Volume 2: Environmental and Sturgeon Upgrader Project Socio-economic Impact Assessment Section 11: Groundwater December 2006 Page 11-1 11 GROUNDWATER 11.1 Setting Regionally, the ground surface in the area of the Project is relatively flat with the exception of pronounced topographic depressions associated with major contemporary drainage features, namely the Sturgeon and North Saskatchewan rivers (Figures 11-1 and 11-2). Smaller scale undulations in ground surface topography originated from deposition and erosion during glacial advance and retreat and subsequent reworking by wind and water. In conjunction with glacial activity, low permeability, poorly sorted and unstratified sediments (till) deposited by glaciers blanket much of the region. Beneath the glacial deposits, the bedrock surface has been carved by pre-glacial fluvial channels, which have left linear bedrock lows often associated with permeable granular deposits. The most notable pre-glacial drainage feature is the Beverly Channel, which is roughly coincident with the North Saskatchewan River (NSR) alignment. Extensive sand and gravel deposits are associated with the Beverly Channel and its pre-glacial tributaries. Cretaceous-aged sedimentary deposits represent the uppermost bedrock strata in the area and are dominated by sandstones, siltstones and mudstones. The sands and gravels of the Beverly Channel are an important regional aquifer. The NSR is a discharge feature for groundwater in both the bedrock and the Beverly Channel aquifer. Water wells within the region are completed primarily in sandstones within the upper bedrock strata. Important water-bearing zones in the surficial deposits are limited to thick sand and gravel deposits associated with pre-glacial channels such as the Beverly Channel aquifer and, where present, are used as a source of water supply. Sand and gravel deposits, or both, occurring within the till are of limited areal extent and do not yield large amounts of groundwater. Surficial sand deposits, where present and saturated, might yield sufficient volumes of groundwater. 11.2 Assessment Focus Table 11-1 lists the key groundwater issues related to the Project. These issues are based on the Terms of Reference (TOR) prepared by Alberta Environment (AENV) (AENV 2006) through public input, and with the professional judgement of the author (see Author Page). For a description of the Project’s water source and wastewater disposal method and other aspects of the Project that could affect groundwater quantity and quality refer to Volume 1, Section 5: Water Management.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
11.1 Setting Regionally, the ground surface in the area of the Project is relatively flat with the exception of pronounced topographic depressions associated with major contemporary drainage features, namely the Sturgeon and North Saskatchewan rivers (Figures 11-1 and 11-2). Smaller scale undulations in ground surface topography originated from deposition and erosion during glacial advance and retreat and subsequent reworking by wind and water. In conjunction with glacial activity, low permeability, poorly sorted and unstratified sediments (till) deposited by glaciers blanket much of the region. Beneath the glacial deposits, the bedrock surface has been carved by pre-glacial fluvial channels, which have left linear bedrock lows often associated with permeable granular deposits. The most notable pre-glacial drainage feature is the Beverly Channel, which is roughly coincident with the North Saskatchewan River (NSR) alignment. Extensive sand and gravel deposits are associated with the Beverly Channel and its pre-glacial tributaries. Cretaceous-aged sedimentary deposits represent the uppermost bedrock strata in the area and are dominated by sandstones, siltstones and mudstones.
The sands and gravels of the Beverly Channel are an important regional aquifer. The NSR is a discharge feature for groundwater in both the bedrock and the Beverly Channel aquifer.
Water wells within the region are completed primarily in sandstones within the upper bedrock strata. Important water-bearing zones in the surficial deposits are limited to thick sand and gravel deposits associated with pre-glacial channels such as the Beverly Channel aquifer and, where present, are used as a source of water supply. Sand and gravel deposits, or both, occurring within the till are of limited areal extent and do not yield large amounts of groundwater. Surficial sand deposits, where present and saturated, might yield sufficient volumes of groundwater.
11.2 Assessment Focus Table 11-1 lists the key groundwater issues related to the Project. These issues are based on the Terms of Reference (TOR) prepared by Alberta Environment (AENV) (AENV 2006) through public input, and with the professional judgement of the author (see Author Page).
For a description of the Project’s water source and wastewater disposal method and other aspects of the Project that could affect groundwater quantity and quality refer to Volume 1, Section 5: Water Management.
Table 11-1: Key Issues for Groundwater Project Phase Key Issue Source Relevance to Project
Effects of dewatering on local groundwater levels, flow regimes, surface waterbody levels and vegetation
Groundwater dewatering might be necessary in localized areas during construction (e.g., 14-56-22-W4M on the western half of 13-56-22-W4M) of foundations and ponds and installation of underground utilities. This activity might affect the local water table.
Construction
Effects of dewatering on local groundwater users
AENV TOR, Section 4.10.2(h) and Section 4.10.2(i)
Groundwater dewatering could also affect groundwater use by owners of local water wells.
Effects of leaks, surface spills and pond seepage on shallow groundwater quality
Shallow groundwater quality could be affected by accidental spills or leaks of liquids containing chemicals or hydrocarbons, or seepage from ponds, which could affect underlying bedrock aquifers and eventually the NSR.
Operations
Effects of leaks, surface spills and pond seepage on local groundwater users
AENV TOR, Section 4.10.2(j)
Any groundwater contamination could also affect the potability of the groundwater used by local water well owners.
11.3 Study Area
11.3.1 Local Study Area The local study area (LSA) (Figure 11-2) for the groundwater assessment includes the principal development area (PDA) and the land lying between the east boundary of the PDA and the NSR. The North West Upgrader, Agrium Products’ Redwater facility and Provident Energy’s facility occur in the LSA. It covers an area of approximately 2430 ha. This study area was chosen to include the PDA and the areas hydraulically downgradient of the PDA where Project effects could potentially be observed.
11.3.2 Regional Study Area The regional study area (RSA) for the groundwater assessment covers an area of approximately 34,000 ha (19.2 km x 17.6 km), centred on the PDA (Figure 11-2). This RSA was sized to provide an appropriate perspective on the regional geology and hydrogeology to which the local geology and hydrogeology relate.
A field-verified survey of existing water wells was completed to identify groundwater users within a 3.2-km radius of the PDA (limited to the west side of the NSR).
11.4 Project Effects Characterization Table 11-2 presents the descriptors and associated definitions that were used to characterize the level and consequence of Project effects on groundwater.
PondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsPondsSturgeon River
Table 11-2: Effect Attributes for Groundwater Attributes Description Rating Definition
Negligible Project will not affect groundwater levels/flows in the LSA Low Project could result in minor fluctuations in groundwater levels in the LSA
within the range of natural seasonal variability Moderate Project could result in fluctuations in groundwater levels in the LSA beyond
the range of natural seasonal variability or Project could have an effect on groundwater quality in the LSA
Magnitude/extent The degree of change (or risk) to groundwater levels or quality or both
High Project could potentially affect groundwater levels or quality beyond the LSA Short term Less than one year Medium term More than one year, but not beyond the end of the Project reclamation phase
Duration The length of time over which the effect is measurable
Long term Beyond the life of the Project Reversible Will likely revert to baseline conditions following or before the end of the
The potential for the measurable parameter to return to baseline conditions in the absence of the Project
Non-reversible Unlikely to revert to baseline conditions following the end of the Project reclamation phase
None No measurable effects on groundwater levels or quality Low Possible medium- to long-term effects on groundwater levels, but no
apparent effects on groundwater users Moderate Possible effects on groundwater levels and associated availability to local
groundwater users
Environmental consequence
The potential for the Project to measurably affect groundwater levels, groundwater use or groundwater quality
High Possible effects on groundwater quality that restricts local groundwater use or that affects the water quality of the surface waterbodies
Yes Project effects will contribute measurably to cumulative effects on groundwater levels, use and quality
Potential for cumulative effects
The potential for the Project to contribute measurably to cumulative effects No Project effects will not contribute measurably to cumulative effects on
11.5.1.1 Review of Available Published Information Available information for the RSA was reviewed to provide baseline hydrogeological conditions. Documents reviewed included consultant and government reports, borehole data provided by industrial facilities in the RSA, and lithological, water quality and water level data obtained from the AENV water well database (AENV 2006, Internet site).
11.5.1.2 Hydrogeological Field Investigation A site-specific hydrogeological field investigation was conducted to define baseline conditions with greater resolution, (Appendix 11A). This investigation involved:
• installing 42 monitoring wells and:
• completing single-well response testing of all monitoring wells to measure hydraulic conductivity
• surveying all monitoring wells for horizontal coordinates and vertical elevations
• measuring groundwater levels in April, May, June and August 2006 and water quality sampling in April, June and August 2006
• conducting a field-verified water well survey of groundwater users within a 3.2-km radius of the PDA on May 16, May 18, June 7 and August 16, 2006
The field-verified survey was completed to identify groundwater users and obtain information on their water wells. The survey was conducted on May 16, May 18, June 7 and August 16, 2006 and involved visiting the residences; collecting information about the well owner, the water wells and the use of groundwater; and confirming the location of the water well with a GPS (global positioning system) instrument. A copy of the letter provided to the residents at the time of the site visit is included in Appendix 11B. In a few instances, where the residents were not available at the time of the survey, the letter was left in the mailbox with a note to contact the surveyor to arrange for a convenient time to meet.
This field investigation was supplemented with data from the assessment of the recent North West Upgrader (Komex 2006a), from the assessment of the Agrium Redwater facility (Stantec 2003; Komex 2006a) and from the on-going groundwater monitoring at the Provident facility (Komex 2006b).
Figure 11-3 shows the locations of monitoring wells installed in the PDA. Appendix 11A provides details on the investigation methodology, monitoring well completion details and borehole logs.
11.5.2 Regional Geology The regional geology consists of a sequence of Quaternary deposits overlying Cretaceous-aged bedrock.
11.5.2.1 Bedrock Figure 11-4 shows the bedrock geology and a geological stratigraphic column for the RSA. The uppermost bedrock unit in the study area is the Belly River Formation, which is underlain by the Lea Park Formation. The bedrock formations dip slightly to the southwest at a slope of approximately 2º. A brief description of these formations, summarized from Hamilton et al. (1999) and Stein (1976) follows:
Lea Park Formation: A marine formation; that comprises dark-grey shale and pale-grey glauconitic silty shale with ironstone concretions. The thickness of the Lea Park Formation is in the order of 100 m in the RSA. The Lea Park Formation is considered an aquitard because of the low hydraulic conductivity of the shales.
Belly River Formation: A non-marine formation that comprises grey-to-greenish-grey, thick-bedded feldspathic sandstone; grey-and-green mudstone; grey, clayey siltstone and concretionary ironstone beds. In the RSA, the total thickness of the Belly River Formation is about 200 m to 300 m. Sandstone layers in the upper 120 m form local aquifers that are used as a source of potable water. Individual sandstone units are generally 3 m to 10 m thick and are not laterally continuous.
Figure 11-5 shows the locations of two regional cross-sections. The cross-section labelled T-T’ trends transversely to the NSR (Figure 11-6), and the cross-section labelled L-L’ trends longitudinally to the NSR (Figure 11-7). Locations of water wells near the PDA, which provide lithological information, are also shown in Figure 11-6
Bedrock Topography The regional bedrock topography is shown in Figure 11-8. The minimum bedrock elevation observed within the PDA is 607 m asl at TH06-Y-22 (Figures 11-10 and 11-11). The maximum depth to bedrock in the PDA is about 29 m (TH06-Y-22), which is interpreted to reflect a bedrock valley previously identified by Stein (1976) and Andriashek (1988). This bedrock valley is illustrated in the regional cross-section L-L’, northeast of the PDA (Figure 11-7).
The Beverly Channel, a regional bedrock valley, is located east of the PDA. The Beverly Channel thalweg is about 3 km east of the NSR and trends southwest–northeast almost paralleling the course of the NSR (Figure 11-8; cross-section T-T1, Figure 11-6). The Beverly Channel has been partially infilled with sands and gravels of the Empress Formation and with till, lacustrine clay and surficial sands (alluvial, glaciofluvial, and/or aeolian origins).
Quaternary Deposits The Quaternary (surficial) deposits (or drift) overlie the bedrock and comprise pre-glacial, glacial, fluvial, lacustrine and aeolian deposits. In the RSA, the thickness of these deposits is lowest north of the PDA, near to and within Township 57, where the bedrock surface is highest (Andriashek 1988). In this area, drift thickness is often reported as less than 5 m. Conversely, the thickest accumulations of surficial deposits occur in bedrock lows, such as the Beverly Channel, where thicknesses up to about 50 m are noted (Figure 11-6).
Figure 11-9 shows the surficial geology in the RSA. A brief description of the different surficial deposits, summarized from Shetsen (1990), is as follows:
Preglacial Sediments consists of primarily, gravel and sand deposited in fast-flowing braided streams. These deposits partially infill the Beverly Channel, with two typical units: a sand-and-gravel unit directly overlying bedrock and a sand unit overlying the sand and gravel unit. Although the individual sand and sand and gravel units are not shown, regional cross-section T-T’ (Figure 11-6) illustrates extensive sand-and-gravel deposits (about 10 m to 15 m thick), within the bedrock low associated with the Beverly Channel. Where bedrock topography is high (e.g., 10-56-21-W4M [West of the Fourth Meridian]; BA Energy 2004), the sand-and-gravel unit might be absent. Generally the thickness of these units ranges from 5 m to 10 m for the sand and gravel unit and from 5 m to 15 m for the sand unit (BA Energy 2004; Shell Canada 2005). Where the saturated thickness is sufficient, the preglacial deposits represent excellent aquifers.
