C3-Chrysenes

C4-Chrysenes

Benzo[b]fluoranthene

Benzo[k]fluoranthene

Benzo[e]pyrene

Benzo[a]pyrene

Perylene

Indeno[1,2,3,-c,d]pyrene

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene

d8-Naphthalene

d10-Acenaphthene

d10-Phenanthrene

d12-Benzo[a]pyrene

01-P01-01-6-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-8-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-10-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-12-PHC-SC

21A1980 21A1981 21A1982 21A1983

B2102 B2102 B2102 B2102

ICF3949 ICF3949 ICF3949 ICF3949

W0592.D W0593.D W0594.D W0595.D

NN N N

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

20.07 g 20.04 g 19.77 g 20.39 g

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DU-S-62PB DU-S-62PB DU-S-62PB DU-S-62PB

08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01

05/10/02 05/10/02 05/10/02 05/10/02

05/30/02 05/30/02 05/30/02 05/30/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

66.8 66.7 65.8 67.9

11 1 1

NA NA NA NA

8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD

0.62 0.62 0.63 0.61

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

9.4 7.5 8 7

20 18 19 16

35 33 36 32

28 27 30 27

18 14 17 16

0.07 J 0.055 JB 0.058 JB 0.062 JB

1.1 0.87 0.95 0.84

6 6.4 6.9 5.5

4.6 4.4 4.8 4.1

7.3 7.1 8 7

10 10 11 9.7

11 10 12 10

0.58 J 0.52 J 0.58 J 0.55 J

24 23 25 22

38 37 42 36

35 35 39 34

24 22 26 22

21 19 22 20

3.7 3.8 4.3 3.4

10 10 10 9.2

14 16 17 13

10 12 12 10

5.6 5.3 6.3 5.6

6.7 6.3 7.5 6.7

19 18 20 18

17 17 20 18

9.3 11 12 11

2.1 1.8 2 1.9

9.7 10 12 10

11 12 14 12

11 12 15 14

5.2 5.5 5.9 5.8

3.1 3.4 2.7 3.4

6.6 6.8 7.7 6.9

0.5 J 0.52 J 0.82 0.91

6.7 7.1 8.5 7.5

2.1 1.9 2.3 2.2

70 78 92 91

1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6

0.81 0.88 0.87 0.94

4.4 4.7 5.1 5.2

55 55 51 40

70 70 71 66

82 83 83 81

83 89 85 85

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 13 of 15 Appendix B - PAH Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarb

Naphthalene

C1-Naphthalenes

C2-Naphthalenes

C3-Naphthalenes

C4-Naphthalenes

Acenaphthylene

Acenaphthene

Biphenyl

Fluorene

C1-Fluorenes

C2-Fluorenes

C3-Fluorenes

Anthracene

Phenanthrene

C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

Dibenzothiophene

C1-Dibenzothiophenes

C2-Dibenzothiophenes

C3-Dibenzothiophenes

Fluoranthene

Pyrene

C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

Benzo[a]anthracene

Chrysene

C1-Chrysenes

C2-Chrysenes

C3-Chrysenes

C4-Chrysenes

Benzo[b]fluoranthene

Benzo[k]fluoranthene

Benzo[e]pyrene

Benzo[a]pyrene

Perylene

Indeno[1,2,3,-c,d]pyrene

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene

d8-Naphthalene

d10-Acenaphthene

d10-Phenanthrene

d12-Benzo[a]pyrene

01-P01-01-14-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-16-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-18-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-20-PHC-SC

21A1984 21A1985 21A1986 21A1987

B2102 B2102 B2102 B2120

ICF3949 ICF3949 ICF3949 ICF3967

W0596.D W0597.D W0598.D S5100.D

N NN N

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

20.18 g 19.95 g 16.16 g 18.55 g

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DU-S-62PB DU-S-62PB DU-S-62PB DV-S-68PB

08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01

05/10/02 05/10/02 05/10/02 06/13/02

05/30/02 05/30/02 05/30/02 06/19/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

67.2 66.5 64.5 61.8

1 11 1

NA NA NA NA

8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD

0.62 0.63 0.77 0.67

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

7.1 8.3 7.6 6.5

18 19 17 14

33 34 31 31

28 27 27 37

16 16 17 20

0.062 JB 0.08 J 0.045 JB 0.11 JB

0.87 0.91 0.77 0.75

5.7 5.6 4.9 4.3

4.1 3.8 3.4 3.3

7.2 6.6 6.3 6.2

10 9.2 9 9.8

11 9.9 10 11

0.58 J 0.78 0.76 J 0.6 J

22 22 22 20

37 37 36 34

34 33 35 34

23 23 24 22

21 20 21 19

3.5 3.2 2.8 3.1

9.8 9 7.7 14

13 13 12 15

10 10 10 11

5.9 6.2 6.4 6.9

6.9 7.1 7.5 7.7

19 19 19 18

19 18 19 17

12 11 11 12

1.9 2 2.1 1.9

11 10 11 11

12 11 12 13

13 13 14 12

5.9 5 5.6 7.7

2.9 2.9 3.3 5.9

7 7.1 7.8 7.7

0.52 J 0.5 J 0.78 0.57 J

7.4 7.4 7.8 7.7

2.1 2.3 2.5 2.2

99 95 97 100

1.4 1.5 1.8 1.6

0.96 0.92 1.1 0.9

5 4.8 5.4 5.1

49 49 40 39

65 67 57 60

80 80 71 73

86 83 76 74

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 14 of 15 Appendix B - PAH Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarb

Naphthalene

C1-Naphthalenes

C2-Naphthalenes

C3-Naphthalenes

C4-Naphthalenes

Acenaphthylene

Acenaphthene

Biphenyl

Fluorene

C1-Fluorenes

C2-Fluorenes

C3-Fluorenes

Anthracene

Phenanthrene

C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C2-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C3-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes

Dibenzothiophene

C1-Dibenzothiophenes

C2-Dibenzothiophenes

C3-Dibenzothiophenes

Fluoranthene

Pyrene

C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C2-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

C3-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes

Benzo[a]anthracene

Chrysene

C1-Chrysenes

C2-Chrysenes

C3-Chrysenes

C4-Chrysenes

Benzo[b]fluoranthene

Benzo[k]fluoranthene

Benzo[e]pyrene

Benzo[a]pyrene

Perylene

Indeno[1,2,3,-c,d]pyrene

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene

d8-Naphthalene

d10-Acenaphthene

d10-Phenanthrene

d12-Benzo[a]pyrene

01-P01-01-22-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-24-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-26-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-28-PHC-SC

