Post on 04-Jan-2022
transcript
Prepared for:
Quality Assurance Review Report
May,1996
Prepared by:
952-2307
This report is one of a series of reports prepared for Suncor Inc. Oil Sands Group for the Environmental Impact Assessment for the development and operation of the Steepbank Mine, north of Fort McMurray, Alberta. These reports provided information and analysis in support of Suncor's application to the Alberta Energy Utilities Board and Alberta Environmental Protection to develop and operate the Steepbank Mine, and associated reclamation of the current mine (Lease 86/17) with Consolidated Tailings technology.
For further information, please contact:
Manager, Regulatory Affairs Suncor Oil Sands Group
P.O. Box 4001 Fort McMurray, AB
T9H 3E3
.!!2 UJ > ro c <{
u co 0. E
UJ t 0 0. <Ll
0:::: ro -~ c .c u
~
Steepbank Mine ·:·· Project Application
:f .. · ·.··' • ·· .. • .. :'Yill'•'I•tiC1 •: ;;:: f':'V·
I I I I
Historical Impact Analysis of Impact Analysis of
Impact Analysis of Impact Analysis Impact Analysis of Impact Analysis of
Resources Impact Aquatics Issues Air Emissions
Terrestrial Suncor Steepbank Impact Analysis Socio-Economic Human Health
Assessment - Associated with Associated with Resources Mine Steepbank Mine Impacts
Issues Associated Steepbank Mine the Steepbank the Steepbank
Associated with Environmental EIA Surface Water Associated with with the
Project Mine Mine
the Steepbank Wildlife & Groundwater the Steepbank Steepbank Mine
Permit 95-083 Mine Component Mine
I I I I I I I I I
Aquatic Baseline Sources of Terrestrial Abundance & Hydrology Socio-Economic Sun cor
Reclamation Report for the Atmospheric Baseline Report Distribution of Baseline Baseline Report
Landscape Athabasca, Emissions in the - for the Steepbank r- Moose in the - Steepbank Oil r- for the Wood -
Performance r-
Steepbank and Athabasca Oil Sands Mine Suncor Study Area Sands Mine Buffalo Region Assessment
Muskeg Rivers in 1- Region the Vicinity of the Steepbank and Baseline Soil Hydrogeology Community of Fort
Quality Aurora Mines Ambient Air Quality Survey for the Habitat Suitability Baseline r--- McKay: Traditional
Assurance and Observations in the Proposed Suncor r- models for the Steepbank Oil Uses of
Athabasca Oil Sands - Steepbank Mine Suncor Study Area -
Sands Mine Renewable Database
Athabasca River Region Resources on the - Management
Plan Water Releases Proposed Suncor
-
Impact 1-- Suncor Inc. Mine Athabasca River Steepbank Mine Assessment Meteorology Expansion: Herpetofauna in Bridge to Site Quality
Observations in the Baseline Forestry '- the Steepbank Steepbank Mine, r-Athabasca Oil Sands
-Report Study Area
-River Hydraulics &
Assurance -Review Report
Laboratory Studies Region Ice Study Fort Chipewyan
on Trophic Effects 1- Waterfowl, Community Profile
and Fish Health Ambient Air Quality Visual Impact of and Attitudes & -
Predictions for the Suncor Steepbank Raptors and
Perceptions r- Breeding Athabasca Oil Sands - Mine Development
Terrestrial Birds of -Region the Suncor Lease
Fish Flavour in 1995 A Profile of the
Impairment Study 1--SuncorMine Extended
Advance Plan Community of Fort -(D&R) and - McKay
Cumulative Effects Baseline Study for
Assessment Fur Trapping in the !--Suncor Study Area Survey of Wildlife,
including Aquatic Mammals on the -Steepbank Mine
Study Area
Reports Prepared for the Steepbank Mine Environmental Assessment r:\ 1995\2307\repprepS 040\rpt-sch. vsd
May 1996 -I- 952-2307
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
100 Introduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.1 Quality Assurance Review Introduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
200 Summary of Qualified Data 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
300 Data Quality Assessment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
3 01 Completeness 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
3 02 Holding Times 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
3 03 Analytical Methods 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
3 04 Accuracy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
3.4.1 Surrogate Compound Recoveries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
3.402 Matrix Spike Recoveries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
3.403 Laboratory Control Sample Recoveries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
3 05 Precision 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
3 06 Field Quality Assurance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
30601 FieldBlanks oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo5
30602 Field Replicates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
400 Audit Introduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
5 00 Field Audit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
600 Documentation Audit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
6.1 Observations and Recommendations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
700 References 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
R:\1995\2307\QAQC 0 5.050\QAoREV.RPT\FINAL.RPT
Golder Associates
May 1996 -1- 952-2307
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report consists of two parts:
1. A quality assurance review of chemical analyses of surface water, groundwater, soil,
sediment, porewater, and benthic tissue samples; and
2. A field and documentation audit.
1.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INTRODUCTION
This section of the report documents the results of a quality assurance review of data from chemical
analyses of surface water, groundwater, soil, sediment, porewater, and benthic tissue samples. Data
validation procedures were based on quality control criteria and data quality objectives established
in the Steepbank Mine EIA: Quality Assurance Needs and Database Management Plan (QAPP)
(Golder, 1995). Overall usability of the data was assessed according to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) data usability guidelines for remedial response activities (U.S. EPA,
1987).
Analytical data for the samples are of good quality and satisfy the data use category Level III
(U.S. EPA, 1987), which is suitable for conducting risk assessments and assessing environmental
impacts.
Data qualifiers were assigned, as necessary, during the quality assurance reviews in accordance with
the above documents. The following laboratory deliverables were reviewed during the data
validation process:
• Results of all available laboratory quality control check results, including surrogate
compounds, laboratory control samples, matrix spikes, and duplicate analyses;
• Instrument and sample detection limits for all target analytes and compounds;
• Sample holding times; and
• Field blanks and field replicates associated with the sampling event.
All data met the data quality objectives for this project, except for the exceedances discussed below.
Golder Associates
May 1996 -2- 952-2307
2.0 SUMMARY OF QUALIFIED DATA
During the quality assurance review, several surface water and porewater results were qualified as
undetected ( U) because of field blank contamination. The affected sample results are shown in
Table 1. For surface water, 17 dissolved potassium results, 7 total aluminum results, 20 total boron
results, 1 total iron result, 14 total titanium results, 20 total zinc results, 5 silicon results, 2 total
recoverable hydrocarbon results, 2 naphthalene results, and 1 methyl naphthalene result were
qualified as undetected (U). For porewater, 1 dissolved potassium result, 1 dissolved calcium result,
11 dissolved zinc results, 1 total zinc result, 10 cyanide results, 2 total recoverable hydrocarbon
results, 1 acetone result, 2 naphthalene results, 1 methyl naphthalene result, 2 methyl
dibenzothiophene results, and 5 total phenol results were qualified as undetected ( U). For
groundwater, 6 chromium results, 9 copper results, and 11 zinc results were qualified as undetected
(U).
Golder Associates
May 1996 -3- 952-2307
3.0 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT
The results of the quality control procedures employed in the analyses of the field samples are
discussed below, including completeness, holding times, analytical methods, accuracy, and
precision. Data quality was assessed according to requirements specified in the Quality Assurance
Needs and Database Management Plan (QAPP) (Golder, 1995).
3.1 COMPLETENESS
The results reported by the laboratory were I 00 percent complete. No data were rejected during the
quality assurance review.
3.2 HOLDING TIMES
Analytical holding time constraints were met for all samples.
3.3 ANALYTICAL METHODS
All analyses were performed using the methods specified in the QAPP (Golder, 1995).
3.4 ACCURACY
The accuracies of the analytical results have been evaluated in terms of analytical bias (based on
surrogate compound, matrix spike, and laboratory control sample recoveries) and precision (based
on matrix duplicates).