Till consists of unsorted mixtures of clay, silt, sand and gravel, with local water-sorted material and bedrock (Unit 9 and 10a in Figure 11-9). Bayrock (1972) reports that the till is generally composed of equal parts of sand, silt and clay and less than 10 percent of gravel. Sand and gravel layers in the till form the main aquifers. The till is generally thicker within bedrock lows (20 m to 35 m) and thin, or absent, near bedrock highs. Andriashek (1988) indicates that till occurs throughout much of the RSA, which is consistent with the distribution shown on the regional cross-sections (Figures 11-6 and 11-7). The thicknesses of the till shown on the regional cross-sections might exceed that indicated by Andriashek (1988) by 5 m to 10 m because of the grouping of till deposits with glaciolacustrine deposits in the water well drilling reports used to construct the cross-sections.
Lacustrine Deposits consists of silt, sand and clay with local ice-rafted stones, deposited mainly in proglacial lakes (glacial Lake Edmonton; Unit 2b in Figure 11-9). Near the PDA, the lacustrine deposits are thin, ranging from less than 2 m up to 5 m in thickness. On the east side of the NSR, the clay deposits are generally thicker (up to 21 m). Because of the thinness of the lacustrine deposits and limited lithological descriptions available from water well drilling reports, lacustrine deposits are rarely shown on regional cross-sections and till deposits are often shown extending to ground surface. This discrepancy will not affect the hydrogeologic interpretation within the RSA, because the hydraulic properties of the lacustrine deposits are not expected to deviate much from that of till deposits.
Aeolian Deposits include loose fine sands and silts present just below the topsoil (Unit 1 in Figure 11-9). These deposits, formed by wind redistribution of former glacial lake sediments, are described by Andriashek (1988) in areas north and northwest of the PDA and west of the NSR and throughout much of the RSA, east of the NSR. The report by Andriashek (1988) is consistent with the regional cross-sections (Figures 11-6 and 11-7) that illustrate intermittent near-surface sand deposits up to about 10 m thick in these areas.
Fluvial Deposits: Gravel, silt, sand and clay present on the floor and terraces of river valleys, meltwater channels and deltas (Units 3a and 3b in Figure 11-9). In the RSA, recent fluvial deposits are present along the NSR and Sturgeon River valleys. Borehole data are generally unavailable near the North Saskatchewan and Sturgeon rivers and; therefore, it was not possible to delineate the extent of fluvial deposits beneath these features for the regional cross-sections.
PREPARED FOR
PREPARED BY
DRAFT DATE
REVISION DATE
DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED
PROJECT SCALE
FIGURE ID
FIGURE
05/07/2006
15/11/2006
OS1589 1:100,000
WorleyParsons Komex
Sources:Digital Basemap of Alberta. Hamilton et. al., 1999.
Agrium Redwater Facility Ponds from Stantec, 2003.Stratigraphic Column from Cooper, M. (Editor). 2000.
Lacustrine Deposit: sand, silt and clay with local ice-rafted stones up to80 m thick; deposited mainly in proglacial lakes, but includes also undifferentiatedrecent lake sediment; flat to gently undulating topography.
Fine Sediment: silt and clay; flat to gently undulating surface.
Coarse sediment: gravel, gravel and sand, fine to coarse-grained sand,minor silt beds.
Fluvial Deposit: gravel, sand, silt and clay, includes local till and bedrockexposures; up to 20 m thick; present on floor and terraces of river valleys andmeltwater channels, and in deltas; flat to undulating topography.
Fine Sediment: fine sand, silt and clay.
Ice Contact Lacustrine and Fluvial Deposits, Undivided: gravel, sand,silt and clay, local till: up to 25 m thick; deposited in intermittent supraglacial lakesand streams, or at margins of ice-floored proglacial lakes; undulating tohummocky topography.Glacial Deposit (Units 9 through 12a): till consisting of unsorted mixture of clay,silt, sand and gravel, with local water-sorted material and bedrock; the thickness isgenerally less than 25 m on uplands, but may reach as much as 100 m in buriedvalleys; flat, undulating, hummocky or rigid topography.
Draped Moraine: till of uneven thickness, with minor amounts ofwater-sorted material and local bedrock exposures; up to 10 m thick;includes local areas of undifferentiated subglacially molded deposit withstreamlined features; flat to undulating surface reflecting topography ofunderlying bedrock and other deposits.Stagnation Moraine: till of uneven thickness, local water-sorted material; up to30 m thick; undulating to hummocky topography reflecting variations in till thickness.
Undulating topography, with local relief generally less than 3 m.
Pleistocene
111111111
2b2b2b2b2b2b2b2b2b
3a3a3a3a3a3a3a3a3a
7b7b7b7b7b7b7b7b7b
888888888
999999999
10a10a10a10a10a10a10a10a10a
RecentEolian Deposit: fine and medium-grained sand and silt; up to 7 m thick;longitudinal and parabolic dunes scoured by blowouts; undulating torolling topography.
SOURCE:Shetsen, I. 1990. AGS, AEUB,
Quaternary Geology, Central Alberta. Map 213.
Projection:UTM 12 NAD 83
Distance in Kilometres
0 2 4
Fine Sediment: fine sand, silt and clay, minor gravel beds.3b3b3b3b3b3b3b3b3b
KOME-EDM-016-00015/11/2006
Coarse sediment: sand silt; undulating surface in places modified by wind.
Stream and Slopewash Eroded Deposit: exposed till and bedrock,local slump material; slopes of river valleys and meltwater channels, in placesbadland type terrain. 4a - mostly bedrock.
Coarse Sediment: sand and silt.
Fine Sediment: silt and clay.
Hummocky topography moderately to weakly developed, with irregularly shaped andpoorly defined knobs and kettles; local relief 5 to 20 m.
11.5.3 Local Geology The local geological interpretation is based on borehole records from current investigations (Appendix 11A) and the previous investigations conducted at the following locations on or near the PDA:
• Agrium Redwater facility (Stantec 2003) • Dupont facility (Stantec 1999a and 1999b) • North West Upgrader, including the Access Pipeline (Komex 2006a) • Provident Energy facility (Komex 2006b) • Sturgeon Upgrader (geotechnical investigation completed by Thurber Engineering 2006)
It also includes a review of data available from the AENV Groundwater Information Center (AENV 2006, Internet site).
Figure 11-10 shows the locations of available boreholes and the locations of the following four cross-sections:
• A-A’ and B-B’, which are oriented west–east (Figures 11-11 and 11-12) • C-C’ and D-D’, which are oriented north–south (Figures 11-13 and 11-14)
The thickness of surficial deposits is highly variable in the LSA, ranging from less than 5 m thick in the southwest portion to as much as 35 m in the north and east portion. The general geology of the PDA, from the ground surface down, consists of:
• surficial deposits:
• topsoil and organic matter (peat) • aeolian sand • clay and clayey deposits • clay till unit
• Belly River Formation (bedrock):
• shale/sandstone/siltstone
11.5.3.1 Topsoil and Organic Matter Topsoil thickness varies over the PDA, ranging from approximately 0.15 m to 0.75 m. In several locations (i.e., the nests of wells for P06-01, P06-18 and P06-22), topsoil was not reported in the borehole logs, indicating that topsoil was either absent or only formed a thin surface veneer. Additional information on topsoil and organic matter is presented in Section 17: Terrain and Soils.