21A1988 21A1989 21A1990 21A1991

B2103 B2103 B2103 B2103

ICF3952 ICF3952 ICF3952 ICF3952

W0652.D W0653.D W0654.D W0655.D

NNNN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

17.36 g 20.67 g 20.25 g 20.57 g

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DU-S-65PB DU-S-65PB DU-S-65PB DU-S-65PB

08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01

05/14/02 05/14/02 05/14/02 05/14/02

06/03/02 06/03/02 06/03/02 06/03/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

57.8 68.8 67.5 68.5

1111

NA NA NA NA

8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD 8270MOD

0.72 0.6 0.62 0.61

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

15 9.2 9 8

29 23 20 19

50 38 37 32

38 30 29 26

21 18 17 14

0.069 J 0.078 J 0.042 J 0.076 J

1.2 0.97 1 0.86

8.5 6.4 6 5.3

6.1 4.4 4.6 3.6

10 7.5 7.5 6.6

14 11 11 10

15 11 11 11

0.83 0.66 0.68 0.56 J

34 26 26 22

53 41 40 36

48 38 37 34

32 25 26 24

16 13 13 12

4.8 3.6 3.6 2.9

14 11 12 9.9

18 14 14 13

15 11 11 10

8.9 7 6.7 6

10 8 7.9 7

28 23 22 20

28 22 22 19

17 14 13 12

2.9 2.2 2.1 2

16 12 12 10

18 13 13 12

19 15 14 13

10 6.6 8.4 7.4

7.2 4.3 4.6 4.3

12 8.9 9.1 7.6

1.1 0.85 0.78 0.71

12 9 8.9 7.6

3.4 2.6 2.7 2.4

150 110 120 97

2.8 2.1 2.1 1.7

1.6 1.2 1.2 1

8.3 6.3 6 5.1

47 52 41 49

65 62 64 62

75 72 76 77

77 77 79 84

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 15 of 15 Appendix B - PAH Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4001

Data Table: ORS - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Oil Reference 