3.4.1 SURROGATE COMPOUND RECOVERIES
The recoveries reported by the laboratory for the surrogate compounds added to all field samples
met the criteria for acceptable performance, with the exception of total phenolic compounds for
Golder Associates
May 1996 -4- 952-2307
surface water, porewater, and groundwater. Two of the three surrogate recoveries for total phenolic
compounds frequently fell below the acceptance criteria stated in the QAPP. However, phenolic
compounds were not detected in the affected samples; therefore, no data were qualified based on this
exceedance.
3.4.2 MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES
Reported matrix spike recoveries for all analyses met the control criteria specified in the QAPP, with
the exception of volatile organic compounds in surface water and porewater. Two of the seven
matrix spike compounds for volatile organic analyses exceeded the control limits of 85 to 115
percent recovery specified in the QAPP (1, 1-dichloroethene with 66 percent recovery and
trichloroethene with 73 percent recovery). No data were qualified for these exceedances since all
other volatile organic matrix spike compound recoveries were within the specified control limits and
since the matrix spike recovery exceedances for 1, 1 -dichloroethene and trichloroethene were within
the limits set forth in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Contract Laboratory Program
(U.S. EPA) (61 to 145 percent for 1,1-dichloroethene and 71 to 120 percent for trichloroethene).
3.4.3 LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE RECOVERIES
All laboratory control sample results met the criteria for acceptable performance.
3.5 PRECISION
The reported results for all matrix duplicate analyses met the criteria for acceptable performance.
3.6 FIELD QUALITY ASSURANCE
Although validation guidelines were not established for field quality control samples, the results are
useful in identifying possible problems as a result of sample collection and/or sample processing in
the field.
Golder Associates
May 1996 ~5- 952-2307
3.6.1 FIELD BLANKS
Field blanks are useful in assessing whether or not the samples could have been contaminated during
sample collection. Field blanks were collected for the surface water, porewater, and groundwater
components ofthis investigation.
Several analytes and compounds were detected in the field blanks at concentrations exceeding twice
the limit of detection. All sample results which fell below 5 times the concentration found in the
field blank were qualified as undetected (U) during the quality assurance review. The affected
sample results are listed in Table 1. For surface water, 17 dissolved potassium results, 7 total
aluminum results, 20 total boron results, 1 total iron result, 14 total titanium results, 20 total zinc
results, 5 silicon results, 2 total recoverable hydrocarbon results, 2 naphthalene results, and 1 methyl
naphthalene result were qualified as undetected (U) during the quality assurance review. For
porewater, 1 dissolved potassium result, 1 dissolved calcium result, 11 dissolved zinc results, 1 total
zinc result, 1 0 cyanide results, 2 total recoverable hydrocarbon results, 1 acetone result, 2
naphthalene results, 1 methyl naphthalene result, 2 methyl dibenzothiophene results, and 5 total
phenol results were qualified as undetected (U) during the quality assurance review. For
groundwater, 6 chromium results, 9 copper results, and 11 zinc results were qualified as undetected
(U) during the quality assurance review. Chloroform was detected in one of the groundwater blanks
at a concentration of 14 11g/L; however, chloroform was not detected in any of the associated sample
results.
3.6.2 FIELD REPLICATES
Field replicates provide information that is useful in assessing sample heterogeneity and variability
of contaminant concentrations in the field. Field triplicates were collected for the surface water
investigation and field duplicates were collected for the groundwater investigation. The relative
standard deviations of the field triplicate results for surface water ranged from zero to 48 percent.
The relative percent difference of the field duplicates results for groundwater ranged from zero to
67 percent. These results indicate that the surface water and groundwater samples were relatively
homogeneous.