11.5.3.2 Aeolian Sand A sand unit immediately below ground surface occurs intermittently in the northern portion of the LSA (Figures 11-11 to 11-14). This observation is consistent with the results of the soil mapping (Section 17: Terrain and Soils), which indicated sand at surface was predominantly in the northern half of the PDA. This sand unit is interpreted to represent aeolian sand deposits, as described by Andriashek (1988) and Shetsen (1990). In the LSA, the sand unit is often associated with topographic highs and varies in thickness from 0.7 m at TH06-Y-22 to 4.9 m at AENV 264237. Monitoring wells were not installed in the aeolian sand; however, based on lithological descriptions from borehole logs and water levels measured within the underlying till, this unit is believed to be mostly dry (unsaturated).
11.5.3.3 Clay and Clayey Deposits A dominantly clay or clay-containing unit up to about 1.5 m thick is intermittently present throughout the LSA. When viewed in the local cross-sections (Figure 11-11 to Figure 11-14), this unit is associated with localized topographic depressions.
11.5.3.4 Till A till unit was identified at all of the boreholes drilled in the LSA and it is believed to represent a continuous unit across the area. In most locations throughout the LSA, the till underlies the surficial clays or clayey sediments and aeolian sands, and in other locations, it is present immediately below the topsoil. In borehole logs, the till was typically described as clay till. The greatest till thickness was observed in the north (15 m to 20 m thick) and east (more than 30 m thick) of the LSA.
Rafted bedrock, sand lenses and sand and gravel lenses were observed in the till unit. Rafted bedrock typically consisted of shale or siltstone, ranging in thickness from 1.3 m at P06-10-14 to 5.4 m at TH06-Y-14. Generally, the sand and the sand and gravel lenses immediately overlie the bedrock surface, with the exception of a sand and gravel lens at P06-04-15. These deposits range in thickness from approximately 1 m to 3 m. Based on the stratigraphic position of these deposits, they might represent pre-glacial fluvial deposits or weathered bedrock.
The bedrock surface was not identified at P06-02-11 (Figure 11-12), BH-1, BH-3 and BH-5 (Komex 2006a; Appendix 11B). However, it is possible that the lowermost sand interval identified at these locations also overlies bedrock.
Numerous sand lenses occurring within the till unit (intra-till) are noted in local cross-sections (Figures 11-11 to 11-14). Based on the presence of till above and below these sand lenses, they are interpreted to represent glaciofluvial features and are believed to be of limited areal extent. The thickness of the intra-till sand deposits is variable, ranging from less than 0.5 m up to approximately 4 m at TH06-Y-11.
11.5.3.5 Bedrock Bedrock topography is variable across the LSA, with the highest bedrock surface elevations noted in the southwest portion and the lowest bedrock elevations noted in the north and east portion (Figure 11-15). Similar to the pattern noted in the RSA, surficial deposit thickness was:
• greatest where bedrock elevation was the lowest • lowest where bedrock elevation was the highest
Komex (2006a) indicated that a bedrock low was present at SW-18-56-21-W4M, which extended northwest from the NSR. The baseline investigation indicates this bedrock low extends from the NSR as far as SW-34-56-22-W4M (Figure 11-8), crossing the northeast corner of the LSA. The surface of the bedrock low dips towards the NSR, suggesting it might have originated as a tributary to the Beverly Channel. With the bottom of the NSR at an elevation of about 588 m asl (Figure 11-13), the slope of this tributary channel is about 0.003 metres per metre (m/m) over the 4-km reach between TH06-Y-11 and the river.
11.5.4 Regional Hydrogeology The regional hydrogeology of the Edmonton area (northeast segment), including the PDA, is presented by Stein (1976).
Figure 11-16 shows the regional hydrogeology, including the approximate extent of the Beverly Channel.
In areas where sand dunes are sufficiently thick and saturated, groundwater yield from sand dunes might be between 30 m3/d and 160 m3/d. Sand and gravel lenses in till could potentially yield 5 m3/d to 30 m3/d (Stein 1976).
The sands and gravels of the Beverly Channel have possible yields from 160 m3/d to 650 m3/d (Stein 1976). Data from pumping tests at three different wells in the area north of Fort Saskatchewan and west of Bruderheim indicate yields of approximately 1000 m3/d (Hydrogelogical Consultants 1976), 1900 m3/d (Underwood McLellan 1982) and 2500 m3/d (Stanley Associates Engineering 1981). These data indicate that groundwater yields from the Beverly Channel aquifer can vary locally.
The uppermost strata (about 120 m) of the Belly River Formation contain sandstones that could be good aquifers locally, with possible yields of up to 160 m3/d. Stein (1976) indicated that the lower portion of this interval, which has provided groundwater for the towns of Mundare and Bruderheim, is typically 15 m to 30 m thick and subcrops near the northern limit of the Elk Island High. Yields from wells completed in this interval ranged from 32 m3/d at Mundare to 100 m3/d west of Bruderheim.
Groundwater quality is quite variable, depending on the aquifer and location (Section 11.5.5). Stein (1976) indicates that the total dissolved solids (TDS) in surficial deposits above the bedrock, range from less than 500 mg/L to more than 3000 mg/L and locally exceeds 6000 mg/L.
Groundwater quality in surficial sands in sand dune areas is typically of a calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate type with low mineralization (TDS less than 500 mg/L), but hard to very hard (hardness between 200 mg/L and 500 mg/L as calcium bicarbonate [CaCO3]) (BA Energy 2004; Shell Canada 2005).
In the Beverly Channel, the groundwater is generally hard to very hard, with TDS ranging from less than 500 mg/L to 1000 mg/L as the following indicates:
• Shell Canada Limited (2005) reported that TDS concentrations:
• ranged from 677 mg/L to 906 mg/L in four monitoring wells located in the plateau in the Scotford area
• ranged from 1530 to 1591 mg/L in four monitoring wells located on the right bank of the NSR
• were 2460 mg/L for one monitoring well located on the left bank of the river
• BA Energy Inc. (2004) reported TDS values between 320 mg/L and 607 mg/L
The groundwater is typically of a mixed type—calcium-sodium-magnesium for cations and bicarbonate-sulphate for anions. As groundwater becomes more mineralized, there might be a shift toward groundwater of a sodium-sulphate type (Shell Canada 2005).