Standard

Oil Reference 

Standard

Oil Reference 

Standard

Oil Reference 

Standard

Lab ID CC38ORS-1 CC38ORS-2 CC38ORS-1 CC38ORS-2

Lab Batch NA NA NA NA

SDG ICF4001 ICF4001 ICF3948 ICF3948

File 07270213.D 07270214.D 05300212.D 06060207.D

Sample Type ORS ORS ORS ORS

Matrix OIL OIL OIL OIL

Sample Size 5.02 mg 5.02 mg 5.02 mg 5.02

Weight Basis OIL OIL OIL OIL

Associated Blank NA NA NA NA

Field Date 05/16/02 05/16/02 05/16/02 05/16/02

Extract Date 05/16/02 05/16/02 05/16/02 05/16/02

Analysis Date 07/27/02 07/27/02 05/30/02 06/06/02

Date Received 05/16/02 05/16/02 05/16/02 05/16/02

Percent Solids NA NA NA NA

Dilution Factor 1111

Percent Lipids NA NA NA NA

Report Method 8015MOD 8015MOD 8015MOD 8015MOD

Min Reporting Limit 0.199 0.199 0.199 0.199

Units ug/mg T %D Q ug/mg T %D Q ug/mg T %D Q ug/mg

SHC/TPH

n-Octane 4.54 4.7 -3.4 4.69 4.7 -0.213 4.7 4.7 0 4.99

n-Nonane 5.41 4.8 12.7 4.65 4.8 -3.12 5.06 4.8 5.42 5.36

n-Decane 4.46 4.2 6.19 3.86 4.2 -8.1 3.93 4.2 -6.43 4.52

n-Undecane 4.6 4.3 6.98 3.67 4.3 -14.6 3.96 4.3 -7.91 4.46

n-Dodecane 4.42 4 10.5 3.66 4 -8.5 3.9 4 -2.5 4.23

n-Tridecane 3.81 4 -4.75 3.28 4 -18 3.66 4 -8.5 3.7

Isoprenoid RRT 1380 1.2 1 20 1.21 1 21 1.35 1 35 1.23

n-Tetradecane 4.66 4.2 11 3.92 4.2 -6.67 4.16 4.2 -0.952 4.57

Isoprenoid RRT 1470 1.43 1.4 2.14 1.33 1.4 -5 1.46 1.4 4.28 1.56

n-Pentadecane 3.59 3.7 -2.97 3.09 3.7 -16.5 3.47 3.7 -6.22 3.57

n-Hexadecane 3.46 3.2 8.12 3.05 3.2 -4.69 3.18 3.2 -0.625 3.63

Isoprenoid RRT 1650 1.58 1.5 5.33 1.54 1.5 2.67 1.57 1.5 4.67 1.58

n-Heptadecane 3.16 3.2 -1.25 2.65 3.2 -17.2 2.86 3.2 -10.6 3.27

Pristane 2.05 2.2 -6.82 2.18 2.2 -0.909 2.02 2.2 -8.18 2.23

n-Octadecane 2.99 2.9 3.1 2.67 2.9 -7.93 2.58 2.9 -11 2.89

Phytane 1.46 1.6 -8.75 1.47 1.6 -8.12 1.37 1.6 -14.4 1.46

n-Nonadecane 2.4 2.6 -7.69 2.51 2.6 -3.46 2.33 2.6 -10.4 2.52

n-Eicosane 2.29 2.7 -15.2 2.7 2.7 0 2.51 2.7 -7.04 2.36

n-Heneicosane 2.09 2.4 -12.9 2.25 2.4 -6.25 2.16 2.4 -10 2.19

n-Docosane 2.14 2.2 -2.73 2.17 2.2 -1.36 2.28 2.2 3.64 2.23

n-Tricosane 2 2 0 2.13 2 6.5 2.08 2 4 2.03

n-Tetracosane 1.98 2 -1 1.86 2 -7 1.89 2 -5.5 1.9

n-Pentacosane 1.71 1.7 0.588 1.7 1.7 0 1.69 1.7 -0.588 1.73

n-Hexacosane 1.49 1.5 -0.667 1.47 1.5 -2 1.5 1.5 0 1.54

n-Heptacosane 1.05 1.2 -12.5 1.12 1.2 -6.67 1.15 1.2 -4.17 1.07

n-Octacosane 0.892 0.88 1.36 0.881 0.88 0.114 0.924 0.88 5 0.93

n-Nonacosane 0.771 0.81 -4.81 0.816 0.81 0.741 0.817 0.81 0.864 0.743

n-Triacontane 0.629 0.65 -3.23 0.676 0.65 4 0.709 0.65 9.08 0.665

n-Hentriacontane 0.538 0.58 -7.24 0.734 0.58 26.6 0.775 0.58 33.6 0.584

n-Dotriacontane 0.347 0.44 -21.1 0.396 0.44 -10 0.42 0.44 -4.54 0.396

n-Tritriacontane 0.387 0.4 -3.25 0.344 0.4 -14 0.382 0.4 -4.5 0.447

n-Tetratriacontane 0.415 0.35 18.6 0.33 0.35 -5.71 0.37 0.35 5.71 0.446

n-Pentatriacontane 0.402 0.35 14.8 0.38 0.35 8.57 0.438 0.35 25.1 0.417

n-Hexatriacontane 0.202 0.23 -12.2 0.259 0.23 12.6 0.298 0.23 29.6 0.22

n-Heptatriacontane 0.203 0.23 -11.7 0.202 0.23 -12.2 0.241 0.23 4.78 0.228

n-Octatriacontane 0.189 J 0.22 -14.1 0.192 J 0.22 -12.7 0.232 0.22 5.45 0.223

n-Tetracontane 0.144 J 0.19 -24.2 0.153 J 0.19 -19.5 0.193 J 0.19 1.58 0.17

TPH (RES) 193 220 -12.3 174 220 -20.9 182 220 -17.3 190

TPH 621 660 -5.91 586 660 -11.2 629 623

%5A-androstane 111 104 103 105

%d50-tetracosane 112 106 100 103

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 1 of 2 Appendix B - SHC Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: ORS (Internal)
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4001

Data Table: ORS - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

SHC/TPH

n-Octane

n-Nonane

n-Decane

n-Undecane

n-Dodecane

n-Tridecane

Isoprenoid RRT 1380

n-Tetradecane

Isoprenoid RRT 1470

n-Pentadecane

n-Hexadecane

Isoprenoid RRT 1650

n-Heptadecane

Pristane

n-Octadecane

Phytane

n-Nonadecane

n-Eicosane

n-Heneicosane

n-Docosane

n-Tricosane

n-Tetracosane

n-Pentacosane

n-Hexacosane

n-Heptacosane

n-Octacosane

n-Nonacosane

n-Triacontane

n-Hentriacontane

n-Dotriacontane

n-Tritriacontane

n-Tetratriacontane

n-Pentatriacontane

n-Hexatriacontane

n-Heptatriacontane

n-Octatriacontane

n-Tetracontane

TPH (RES)

