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.