Groundwater in bedrock is generally more mineralized and softer than groundwater in the Beverly Channel, with TDS ranging from 1000 mg/L to 2000 mg/L and hardness generally lower than 100 mg/L as CaCO3 (Hydrogeological Consultants 2001a and 2001b).
11.5.5 Local Hydrogeology The monitoring wells used to investigate baseline conditions in the LSA are shown in Figure 11-3. Figures 11-11 to 11-14 show the cross-sections used in the study area (A-A’, B-B’, C-C’ and D-D’) along with the completion intervals and water levels for the monitoring wells along each cross-section. The PDA is located on industrial and agricultural lands, with pockets of wetland, grassland and forested habitats. Groundwater quality and water levels are deemed to represent natural and agricultural conditions.
11.5.5.1 Groundwater Levels Groundwater levels in the LSA were measured in April, May, June and August 2006 (Table 11-3).
Depth to the water table ranged as follows:
• from 0.12 m to 5.53 m on May 24, 2006 • from 0.94 m to 5.09 m on June 28, 2006 • from 1.71 metres below ground surface (m bgs) to 4.68 m bgs on August 28, 2006
The water table was generally shallowest at P06-15-05 and deepest at P06-17-06. Generally, the water table is deeper in the southern and eastern portions of the PDA and shallower in the northwestern portion of the PDA. Figure 11-17 shows the depth to the water table observed on June 28, 2006, when the water table was the highest. Seasonal variations in water table levels, for the period March 2006 to August 2006, ranged from 0.2 m to 1.9 m, with a median value of 0.8 m.
The water table contours in the LSA based on water levels measured in May 2006 are presented in Figure 11-18. Overall, groundwater flow is eastward, toward the NSR. In the northeast portion of the PDA, the spacing of water table contours is observed to increase and groundwater flow directions are observed to converge, which suggests that shallow groundwater might flow toward the surface drainage system (Tributary 1) to the east of the PDA. Similar patterns of groundwater flow were observed in the two other monitoring events conducted in June and August. Appendix 11A includes the water table contour maps for the monitoring in August 2006.
It is important to note that in the northeast portion of the PDA, the top of bedrock is deeper, which leads to a greater thickness of surficial sediments (Figure 11-15). The increased thickness of the surficial sediments appear to provide a higher transmissivity than a similar thickness of bedrock, which leads to lower hydraulic gradients (i.e., larger spacing in the water table contours, Figure 11-18).
Based on water levels measured in May 2006, the estimated horizontal hydraulic gradients were approximately 0.005 m/m within the PDA and approximately 0.002 m/m east of the PDA, within the LSA. In June and August 2006, the horizontal hydraulic gradients were 0.005 m/m within the PDA.
PREPARED FOR
PREPARED BY
DRAFT DATE
REVISION DATE
DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED
PROJECT SCALE
FIGURE ID
FIGURE
05/07/2006
15/11/2006
OS1589 1:100,000
WorleyParsons Komex
Source:Stein, R. 1976. Hydrogeology of
the Edmonton area (northeast segment),Alberta. ESR 1976-01.
Depth to water level was measured to three decimals, but is reported with two decimals. Apparent rounding error might be present for the depth to groundwater below ground surface and groundwater surface elevation. 1 Coordinates are UTM NAD83, Zone 12 (CM = 111ºW) Combined scale factor = 0.999742 (North West monitoring wells) Combined scale factor = 0.99974432 (Access Pipelines monitoring wells)
Komex (2006a) indicated that localized departures from the average horizontal hydraulic gradients described in this section might occur within the LSA. For example, a horizontal hydraulic gradient of 0.007 m/m was measured in a sand unit identified at SW-18-56-21-W4M in September 2005.
11.5.5.2 Vertical Hydraulic Gradients Vertical hydraulic gradients were calculated for 12 sets of nested monitoring wells, based on water levels measured in May, June and August 2006 (Appendix 11A).
Under discharge conditions, the vertical hydraulic gradients are lower, ranging from 0.001 m/m to 0.136 m/m, with a median value of 0.023 m/m. Under recharge conditions, the vertical hydraulic gradients are higher, ranging from 0.002 m/m to greater than 1.000 m/m, with a median value of 0.064 m/m.
Within the PDA, water levels recorded in monitoring wells completed in overburden generally exceed those obtained from monitoring wells completed in bedrock. Accordingly, downward vertical flow potentials (recharge conditions) are interpreted throughout much of the PDA. Discharge conditions were consistently observed only at two nested monitoring well locations: P06-04 and P06-17. Both discharge and recharge conditions were noted intermittently at the following nested monitoring well locations: P06-06, P06-08, P06-10, P06-15 and P06-18.
At some monitoring locations, vertical gradients are observed to be very high (exceeding unity) or highly variable (Appendix 11A). In some cases, this might be related to the slow recovery of static water levels, indicating a low permeability of the surrounding materials. For example, Monitoring Well P06-22-10 was completed into an intra-till sand layer between 9 m bgs and 10 m bgs and did not show accumulation of water for at least two months (from March 27 to May 24, 2006) and had only 1 cm of water after three months (on June 27, 2006). Under these conditions, the vertical hydraulic gradient might approach 1.0 m/m in a downward direction, suggesting the presence of a perched water table in the upper location. Similar conditions were observed at the neighbouring Access Pipeline site (Komex 2006a), where the vertical hydraulic conductivity was 1.18 m/m at the nest of Monitoring Wells BH-1A and BH-1 (Figure 11-10).
It is expected that vertical hydraulic gradients will fluctuate seasonally; therefore, deviations in the magnitude and direction of the vertical hydraulic gradients for the PDA are possible. The influence of rainfall events on water levels is greatest at points nearest ground surface. At depth, in bedrock, the overlying geologic material is able to buffer the changes in hydraulic pressure caused by rainfall events and water level variability is comparably muted. Therefore, immediately following a rainfall event, water levels recorded in monitoring wells screened near the water table might contrast sharply with those recorded during dry periods. When water levels measured under these two conditions are compared with those obtained at greater depths, in bedrock, the vertical hydraulic gradient calculated in each case might be different.
11.5.5.3 Hydraulic Conductivity Estimated hydraulic conductivity values, based on single-well response tests, are summarized in Table 11-4. The results have been grouped based on the major water-yielding lithologic unit in the screened interval. If this could not be clearly defined, the results were classified based on the dominant lithologic unit.
For sand-and-gravel-dominated soils, the estimated hydraulic conductivity of 4.9 x 10-10 m/s measured at P06-02-11 is not considered representative of the permeability of the silty sand at this location. The silty sand layer at this location might be limited in lateral extent, and the
estimated hydraulic conductivity would appear to be representative of the adjacent clay till. The estimated hydraulic conductivity measured at P06-02-11 was not included in the calculation of the geometric mean.
Table 11-4: Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity Data in the Local Study Area Deposit
Unit
Kmin (m/s)
Kmax (m/s)
Kmean (m/s)
Comments
Sand/gravel units
4.9 x 10-10 1.1 x 10-5 2.6 x 10-6 Range is based on tests at five monitoring wells. Mean is based on tests at four monitoring wells.