TPH

%5A-androstane

%d50-tetracosane

Oil Reference 

Standard

Oil Reference 

Standard

Oil Reference 

Standard

CC38ORS-1 CC38ORS-2 CC38ORS

NA NA NA

ICF3999 ICF3999 ICF3945

07240213.D 07240214.D 05300211.D

ORS ORS ORS

OIL OIL OIL

mg 5.02 mg 5.02 mg 5.02 mg

OIL OIL OIL

NA NA NA

05/16/02 05/16/02 05/16/02

05/16/02 05/16/02 05/16/02

07/24/02 07/24/02 05/30/02

05/16/02 05/16/02 05/16/02

NA NA NA

1 11

NA NA NA

8015MOD 8015MOD 8015MOD

0.199 0.199 0.199

T %D Q ug/mg T %D Q ug/mg T %D Q ug/mg T %D Q

4.7 6.17 4.96 4.7 5.53 4.29 4.7 -8.72 4.63 4.7 -1.49

4.8 11.7 5.5 4.8 14.6 4.74 4.8 -1.25 5.28 4.8 10

4.2 7.62 4.48 4.2 6.67 3.94 4.2 -6.19 4.48 4.2 6.67

4.3 3.72 4.51 4.3 4.88 3.74 4.3 -13 4.3 4.3 0

4 5.75 4.47 4 11.7 3.71 4 -7.25 4.26 4 6.5

4 -7.5 3.85 4 -3.75 3.3 4 -17.5 3.67 4 -8.25

1 23 1.26 1 26 1.19 1 19 1.2 1 20

4.2 8.81 4.58 4.2 9.05 3.98 4.2 -5.24 4.42 4.2 5.24

1.4 11.4 1.63 1.4 16.4 1.35 1.4 -3.57 1.58 1.4 12.8

3.7 -3.51 3.6 3.7 -2.7 3.28 3.7 -11.4 3.5 3.7 -5.4

3.2 13.4 3.42 3.2 6.87 3.06 3.2 -4.38 3.43 3.2 7.19

1.5 5.33 1.58 1.5 5.33 1.57 1.5 4.67 1.58 1.5 5.33

3.2 2.19 3.01 3.2 -5.94 2.71 3.2 -15.3 3.12 3.2 -2.5

2.2 1.36 2.16 2.2 -1.82 2.22 2.2 0.909 2.03 2.2 -7.73

2.9 -0.345 2.88 2.9 -0.69 2.72 2.9 -6.21 2.88 2.9 -0.69

1.6 -8.75 1.33 1.6 -16.9 1.51 1.6 -5.62 1.39 1.6 -13.1

2.6 -3.08 2.34 2.6 -10 2.75 2.6 5.77 2.46 2.6 -5.38

2.7 -12.6 2.23 2.7 -17.4 2.72 2.7 0.741 2.34 2.7 -13.3

2.4 -8.75 2.1 2.4 -12.5 2.26 2.4 -5.83 2.15 2.4 -10.4

2.2 1.36 2.16 2.2 -1.82 2.21 2.2 0.454 2.23 2.2 1.36

2 1.5 2.03 2 1.5 1.98 2 -1 2.11 2 5.5

2 -5 1.97 2 -1.5 1.88 2 -6 1.9 2 -5

1.7 1.76 1.76 1.7 3.53 1.7 1.7 0 1.73 1.7 1.76

1.5 2.67 1.57 1.5 4.67 1.48 1.5 -1.33 1.54 1.5 2.67

1.2 -10.8 1.08 1.2 -10 1.1 1.2 -8.33 1.08 1.2 -10

0.88 5.68 0.96 0.88 9.09 0.92 0.88 4.54 0.942 0.88 7.04

0.81 -8.27 0.755 0.81 -6.79 0.829 0.81 2.34 0.792 0.81 -2.22

0.65 2.31 0.677 0.65 4.15 0.658 0.65 1.23 0.675 0.65 3.85

0.58 0.69 0.577 0.58 -0.517 0.762 0.58 31.4 0.602 0.58 3.79

0.44 -10 0.399 0.44 -9.32 0.386 0.44 -12.3 0.414 0.44 -5.91

0.4 11.7 0.443 0.4 10.7 0.358 0.4 -10.5 0.46 0.4 15

0.35 27.4 0.431 0.35 23.1 0.36 0.35 2.86 0.459 0.35 31.1

0.35 19.1 0.42 0.35 20 0.401 0.35 14.6 0.451 0.35 28.8

0.23 -4.35 0.242 0.23 5.22 0.264 0.23 14.8 0.251 0.23 9.13

0.23 -0.87 0.226 0.23 -1.74 0.224 0.23 -2.61 0.246 0.23 6.96

0.22 1.36 0.218 0.22 -0.909 0.205 0.22 -6.82 0.248 0.22 12.7

J 0.19 -10.5 0.178 J 0.19 -6.32 0.16 J 0.19 -15.8 0.185 J 0.19 -2.63

220 -13.6 196 220 -10.9 172 220 -21.8 192 220 -12.7

660 -5.61 647 660 -1.97 597 660 -9.54 628 660 -4.85

106 102 106

103 102 102

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 2 of 2 Appendix B - SHC Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: ORS (Internal)
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID 01-3A-02-2-PHC-SC 01-3A-02-4-PHC-SC 01-3A-02-6-PHC-SC 01-3A-02-10-PHC-SC

Lab ID 21A1901 21A1902 21A1903 21A1905

Lab Batch B2140 B2140 B2140 B2140

SDG ICF3998 ICF3998 ICF3998 ICF3998

File W1196.D W1197.D W1199.D W1200.D

Sample Type NNNN

Matrix SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

Sample Size 21.91 g 22.78 g 23.48 g 24.45 g

Weight Basis DRY DRY DRY DRY

Associated Blank DW-S-31PB DW-S-31PB DW-S-31PB DW-S-31PB

Field Date 08/03/01 08/03/01 08/03/01 08/03/01

Extract Date 07/18/02 07/18/02 07/18/02 07/18/02

Analysis Date 07/25/02 07/26/02 07/26/02 07/26/02

Date Received 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

Percent Solids 72.9 75.9 78.2 81.5

Dilution Factor 1 1 1 1

Percent Lipids NA NA NA NA

Report Method 8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST

Min Reporting Limit 1.1 1.1 1.1 1

Units ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

Sterane-Triterpane Biomarkers

T4-C23Diterpane 0.63 J 0.66 J 0.56 J 0.44 J

S4-Diacholestane 0.98 J 0.99 J 0.85 J 0.66 J

S5-Diacholestane 0.61 J 0.64 J 0.57 J 0.43 J

T9-C29Tricyclictriterpane 0.24 J 0.25 J 0.19 J 0.16 J

T10-C29Tricyclictriterpane 0.4 J 0.33 J 0.32 J 0.24 J

T11-Trisnorhopane(TS) 0.95 J 0.67 J 0.5 J 0.41 J

T12-Trisnorhopane(TM) 2 2.1 1.8 1.5

S24-Methylcholestane 2 2.2 1.8 1.4

S25-Ethylcholestane 1.1 0.94 J 0.83 J 0.75 J

S28-Ethylcholestane 11 12 10 7.4

T15-Norhopane 4.4 5.6 4.2 4

T18-Oleanane 0.46 J 0.35 J 0.32 J 0.24 J

T19-Hopane 6.1 6.6 5.9 5.1

T21-Homohopane 3 3 2.8 2

T22-Homohopane 3.7 3.8 3.2 2.9

D66-Dotriacontane 86 92 84 86

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 1 of 17 Appendix B - ST Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Sterane-Triterpane Biomarkers

T4-C23Diterpane

S4-Diacholestane

S5-Diacholestane

T9-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T10-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T11-Trisnorhopane(TS)

T12-Trisnorhopane(TM)

S24-Methylcholestane

S25-Ethylcholestane

S28-Ethylcholestane

T15-Norhopane

T18-Oleanane

T19-Hopane

T21-Homohopane

T22-Homohopane

D66-Dotriacontane

01-3A-02-16-PHC-SC 01-3A-02-20-PHC-SC 01-6A-01-2-PHC-SC 01-6A-01-4-PHC-SC

21A1908 21A1910 21A1992 21A1993

B2140 B2140 B2140 B2140

ICF3998 ICF3998 ICF3998 ICF3998

W1201.D W1202.D W1206.D W1207.D

NNN N

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

23.81 g 23.45 g 20.49 g 21.73 g

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DW-S-31PB DW-S-31PB DW-S-31PB DW-S-31PB

08/03/01 08/03/01 07/30/01 07/30/01

07/18/02 07/18/02 07/18/02 07/18/02

07/26/02 07/26/02 07/26/02 07/26/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

79.3 78 68.3 72.3

111 1

NA NA NA NA

8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST

1 1.1 1.2 1.2

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

0.47 J 0.64 J 0.79 J 0.62 J

0.79 J 0.98 J 1.2 0.97 J

0.49 J 0.63 J 0.9 J 0.82 J

0.18 J 0.23 J 0.24 J 0.26 J

0.29 J 0.37 J 0.33 J 0.32 J

0.53 J 0.64 J 1 J 0.66 J

1.8 2 6.1 5

1.5 1.8 8.3 7.5

0.98 J 1 J 1.5 1.2

10 14 39 37

5 5.7 9.9 8.5

0.29 J 0.34 J ND ND

6.2 6.8 14 11

2.5 3 4.7 3.8

3.8 3.7 17 13

78 85 82 87

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 2 of 17 Appendix B - ST Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Sterane-Triterpane Biomarkers

T4-C23Diterpane

S4-Diacholestane

S5-Diacholestane

T9-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T10-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T11-Trisnorhopane(TS)

T12-Trisnorhopane(TM)

S24-Methylcholestane

S25-Ethylcholestane

S28-Ethylcholestane

T15-Norhopane

T18-Oleanane

T19-Hopane

T21-Homohopane

T22-Homohopane

D66-Dotriacontane

01-6A-01-6-PHC-SC 01-6A-01-10-PHC-SC 01-6A-01-14-PHC-SC 01-6A-01-18-PHC-SC

21A1994 21A1996 21A1998 21A2000

B2140 B2140 B2140 B2140

ICF3998 ICF3998 ICF3998 ICF3998

W1208.D W1209.D W1210.D W1212.D

NNNN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

22.64 g 23.57 g 24.87 g 23.91 g

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DW-S-31PB DW-S-31PB DW-S-31PB DW-S-31PB