Golder Associates
May 1996
Table 1
Sample
Number
Surface Water
A WOOI-SOOI
AW001-S003
AW004-C001
AW004-C003
AW005-S001
AW005-S003
AW006-S001
AW006-S003
AW007-S001
AW007-S003
AW008-SOOI
AW008-S003
AW009-COOI
A WOlO-SOOl
AW010-S002
AW010-S003
AW010-S007
AW010-S008
AW010-S009
AW014-S003
AW018-C001
-6- 952-2307
Sample results qualified as undetected (U) during the data validation review
because of field blank results
Sample Results Affected (qualified U)
Total recoverable hydrocarbons and dissolved potassium
Dissolved potassium, total aluminum, total boron, total titanium, and total zinc
Dissolved potassium, total boron, and total zinc
Dissolved potassium, total aluminum, total boron, total titanium, and total zinc
Dissolved potassium, total boron, and total zinc
Dissolved potassium, total aluminum, total boron, total titanium, and total zinc
Dissolved potassium, total boron, and total zinc
Dissolved potassium, total aluminum, total boron, total titanium, and total zinc
Total silicon, total boron, and total zinc
Total boron, total titanium, and total zinc
Dissolved potassium, total silicon, total boron, and total zinc
Total boron, total titanium, and total zinc
Naphthalene, methyl naphthalene, dissolved potassium, total boron, and total zinc
Dissolved potassium, total silicon, total boron, and total zinc
Dissolved potassium, total silicon, total boron, and total zinc
Total recoverable hydrocarbons, dissolved potassium, total silicon, total boron, total
zinc
Dissolved potassium, total aluminum, total boron, total titanium, and total zinc
Naphthalene, dissolved potassium, total aluminum, total boron, total titanium, and
total zinc
Dissolved potassium, total aluminum, total boron, total titanium, and total zinc
Dissolved potassium, total boron, and total zinc
Total boron, total iron, and total zinc
Golder Associates
May 1996 -7- 952-2307
Sample Sample Results Affected (qualified U)
Number
Porewater
A WOOl-POOl Total recoverable hydrocarbons, naphthalene, and total phenols
AWOOI-P002 Total cyanide and dissolved zinc
AW003-POOI Naphthalene, methyl naphthalene, and total phenols
AW003-P002 Methyl dibenzothiophene and dissolved zinc
AW012-P001 Acetone, dissolved potassium, total cyanide, total phenols, and dissolved zinc
AW012-P002 Total recoverable hydrocarbons, total phenols, and total zinc
AW012-P003 Total cyanide, total phenols, and dissolved zinc
AW012-P004 Total cyanide and dissolved zinc
AW012-P005 Total cyanide and dissolved zinc
AW012-P006 Total cyanide and dissolved zinc
AW015-P002 Total cyanide and dissolved zinc
AW016-P002 Total cyanide and dissolved zinc
AW017-P002 Total cyanide and dissolved zinc
AW019-P002 Methyl dibenzothiophene, dissolved calcium, total cyanide, and dissolved zinc
Groundwater- Summer
L97-P95-2-L Total copper
L97-P95-8-BA Total chromium and total copper
L97-P95-0B-2 Total copper
L97-P95-0B-4 Total chromium
L97-P95-3-BA Total chromium and total copper
L97-P95-0B-3 Total chromium and total copper
FL7-BRDG-4 Total chromium and total copper
L97-P95-0B-5 Total copper
FL3-P95-13-BA Total chromium and total copper
FL3-P95-6-BA Total copper
Golder Associates
May 1996 -8- 952-2307
Sample Sample Results Affected (qualified U)
Number
Groundwater- Fall
FL3-P95-13-BA Total zinc
FL3-P95-6-BA Total zinc
FL7-BRDG-4 Total zinc
L97-P94-2-L Total zinc
L97-P95-1-BA Total zinc
L97-P95-3-BA Total zinc
L97-P95-8-BA Total zinc
L97-P95-0B-1 Total zinc
L97-P95-0B-2 Total zinc
L97-P95-0B-3 Total zinc
L97-P95-0B-4 Total zinc
L97-P95-0B-5 Total zinc
Golder Associates
May 1996 -9- 952-2307
4.0 AUDIT INTRODUCTION
An audit was conducted in two parts for the Suncor Steepbank Mine Environmental Impact
Assessment. A field audit was conducted for the fish inventory/biomarker sampling conducted on
September 28, 1995, and a documentation audit was conducted for the water and sediment sampling
and the fish inventory and vegetation surveys. The audit consisted of reviewing project-specific
standard operating procedures and sample collection and documentation practices.