Overburden
Clay/clay till units
1.5 x 10-9 1.7 x 10-6 1.6 x 10-7 Range and mean based on tests at 21 monitoring wells.
Sandstone units
1.4 x 10-8 4.1 x 10-6 2.4 x 10-7 Range and mean based on tests at 10 monitoring wells.
Bedrock
Siltstone/shale units
6.1 x 10-10 1.8 x 10-7 1.0 x 10-8 Range and mean based on tests at two monitoring wells.
NOTE: Kmin, Kmax and Kmean represent the minimum, maximum and geometric mean hydraulic conductivity for the unit.
Komex (2006a) reported a similar geometric mean hydraulic conductivity of 3.8 x 10-6 m/s for sand-dominated soils in what is the east portion of the Project LSA, but the range of estimated hydraulic conductivities for sand-dominated soils in this area was 1.5 x 10-6 m/s to 9.0 x 10-6 m/s. This study also indicated that the range of estimated hydraulic conductivities for clay and till soils in the area was 2.0 x 10-9 m/s to 1.2 x 10-6 m/s (similar to the Project results presented in Table 11-4). Komex (2006a) also reported that the geometric mean hydraulic conductivity for clay and till soils was 4.3 x 10-8 m/s, one order of magnitude lower than the results for the Project (Table 11-4).
11.5.5.4 Average Linear Groundwater Velocity In the PDA, the underlying soils are primarily till, as no major continuous sand units were observed. The estimated average linear groundwater velocity in the till unit is in the order of 0.1 m/a, based on an average horizontal hydraulic gradient of 0.005 m/m (measured in May 2006), an average (geometric) hydraulic conductivity of 1.6 x 10-7 m/s, and an assumed effective porosity of 0.30 for the till.
In the sand unit identified at SW-18-56-21-W4M, the estimated groundwater velocity was in the order of 4.2 m/a, based on a horizontal hydraulic gradient of 0.007 m/m (as observed in September 2005), an average (geometric) hydraulic conductivity of 3.8 x 10-6 m/s, and an assumed effective porosity of 0.20 for the sand (Komex 2006a).
11.5.6 Regional Groundwater Quality for Water Wells within 3.2 km of the PDA Regional groundwater geochemistry was assessed based on groundwater quality information on file with AENV (AENV 2006, Internet site). The AENV database does not always provide lithological descriptions of the screened intervals; however, based on reported water well depths and the paucity of thick surficial sand deposits (Figures 11-6 and 11-7), most water wells within 3.2-km radius of the PDA and on the west side of the NSR, are expected to be completed in
bedrock. Only those analyses on file with AENV with a complete analytical suite of cations and anions have been reviewed.
Based on 57 separate groundwater analyses from 48 water wells within 3.2-km radius of PDA, concentrations of TDS ranged from 67 mg/L to 4090 mg/L, with an arithmetic average of 966 mg/L. For the same samples, sulphate concentrations ranged from 5 mg/L to 2300 mg/L, with an arithmetic average of 276 mg/L. Nitrate-nitrogen concentrations for eight analyses ranged from less than 0.1 mg/L to 17.2 mg/L, with an arithmetic average of 2.4 mg/L. Analyses for organic compounds and trace metals were not available.
Regional water quality data, plotted on a Durov diagram (Figure 11-19), indicate sodium and calcium are the dominant cations and sulphate and bicarbonate are the dominant anions. Groundwater is typically of the calcium-sodium-bicarbonate-sulphate, sodium-bicarbonate-sulphate and sodium-sulphate-bicarbonate types. Sodium-sulphate-bicarbonate type groundwater is associated with the highest TDS concentrations within the dataset (Figure 11-19). In total, there were eight analyses (14 percent of all analyses) from seven wells (15 percent of all wells) with sodium-sulphate type waters, which had TDS concentrations above 1400 mg/L.
11.5.7 Local Groundwater Quality A summary of the range of values for groundwater quality parameters is provided in Table 11-5. A detailed review of the field parameters, inorganic parameters (routine potability, phenols, dissolved organic carbon [DOC]), dissolved metals and petroleum hydrocarbons (benzene, ethyl-benzene, toluene and xylenes [BTEX], F1, F2) is provided in Appendix 11A. Where applicable, the available drinking water guidelines (Health Canada 2006) were included in the summary tables included in Appendix 11A.
Groundwater mineralization for the bedrock ranges from approximately 603 mg/L to 7520 mg/L as TDS, with 86 percent of the monitoring wells having values greater than 1000 mg/L (Figure 11-19). In the overburden, groundwater mineralization ranges from approximately 342 mg/L to 3730 mg/L as TDS, with the majority of wells having values less than 900 mg/L. There appears to be a general trend of higher mineralization in the bedrock.
Field measured pH values for both the overburden and bedrock ranged from 7.0 to 9.0. Readings at 5 monitoring wells (P06-02-11, P06-04-15, P06-08-10, P06-08-19 and P06-19-20) had pH values outside of the drinking water guideline range of 6.5 to 8.5 (Health Canada 2006).
Figure 11-20 summarizes the groundwater chemistry in an expanded Durov diagram. Groundwater in the bedrock is predominately of the sodium-bicarbonate-sulphate or sodium-sulphate-bicarbonate type, with minor calcium and magnesium. Groundwater in the overburden is typically of the bicarbonate-sulphate type for the anions and of mixed type for cations, with calcium typically dominant. Several wells exhibit a groundwater hydrochemical type between the typical bedrock and overburden types. This likely represents an area of mixing between the shallow and deep groundwater flow systems. This pattern in hydrochemical types is consistent with naturally occurring flow systems, where shallow groundwater is commonly calcium-bicarbonate dominant with relatively low TDS and deeper (bedrock) groundwater showing a shift to sodium-bicarbonate or sodium-sulphate-dominated hydrochemical types and an increasing TDS.
Table 11-5: Groundwater Quality Ranges for Indicator Parameters – Local Study Area
Overburden Bedrock
Parameter Units Observed Minimum
Observed Maximum
Observed Minimum
Observed Maximum
pH (Field) pH units 7.0 8.7 7.0 9.0 pH (Lab) pH units 7.5 8.6 7.6 8.8 EC (Field) μS/cm 572 3,820 894 8,270 EC (Lab) μS/cm 565 4,040 908 8,980 Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 342 3,730 603 7,520 Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 83 2,220 11 732 Sulphate mg/L 24 2,400 39 4,410 Nitrate + Nitrite as N mg/L-N <0.1 84.6 <0.1 1.4 Chloride mg/L 2 124 2 34 Sodium mg/L 10 978 43 2,370 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L <0.2 9.6 0.8 29.1 Dissolved Organic Carbons mg/L 3 25 5 30 Phenols mg/L <0.001 0.155 <0.001 0.016 Benzene mg/L <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 Toluene mg/L <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 Ethylbenzene mg/L <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 Xylenes mg/l <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 NOTES: 1Degrees of hardness are (in mg/L as Ca CO3): very soft (0–30); soft (30–60); moderately soft (60–120); hard (120–180); and very hard (>180) EC – electrical conductivity
All monitoring wells with TDS greater than 2000 mg/L had sulphate concentrations higher than 800 mg/L, and 22 of the 39 monitoring wells had sulphate concentration greater than 500 mg/L, which is the aesthetic objective for drinking water quality (Health Canada 2006). Sulphate concentrations in the bedrock are generally higher than in the overburden, with an average sulphate concentration of 950 mg/L for the bedrock, compared to an average of approximately 400 mg/L in the overburden.