07/30/01 07/30/01 07/30/01 07/30/01

07/18/02 07/18/02 07/18/02 07/18/02

07/26/02 07/26/02 07/26/02 07/27/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

75.4 78.5 82.9 79.6

1111

NA NA NA NA

8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST

1.1 1.1 1 1

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

0.61 J 0.59 J 0.41 J 0.46 J

0.89 J 0.82 J 0.54 J 0.64 J

0.56 J 0.61 J 0.33 J 0.41 J

0.23 J 0.22 J 0.15 J 0.16 J

0.26 J 0.32 J 0.24 J 0.27 J

0.58 J 0.71 J 0.43 J 0.41 J

3.4 4 2.4 2.2

3.2 3.9 1.9 1.9

0.94 J 1.1 0.64 J 0.73 J

20 23 13 13

6.5 8.2 5.4 5.7

ND ND ND ND

8.6 10 6.7 6.6

3.3 4.9 3.2 2.5

8.4 10 6 6.6

81 82 80 78

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 3 of 17 Appendix B - ST Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Sterane-Triterpane Biomarkers

T4-C23Diterpane

S4-Diacholestane

S5-Diacholestane

T9-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T10-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T11-Trisnorhopane(TS)

T12-Trisnorhopane(TM)

S24-Methylcholestane

S25-Ethylcholestane

S28-Ethylcholestane

T15-Norhopane

T18-Oleanane

T19-Hopane

T21-Homohopane

T22-Homohopane

D66-Dotriacontane

01-6G-01-2-PHC-SC 01-6G-01-4-PHC-SC 01-6G-01-6-PHC-SC 01-6G-01-8-PHC-SC

21A1935 21A1936 REF 21A1937 21A1938

B2103 B2103 B2103 B2103

ICF3952 ICF3952 ICF3952 ICF3952

W0662.D W0715.D W0664.D W0665.D

NNNN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

17.89 g 21.15 g 21.77 g 21.75 g

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DU-S-65PB DU-S-65PB DU-S-65PB DU-S-65PB

07/30/01 07/30/01 07/30/01 07/30/01

05/14/02 05/14/02 05/14/02 05/14/02

06/03/02 06/08/02 06/03/02 06/03/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

59.6 70.3 72.4 72.4

1111

NA NA NA NA

8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST

1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

1.9 0.84 J 0.69 J 0.62 J

2.3 0.96 J 0.81 J 0.79 J

1.7 0.62 J 0.52 J 0.53 J

ND ND ND ND

ND ND ND ND

2.4 0.84 J 0.82 J 0.75 J

14 5.6 4.6 4.1

15 4.6 3.5 3

2.1 0.85 J 0.88 J 0.76 J

80 37 31 28

27 15 11 8.2

ND ND ND ND

28 12 9.9 8.8

12 5.7 4.3 3.8

39 24 19 19

70 71 74 73

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 4 of 17 Appendix B - ST Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Sterane-Triterpane Biomarkers

T4-C23Diterpane

S4-Diacholestane

S5-Diacholestane

T9-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T10-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T11-Trisnorhopane(TS)

T12-Trisnorhopane(TM)

S24-Methylcholestane

S25-Ethylcholestane

S28-Ethylcholestane

T15-Norhopane

T18-Oleanane

T19-Hopane

T21-Homohopane

T22-Homohopane

D66-Dotriacontane

01-6G-01-10-PHC-SC 01-6G-01-12-PHC-SC 01-6G-01-14-PHC-SC 01-6G-01-16-PHC-SC

21A1939 21A1940 21A1941 21A1942

B2103 B2103 B2103 B2103

ICF3952 ICF3952 ICF3952 ICF3952

W0666.D W0667.D W0668.D W0669.D

NNNN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

21.36 g 21.24 g 21.88 g 21.55

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DU-S-65PB DU-S-65PB DU-S-65PB DU-S-65PB

07/30/01 07/30/01 07/30/01 07/30/01

05/14/02 05/14/02 05/14/02 05/14/02

06/03/02 06/03/02 06/03/02 06/03/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

71.1 70.7 72.7 71.8

1111

NA NA NA NA

8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST

1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

0.66 J 0.71 J 0.61 J 0.72

0.81 J 0.9 J 0.85 J 0.89

0.54 J 0.56 J 0.51 J 0.6

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

0.82 J 0.89 J 0.84 J 0.76

4.3 4.1 4 5

3.2 3.3 3 4.5

0.78 J 1.2 0.91 J 0.89

29 29 36 38

7.9 9.3 10 12

ND ND ND

9.4 9.6 9.1 10

4.4 3.6 4.3 5.6

21 16 18 24

76 71 70 78

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 5 of 17 Appendix B - ST Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Sterane-Triterpane Biomarkers

T4-C23Diterpane

S4-Diacholestane

S5-Diacholestane

T9-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T10-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T11-Trisnorhopane(TS)

T12-Trisnorhopane(TM)

S24-Methylcholestane

S25-Ethylcholestane

S28-Ethylcholestane

T15-Norhopane

T18-Oleanane

T19-Hopane

T21-Homohopane

T22-Homohopane

D66-Dotriacontane

01-6G-01-18-PHC-SC 01-6G-01-20-PHC-SC 01-E01-01-2-PHC-SC 01-E01-01-4-PHC-SC

21A1943 21A1944 21A1883 21A1884

B2103 B2103 B2102 B2102

ICF3952 ICF3952 ICF3949 ICF3949

W0673.D W0674.D W0605.D W0606.D

N N NN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

g 20.94 g 21.06 g 19.63 g 22.4

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DU-S-65PB DU-S-65PB DU-S-62PB DU-S-62PB

07/30/01 07/30/01 08/04/01 08/04/01

05/14/02 05/14/02 05/10/02 05/10/02

06/04/02 06/04/02 05/30/02 05/30/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

69.8 70 65.3 74.6

1 1 11

NA NA NA NA

8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST

1.2 1.2 1.3 1.1

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

J 0.94 J 0.58 J 0.87 J 0.46

J 1 J 0.8 J 1.6 0.97

J 0.72 J 0.47 J 0.93 J 0.5

ND ND ND 0.24 J 0.16

ND ND ND 0.32 J 0.17

J 0.72 J 0.6 J 1 J 0.6

6.4 4.7 3.1 1.5

5.6 3.7 3.7 1.4

J 1.2 0.96 J 1.9 0.67

47 28 16 7.3

15 11 7.8 3.7

ND ND ND 0.91 J 0.5

14 9.5 9.8 4.8

6.9 4.8 3.8 1.5

30 22 11 7.9

47 73 76 76

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 6 of 17 Appendix B - ST Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Sterane-Triterpane Biomarkers