The following sections summarize the results of the field and documentation audits. There is more
detailed information relating to the audit contained in the field notes, which are on file at EVS. The
field section covers the sampling stations, type of sampling, observations, and recommendations.
The documentation section covers observations and recommendations for the various sampling
activities and surveys associated with this project.
Golder Associates
May 1996 -10- 952-2307.
5.0 FIELD AUDIT
The field audit was conducted on September 28, 1995. Sampling activities were observed for the
fish inventory/biomarker surveys of Stations AF006, AF005, AFO 15, and AFO 19.
In general, the standard operating procedures for the EIA were followed in the field. All sampling
personnel were familiar with their tasks and knowledgeable regarding the type of sampling being
performed. Overall, the quality of the data collected was retained throughout the sampling event.
Measurements were cross checked by other individuals on the sampling team to ensure that
transcription errors did not occur.
Golder Associates
May 1996 -11- 952-2307
6.0 DOCUMENTATION AUDIT
The documentation associated with the EIA activities were reviewed October 1 0 through
October 12, 1995. The documentation audit consisted of spot checking and cross referencing field
collection forms, chain-of-custody forms, and field logbooks.
6.1 OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall, the sampling collection efforts for this project were thoroughly and consistently
documented. Minor deficiencies are discussed below.
Observation
In general, the field logbooks documented the samples collected, the analyses required, and where
the samples were being sent. However, sometimes the types of analyses or where the samples were
being sent were omitted.
Recommendation
For each site entry in the logbook it would be helpful to have a standard table which includes spaces
for the above information.
Observation
Individuals involved in the sampling efforts did not sign the first page of the field logbooks.
Recommendation
The first page of the field logbook should include the signature and corresponding initials of each
individual recording information in the logbook. This can then be used as a key to identify the
individuals who initialled corrections and made any entries throughout the logbook.
Golder Associates
May 1996 -12- 952-2307
Observation
Some of the corrections in the logbooks were overwritten or obliterated and initialled. In some cases
corrections were made with white-out.
Recommendation
To ensure that there is no confusion in interpreting the corrections, all errors should be crossed out
with a single line, dated, and initialled with the correction clearly indicated nearby. White-out
should never be used.
Observation
The time of sample receipt was not always recorded on the chain-of-custody forms.
Recommendation
It is important to document the time that samples were released and received. Otherwise the chain
of-custody for the samples can not be traced as accurately and consequently the custody (and
potentially the integrity) of the samples becomes questionable.
Observation
The form of shipment and corresponding air bill number was not always identified on the chain-of
custody forms.
Recommendation
To maintain custody ofthe samples, the form of shipment should be entered in the appropriate place
on the chain-of-custody forms. The air bill number for the shipper is also important to include on
the chain-of-custody forms. Knowing the shipper and the air bill number enables tracking of the
sample through the shipping process if needed. If the samples are being hand-couriered by one of
the sampling crew, then their name must be entered as the shipper and their signature should appear
in the "Relinquished by:" box on the chain-of-custody form.
Golder Associates
May 1996 -13- 952-2307
7.0 REFERENCES
Golder Associates. 1995. Suncor Steepbank Mine EIA: Quality Assurance Needs and Database
Management Plan. Submitted to Suncor Inc., Fort. McMurray, AB, by Golder Associates,
Calgary, AB.
U.S. EPA. 1987. Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities. Volume 1. EPA
540/G-87/003A. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response and Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, Washington, DC, USA.
U.S. EPA. 1991. U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Organics Analysis,
Multi-media, Multi-concentration. OLM 01.9. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, USA
Golder Associates
This material is provided under educational reproduction permissions included in Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development's Copyright and Disclosure Statement, see terms at http://www.environment.alberta.ca/copyright.html. This Statement requires the following identification: "The source of the materials is Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development http://www.environment.gov.ab.ca/. The use of these materials by the end user is done without any affiliation with or endorsement by the Government of Alberta. Reliance upon the end user's use of these materials is at the risk of the end user.