Chloride concentrations at all wells are below the aesthetic objective of 250 mg/L for drinking water quality (Health Canada 2006). Chloride concentrations ranged from 2 mg/L to 124 mg/L, with a median value of 5 mg/L.
Sodium concentrations were above the drinking water quality guideline of 200 mg/L (Health Canada 2006) at 20 of the 39 monitoring wells. Average sodium concentrations were higher in the bedrock (approximately 650 mg/L) than in the overburden (approximately 150 mg/L).
Nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen concentrations were less than 1.0 mg/L at all monitoring wells, except at P06-08-4 (up to 26.3 mg/L), P06-21-6 (up to 84.6 mg/L), and P06-22-6 (52.8 mg/L), which had nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen concentrations above the drinking water guideline of 10 mg/L maximum acceptable concentration (MAC). The presence of nitrate nitrogen in groundwater is likely associated with former agricultural practices on these lands.
Phenols concentrations ranged from less than 0.001 mg/L to 0.155 mg/L in the overburden and from less than 0.001 mg/L to 0.016 mg/L in the bedrock. All phenols concentrations measured in June 2006 were higher than concentrations measured at the same wells in May 2006, and the field blank collected in June showed a phenol concentration of 0.007 mg/L. This suggests that the phenols concentrations measured in June might be erroneously high because of analytical interferences.
The majority of monitoring wells had DOC concentrations less than 10 mg/L. Twelve of 39 monitoring wells had DOC concentrations ranging from 10 mg/L to 30 mg/L.
Results of analyses for BTEX and hydrocarbon fractions F1 (C6–C10) and F2 (C11–C16) were below the respective method detection limits at all wells.
The majority of monitoring wells had all dissolved metals concentrations below their respective guidelines. Selenium concentrations higher than the MAC for drinking water quality (0.01 mg/L) were detected at seven monitoring wells that had concentrations ranging from 0.0102 mg/L to 0.0425 mg/L. Uranium concentrations higher than the MAC for drinking water quality (0.02 mg/L) were detected at four monitoring wells with concentrations ranging from 0.0235 mg/L to 0.0562 mg/L.
11.5.8 Groundwater Users The field-verified survey of residents within a 3.2-km radius of the PDA (east of the NSR) was completed on May 16, May 18, June 7 and August 16, 2006 to identify groundwater users and the location of water wells (Section 11.5.1; Table 11-6). Information obtained from a recently conducted field-verified survey, performed for North West Upgrading Inc. (Komex 2006a), has also been included in Table 11-6.
The locations of the water wells and groundwater users within 3.2 km of the PDA are shown in Figure 11-21. The landowners at Locations 19, 25 and 46 could not be contacted; therefore, it is not known whether water wells are present on these properties. According to Komex (2006a), Location 42, which includes an abandoned residence and water well, is on North West Upgrader lands. There is no one living at this location and the residence will be demolished and the water well will be properly decommissioned before the proposed North West Upgrader is constructed. Location 44 is also present on North West lands. This location includes an abandoned residence and might include a water well. The residence will be demolished and the water well will be properly decommissioned before the proposed North West Upgrader is constructed (Komex 2006a). The water wells at Locations 20 and 22 have been abandoned and the residents currently use city water. Location 26 has one active water well and is located in SE-12-55-22-W4M, at the southeast boundary of the PDA.
The survey indicated there are 93 active water wells and 11 water wells that are abandoned or no longer in use within the water well survey area. Groundwater is used for domestic, gardening and stock purposes. Based on a review of AENV water well records (AENV 2006, Internet site), 80 of the water wells are completed in bedrock to depths ranging from approximately 7 m bgs to 107 m bgs. Thirteen water wells appear to have been completed in surficial deposits to depths ranging from approximately 9 m to 12 m. The depth of 11 water wells was unavailable.
The groundwater flow direction in the PDA is to the east (Figure 11-18). Therefore, six locations (19, 20, 22, 26, 42 and 44), are interpreted to be hydraulically downstream of the PDA. The landowner at Location 19 is located within SW-19-56-22-W4M and could not be contacted during the field-verified survey. Within SW-19-56-22-W4M, the AENV water well database lists a single water well record (AENV ID 234373) completed in bedrock.
11.6 Project Design and Mitigation to Reduce Effects The following sections outline the Project mitigation measures that will be implemented during construction and operations. The proposed groundwater monitoring program is described in Section 11.9.
11.6.1 Construction During site construction, excavations into the shallow subsoil will be required for the construction of ponds, construction of foundations for aboveground structures, and installation of utilities. The amount of groundwater that could enter an excavation will depend on the size and depth of the excavation below the water table, the ability of the soil to transmit water and the length of time that the excavation is left open. Dewatering is generally a temporary activity associated with the construction of a facility.
The groundwater removed from the excavation to allow for construction (i.e., dewatered groundwater) will be directed to an onsite holding pond and tested. If the dewatered groundwater quality meets the guidelines for surface water quality (AENV 1999), the dewatered groundwater will be released to existing drainage.
11.6.2 Operations During plant operations, effects on groundwater are commonly traced to leaking tanks, seepage from ponds, damaged pipelines and incidental spillage. To prevent such effects, engineered protection measures will be a fundamental part of the plant design. Engineered protection measures will be complemented by a groundwater monitoring network and rapid response in the event a release were to occur.
In addition to these engineered protection measures, spill response procedures and other management procedures will be put in place.
NOTES: The data for water wells 1 to 44 are from the North West Upgrader EIA (Komex 2006a). 1 Well not located. Coordinates shown are for general location of residence
2 Well #15 not located. Coordinates are approximate. 3 Well #19 not located. Coordinates shown are for approximate location of trailer. 4 Location #22: coordinates shown are for general location of residence. 5 Location #25: coordinates shown are for general location of Quonset based on available water well logs. 6 Location #31: coordinates shown are for general location of residence. 7 UTM coordinates are for NAD83 Zone 12 (CM = -111º). 8"Individual residents are not identified" 9 Well completion in bedrock or surficial sediments was inferred based on lithological information from nearby water well records. 10 Depth estimated based on interview with well owner. 11 Could not view well. Based on conversation with landowner, know only that well exists in NW-22-56-22-W4. 12 No GPS coordinate collected. Coordinates assumed similar to other well on property. m bgl – metres below ground level – Indicates there was no information, well was abandoned or there is no well on property.