T4-C23Diterpane

S4-Diacholestane

S5-Diacholestane

T9-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T10-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T11-Trisnorhopane(TS)

T12-Trisnorhopane(TM)

S24-Methylcholestane

S25-Ethylcholestane

S28-Ethylcholestane

T15-Norhopane

T18-Oleanane

T19-Hopane

T21-Homohopane

T22-Homohopane

D66-Dotriacontane

01-E01-01-6-PHC-SC 01-E01-01-8-PHC-SC 01-E01-01-10-PHC-SC 01-E01-01-12-PHC-SC

21A1885 21A1886 21A1887 21A1888

B2102 B2102 B2102 B2102

ICF3949 ICF3949 ICF3949 ICF3949

W0607.D W0608.D W0609.D W0610.D

NN N N

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

g 22.93 g 24.52 g 22.89 g 24.73

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DU-S-62PB DU-S-62PB DU-S-62PB DU-S-62PB

08/04/01 08/04/01 08/04/01 08/04/01

05/10/02 05/10/02 05/10/02 05/10/02

05/30/02 05/30/02 05/31/02 05/31/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

76.3 81.5 76.2 82.2

11 1 1

NA NA NA NA

8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST

1.1 1 1.1 1

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

J 0.41 J 0.23 J 0.41 J 0.36

J 0.78 J 0.55 J 0.76 J 0.62

J 0.4 J 0.31 J 0.45 J 0.34

J ND ND ND

J ND ND ND

J 0.46 J 0.32 J 0.48 J 0.58

1.4 1.3 1.6 1.5

1.3 0.84 J 1.6 1.1

J 0.75 J 0.61 J 0.64 J 0.66

6.8 5.8 9.1 7.8

3.3 2.8 3.8 3.6

J 0.52 J 0.48 J 0.53 J 0.47

4.2 3.6 4.7 4.3

1.6 1.3 1.6 1.6

7.6 5.2 8 7.3

77 81 74 77

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 7 of 17 Appendix B - ST Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Sterane-Triterpane Biomarkers

T4-C23Diterpane

S4-Diacholestane

S5-Diacholestane

T9-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T10-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T11-Trisnorhopane(TS)

T12-Trisnorhopane(TM)

S24-Methylcholestane

S25-Ethylcholestane

S28-Ethylcholestane

T15-Norhopane

T18-Oleanane

T19-Hopane

T21-Homohopane

T22-Homohopane

D66-Dotriacontane

01-L02-01-2-PHC-SC 01-L02-01-4-PHC-SC 01-L02-01-6-PHC-SC

21A1889 21A1890 21A1891

B2141 B2141 B2141

ICF4000 ICF4000 ICF4000

W1225.D W1226.D W1227.D

NNN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

g 22.56 g 23.07 g 21.42 g

DRY DRY DRY

DW-S-34PB DW-S-34PB DW-S-34PB

08/03/01 08/03/01 08/03/01

07/22/02 07/22/02 07/22/02

07/28/02 07/28/02 07/28/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

75.1 76.7 71.4

111

NA NA NA

8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST

1.1 1.1 1.2

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

J 0.48 J 0.5 J 0.6 J

J 0.8 J 1 J 1.2

J 0.62 J 0.52 J 0.56 J

ND 0.25 J 0.18 J 0.23 J

ND 0.31 J 0.3 J 0.41 J

J 0.56 J 0.71 J 0.74 J

1.7 1.8 2.2

1.6 1.6 1.9

J 0.74 J 0.75 J 0.88 J

ND ND ND

4 4.4 5.7

J 0.26 J 0.36 J 0.38 J

5.2 5.4 7

2 2 2.6

4.8 4.4 5

88 83 86

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 8 of 17 Appendix B - ST Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Sterane-Triterpane Biomarkers

T4-C23Diterpane

S4-Diacholestane

S5-Diacholestane

T9-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T10-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T11-Trisnorhopane(TS)

T12-Trisnorhopane(TM)

S24-Methylcholestane

S25-Ethylcholestane

S28-Ethylcholestane

T15-Norhopane

T18-Oleanane

T19-Hopane

T21-Homohopane

T22-Homohopane

D66-Dotriacontane

01-L02-01-12-PHC-SC 01-L02-01-16-PHC-SC 01-L02-01-22-PHC-SC 01-N02-01-2-PHC-SC

21A1894 21A1896 21A1899 21A1923

B2141 B2141 B2141 B2140

ICF4000 ICF4000 ICF4000 ICF3998

W1228.D W1229.D W1230.D W1203.D

NNNN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

22.38 g 21.14 g 20.35 g 20.56

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DW-S-34PB DW-S-34PB DW-S-34PB DW-S-31PB

08/03/01 08/03/01 08/03/01 07/31/01

07/22/02 07/22/02 07/22/02 07/18/02

07/28/02 07/28/02 07/28/02 07/26/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

74.6 70.4 67.7 68.4

1111

NA NA NA NA

8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST

1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

0.52 J 0.8 J 0.68 J 0.99

0.87 J 1.6 1.4 1.3

0.53 J 0.93 J 0.87 J 0.84

0.21 J 0.33 J 0.26 J 0.32

0.29 J 0.65 J 0.47 J 0.4

0.69 J 0.84 J 1.1 J 1

1.8 3.3 4.7 3.4

1.6 2.9 3 2.9

0.78 J 1.3 2.3 1.4

ND ND ND 16

4.9 9.2 15 7.4

0.35 J 0.55 J 0.95 J 0.3

5.9 11 13 9.9

2.2 5.1 5.2 4.4

4.3 8.5 11 6.9

86 76 84 82

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 9 of 17 Appendix B - ST Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Sterane-Triterpane Biomarkers

T4-C23Diterpane

S4-Diacholestane

S5-Diacholestane

T9-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T10-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T11-Trisnorhopane(TS)

T12-Trisnorhopane(TM)

S24-Methylcholestane

S25-Ethylcholestane

S28-Ethylcholestane

T15-Norhopane

T18-Oleanane

T19-Hopane

T21-Homohopane

T22-Homohopane

D66-Dotriacontane

01-N02-01-4-PHC-SC 01-N02-01-6-PHC-SC 01-N02-01-12-PHC-SC 01-N02-01-16-PHC-SC

21A1924 21A1925 21A1928 21A1930

B2140 B2140 B2141 B2141

ICF3998 ICF3998 ICF4000 ICF4000

W1204.D W1205.D W1231.D W1232.D

NN N N

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

g 22.13 g 21.48 g 22.55 g 22.89

DRY DRY DRY DRY

DW-S-31PB DW-S-31PB DW-S-34PB DW-S-34PB

07/31/01 07/31/01 07/31/01 07/31/01

07/18/02 07/18/02 07/22/02 07/22/02

07/26/02 07/26/02 07/28/02 07/28/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

73.6 71.5 75 76.1

11 1 1

NA NA NA NA

8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST

1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

J 0.66 J 0.76 J 1.1 0.59

1 J 1.1 J 1.8 0.74

J 0.67 J 0.72 J 0.89 J 0.49

J 0.22 J 0.25 J 0.33 J 0.19

J 0.3 J 0.39 J 0.59 J 0.35

J 0.69 J 0.68 J 0.98 J 0.57

2.7 2.8 3.9 2.2

2.1 2.3 3.3 1.8

1.1 1.2 1.7 0.89

11 11 ND

6 6.6 9.6 5.4

J 0.24 J 0.26 J 0.33 J 0.37

8.1 8.6 12 6.5

3 3.8 4.4 2.4

5.7 5.6 8.9 4.9

85 83 65 78

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 10 of 17 Appendix B - ST Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Sterane-Triterpane Biomarkers

T4-C23Diterpane

S4-Diacholestane

S5-Diacholestane

T9-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T10-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T11-Trisnorhopane(TS)

T12-Trisnorhopane(TM)

S24-Methylcholestane

S25-Ethylcholestane

S28-Ethylcholestane

T15-Norhopane

T18-Oleanane

T19-Hopane

T21-Homohopane

T22-Homohopane

D66-Dotriacontane

01-N02-01-22-PHC-SC 01-N03-01-2-PHC-SC 01-N03-01-4-PHC-SC

21A1933 21A1945 21A1946

B2141 B2141 B2141

ICF4000 ICF4000 ICF4000

W1234.D W1235.D W1236.D

NNN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

g 20.37 g 22.26 g 22.02 g

DRY DRY DRY

DW-S-34PB DW-S-34PB DW-S-34PB

07/31/01 07/28/01 07/28/01

07/22/02 07/22/02 07/22/02

07/28/02 07/28/02 07/28/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

67.8 74 73.4

111

NA NA NA

8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST

1.2 1.1 1.1

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

J 1.6 0.74 J 0.72 J

J 2.8 1 J 0.93 J

J 1.7 0.63 J 0.6 J

J 0.59 J 0.25 J 0.26 J

J 0.86 J 0.39 J 0.37 J

J 1.8 0.77 J 0.71 J

5.6 2.8 2.7

4.6 2.2 2.2

J 2.1 1 J 1 J

ND ND ND ND

14 7.7 7.1

J 0.58 J 0.35 J 0.32 J

17 8.5 8.1

7 3.1 2.9

13 6.9 6.7

65 82 87

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 11 of 17 Appendix B - ST Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Sterane-Triterpane Biomarkers

T4-C23Diterpane

S4-Diacholestane

S5-Diacholestane

T9-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T10-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T11-Trisnorhopane(TS)

T12-Trisnorhopane(TM)

S24-Methylcholestane

S25-Ethylcholestane

S28-Ethylcholestane

T15-Norhopane

T18-Oleanane

T19-Hopane

T21-Homohopane

T22-Homohopane

D66-Dotriacontane

01-N03-01-6-PHC-SC 01-N03-01-10-PHC-SC 01-N03-01-16-PHC-SC

21A1947 21A1949 21A1952

B2141 B2141 B2141

ICF4000 ICF4000 ICF4000

W1237.D W1238.D W1239.D

NNN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

22.45 g 21.96 g 23.25 g

DRY DRY DRY

DW-S-34PB DW-S-34PB DW-S-34PB

07/28/01 07/28/01 07/28/01

07/22/02 07/22/02 07/22/02

07/28/02 07/28/02 07/28/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

74.6 73 77.4

111

NA NA NA

8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST

1.1 1.1 1.1

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

0.64 J 0.8 J 0.52 J

0.8 J 1.1 0.63 J

0.52 J 0.7 J 0.48 J

0.23 J 0.31 J 0.18 J

0.35 J 0.46 J 0.31 J

0.72 J 0.79 J 0.64 J

2.4 2.9 2.1

1.8 2.4 1.6

0.82 J 1.1 0.76 J

ND ND ND

5.6 8.3 5

0.45 J 0.31 J 0.16 J

6.8 9.1 6.1

2.4 3.5 2.2

5 7 4.7

75 86 78

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 12 of 17 Appendix B - ST Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Sterane-Triterpane Biomarkers

T4-C23Diterpane

S4-Diacholestane

S5-Diacholestane

T9-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T10-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T11-Trisnorhopane(TS)

T12-Trisnorhopane(TM)

S24-Methylcholestane

S25-Ethylcholestane

S28-Ethylcholestane

T15-Norhopane

T18-Oleanane

T19-Hopane

T21-Homohopane

T22-Homohopane

D66-Dotriacontane

01-N03-01-20-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-2-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-4-PHC-SC

21A1954 21A1978 21A1979

B2141 B2102 B2102

ICF4000 ICF3949 ICF3949

W1240.D W0611.D W0612.D

NNN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

23.78 g 16.08 g 18.98 g

DRY DRY DRY

DW-S-34PB DU-S-62PB DU-S-62PB

07/28/01 08/01/01 08/01/01

07/22/02 05/10/02 05/10/02

07/28/02 05/31/02 05/31/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

79.2 53.6 63.2

111

NA NA NA

8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST

1 1.6 1.3

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

0.48 J 1 J 0.91 J

0.59 J 1.7 1.6

0.38 J 0.9 J 0.95 J

0.15 J ND ND

0.27 J ND ND

0.48 J 1.1 J 1.1 J

1.7 3.9 3.2

1.4 2.9 3

0.58 J 1.2 J 1.3

ND 34 26

4.4 8.8 7.5

0.23 J 0.99 J 0.78 J

4.9 9.3 8.5

1.8 3.2 3

4.2 12 11

86 72 73

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 13 of 17 Appendix B - ST Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Sterane-Triterpane Biomarkers

T4-C23Diterpane

S4-Diacholestane

S5-Diacholestane

T9-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T10-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T11-Trisnorhopane(TS)

T12-Trisnorhopane(TM)

S24-Methylcholestane

S25-Ethylcholestane

S28-Ethylcholestane

T15-Norhopane

T18-Oleanane

T19-Hopane

T21-Homohopane

T22-Homohopane

D66-Dotriacontane

01-P01-01-6-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-8-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-10-PHC-SC

21A1980 21A1981 21A1982

B2102 B2102 B2102

ICF3949 ICF3949 ICF3949

W0613.D W0615.D W0616.D

NNN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

20.07 g 20.04 g 19.77 g

DRY DRY DRY

DU-S-62PB DU-S-62PB DU-S-62PB

08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01

05/10/02 05/10/02 05/10/02

05/31/02 05/31/02 05/31/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

66.8 66.7 65.8

111

NA NA NA

8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST

1.2 1.2 1.3

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

0.53 J 0.47 J 0.59 J

0.98 J 0.9 J 1.2 J

0.55 J 0.49 J 0.66 J

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

0.67 J 0.62 J 0.76 J

2.8 2.5 3

1.9 1.4 1.8

1 J 1.6 1.1 J

18 20 26

5.8 6 8

0.68 J 0.62 J 0.71 J

7.2 7.2 8.6

2.5 2.6 3.1

10 9.6 12

79 80 78

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 14 of 17 Appendix B - ST Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Sterane-Triterpane Biomarkers

T4-C23Diterpane

S4-Diacholestane

S5-Diacholestane

T9-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T10-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T11-Trisnorhopane(TS)

T12-Trisnorhopane(TM)

S24-Methylcholestane

S25-Ethylcholestane

S28-Ethylcholestane

T15-Norhopane

T18-Oleanane

T19-Hopane

T21-Homohopane

T22-Homohopane

D66-Dotriacontane

01-P01-01-12-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-14-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-16-PHC-SC

21A1983 21A1984 21A1985

B2102 B2102 B2102

ICF3949 ICF3949 ICF3949

W0617.D W0618.D W0619.D

NNN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

20.39 g 20.18 g 19.95 g

DRY DRY DRY

DU-S-62PB DU-S-62PB DU-S-62PB

08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01

05/10/02 05/10/02 05/10/02

05/31/02 05/31/02 05/31/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

67.9 67.2 66.5

111

NA NA NA

8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST

1.2 1.2 1.2

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

0.57 J 0.53 J 0.58 J

1 J 0.88 J 0.99 J

0.55 J 0.54 J 0.56 J

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

0.79 J 0.86 J 0.72 J

2.8 2.9 3.4

1.9 1.8 1.7

1.1 J 1.2 1.6

23 22 29

7.7 6.7 8.1

0.67 J 0.6 J 0.65 J

8 7.2 8.4

2.7 2.6 2.6

10 9.9 11

79 77 76

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 15 of 17 Appendix B - ST Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Sterane-Triterpane Biomarkers

T4-C23Diterpane

S4-Diacholestane

S5-Diacholestane

T9-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T10-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T11-Trisnorhopane(TS)

T12-Trisnorhopane(TM)

S24-Methylcholestane

S25-Ethylcholestane

S28-Ethylcholestane

T15-Norhopane

T18-Oleanane

T19-Hopane

T21-Homohopane

T22-Homohopane

D66-Dotriacontane

01-P01-01-18-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-20-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-22-PHC-SC

21A1986 21A1987 21A1988

B2102 B2103 B2103

ICF3949 ICF3952 ICF3952

W0620.D W0675.D W0676.D

NNN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

16.16 g 18.55 g 17.36 g

DRY DRY DRY

DU-S-62PB DU-S-65PB DU-S-65PB

08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01

05/10/02 05/14/02 05/14/02

05/31/02 06/04/02 06/04/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

64.5 61.8 57.8

111

NA NA NA

8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST

1.5 1.3 1.4

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

0.54 J 0.74 J 0.93 J

1.2 J 1.1 J 1.3 J

0.6 J 0.66 J 0.76 J

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

0.75 J 0.8 J 1.1 J

3.2 3.5 4.3

2.4 1.8 2.1

1.3 J 1.3 1.6

29 32 43

7.9 9.5 12

0.7 J ND 0.78 J

8.4 9.5 11

2.7 4.8 5.1

12 14 14

74 68 68

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 16 of 17 Appendix B - ST Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main
ICF Consulting

Environmental Chemistry and Forensics

Project Title : MMS - AMINIDA - PHASE II

Data Package: 4000

Data Table: Main - Surrogate Corrected

Field ID

Lab ID

Lab Batch

SDG

File

Sample Type

Matrix

Sample Size

Weight Basis

Associated Blank

Field Date

Extract Date

Analysis Date

Date Received

Percent Solids

Dilution Factor

Percent Lipids

Report Method

Min Reporting Limit

Units

Sterane-Triterpane Biomarkers

T4-C23Diterpane

S4-Diacholestane

S5-Diacholestane

T9-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T10-C29Tricyclictriterpane

T11-Trisnorhopane(TS)

T12-Trisnorhopane(TM)

S24-Methylcholestane

S25-Ethylcholestane

S28-Ethylcholestane

T15-Norhopane

T18-Oleanane

T19-Hopane

T21-Homohopane

T22-Homohopane

D66-Dotriacontane

01-P01-01-24-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-26-PHC-SC 01-P01-01-28-PHC-SC

21A1989 21A1990 21A1991

B2103 B2103 B2103

ICF3952 ICF3952 ICF3952

W0677.D W0678.D W0679.D

NNN

SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT

20.67 g 20.25 g 20.57 g

DRY DRY DRY

DU-S-65PB DU-S-65PB DU-S-65PB

08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01

05/14/02 05/14/02 05/14/02

06/04/02 06/04/02 06/04/02

08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01

68.8 67.5 68.5

111

NA NA NA

8270M-ST 8270M-ST 8270M-ST

1.2 1.2 1.2

ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg

0.61 J 0.66 J 0.58 J

0.86 J 0.94 J 0.77 J

0.53 J 0.54 J 0.48 J

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

0.92 J 0.74 J 0.65 J

2.7 3.2 2.5

1.4 1.8 1.6

1.2 1.3 1 J

24 29 20

7.4 8.8 6.7

0.75 J 0.73 J 0.58 J

7.4 8.1 6.7

3.5 3.3 2.5

10 12 10

71 67 72

SLR.MMS-AN-II.72105-00.6/7/2004 Page 17 of 17 Appendix B - ST Final Data and Quality Control.XLS: Main