11.6.2.1 Stormwater System The stormwater system will be designed and constructed to contain and collect stormwater from the developed portion of the facility outside the processing area. This water is predominantly clean and of good quality and will be used by the Project to reduce the requirement for additional raw water withdrawal from the NSR. Stormwater from roads and tank farm areas will be collected in ditches and directed to a clean stormwater pond for ultimate reuse as process water. Stormwater collected in tank farm dikes will be collected in the lined area of the dike and retained in the levee until the water can be tested for a presence of hydrocarbons. On confirmation that the retained stormwater is uncontaminated, the water will be released into the ditches that collect water from the road ways in the tank farm and directed to a clean stormwater pond for reuse.
The stormwater pond will be designed to contain a release of hydrocarbon to the system with the inclusion of an inlet baffle and boom to segregate any free phase hydrocarbon that might enter the system. The boomed area will be designed for easy accommodation of oil skimming equipment to recover spilled material.
11.6.2.2 Potentially Contaminated Storm Sewer Stormwater that collects in the process areas will be collected in a contained system or Potentially Contaminated Sewer System (PCSS). This system will be an underground system inside the paved developed process area, which eventually connects to the stormwater collection system. The catch basins for the PCSS will be connected together within each process area. Water seals will separate each catch basin to prevent the propagation of fire between and through the PCSS system.
These water seals will also allow for the retention of hydrocarbon if equipment failure occurs. The water seals will be designed to hold back the flow of hydrocarbons to the oil and grit separators and allow for recovery of hydrocarbons via vacuum truck at each catch basin.
The water seal design of each catch basin will also facilitate the early separation of major solids before the water enters the oil and grit separator at the process battery limit.
The PCSS will then connect to an oily water and grit separator located at each process battery limit. These separators will remove free phase oil and grit from the collected water in the process area, and allow the cleaned stormwater to proceed to the stormwater pond. Oil and grit separated from the runoff will be diverted into a chamber for removal via vacuum truck to be treated within the wastewater treatment unit.
The stormwater collection and potentially contaminated sewer system will be designed for a 1:100-year storm event or the fire case, whichever is greater.
11.6.2.3 Oily Water Sewer System In the process areas where machinery and equipment is in operation, the oily water sewer system will collect the drains and drips of oil. The system will consist of a buried underground system that operates via gravity to collect base plate drains and equipment drains through raised hubs. This system will collect these drains and minor spills from maintenance of equipment into an enclosed sump, which will then be pumped to the slop system for further treatment.
11.6.2.4 Closed Hydrocarbon Drain System A closed hydrocarbon drain system will be in place within the process areas to facilitate the efficient draining and preparation of systems for maintenance. The system is a closed system that is permanently connected to equipment and vessels and will collect hydrocarbons during the preparation of major equipment. This is a pressurized system that will not be connected to the atmosphere. The system will transfer the collected hydrocarbons for reprocessing in the slops system.
11.6.2.5 Slops System The slop system will recover hydrocarbons from the variety of process functions and separate these hydrocarbons from water. The slop system will be connected to a variety of other systems, such as the closed hydrocarbon drain system, the PCSS and the wastewater treatment unit. The hydrocarbons will be removed and pumped to the front end of the facility and reprocessed in the coker unit. The water will be transferred to the wastewater treatment unit and processed to recover any oil and treat the water for reuse.
11.6.2.6 Containment, Collection of Spills and Site Drainage Spills, overfills and stormwater runoff will be contained, treated and disposed of in conformance with regulatory requirements. Product-transfer areas will be paved with concrete and graded, curbed or diked to contain spills or overfills that might occur during the transfer process. Coke water will be contained and treated. The coke storage and loading areas and sulphur-forming areas will direct runoff water to the south stormwater pond for containment. Spills in the plant will be contained through the Potentially Contaminated Storm System and routed to the treatment.
All storage tanks containing hydrocarbons or that have a potential to contain hydrocarbons will be protected with a secondary containment system and a leak detection system as per the appropriate provincial guidelines. The water collected in the diked tank areas will be considered potentially contaminated. Water collected in the dike will be held and tested before it is released. The drainage from diked tank areas will be controlled by a sump and valve located at the low point of the area. Clean water will be released to the clean stormwater sewer. In the event of contamination, the water will be sent for treatment in the Wastewater Treatment Unit (WWTU).
11.6.2.7 Coke Handling Facility Coke will be stored in a covered storage facility capable of housing five day’s worth of production at Phase. Coke-handling facilities and storage will be enclosed to minimize nuisance dust. A dust-suppression system will be used at all open points, including but not limited to the conveyor transfer points, rail loading chute and the emergency storage pile. A barrier system will be used to segregate and collect the water from the coke, including rainwater runoff, for treatment. Stored coke will be loaded for rail transportation.
An emergency coke storage area (e.g., in case of a rail strike) will be in available to hold up to 30 days of coke production. The emergency storage area will be designed to ensure that the soil and groundwater is protected from contamination by any coke stored there. There will be dust mitigation systems in place to prevent coke dusting and systems will be in place to prevent water from the coke from contaminating the environment.
11.6.2.8 Chemical Storage Hazardous materials generated at the facility will be stored at the Materials Management Facility in accordance with regulatory requirements. The storage site will be designed and maintained to prevent surface runoff from entering the secondary containment system.
Diluted bitumen, synthetic crude oil and diluent will be stored onsite in appropriate storage tanks. Secondary containment will be installed for these tanks in accordance with EUB Directive 55: Storage Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum Industry (EUB 2001) and will include the following minimum requirements:
• A synthetic, impervious liner will be placed over the containment area and under the storage tanks. The liner will be 60 mil (0.060 inches or 1.52 mm) thick and will be keyed into the dike walls.
• A leak detection and collection system will be installed under each storage tank. A porous layer, consisting of sand or gravel, or a combination, will be placed over the synthetic liner and under the storage tanks to protect the liner and permit leaks to flow to a collection point in the diked area. A collection pipe system will be installed in the porous layer and will be easily accessible for visual inspection.
Each month, the diked area, storage tanks and visible liners will be inspected for signs of leaks or spills.
11.6.2.9 Spill Response Procedures As well as engineered protection measures to protect against groundwater contamination during operations, the following management steps will be taken to address spill readiness and response:
• A comprehensive spill response plan will be put in place that provides for quick spill response, containment and cleanup.
• Appropriate spill control and treatment procedures will be established for each group of chemicals and hydrocarbons used during the upgrading process, including containment to prevent the spread of the material to other areas and treatment to render materials safe.
• All employees will receive training in spill prevention, control and reporting, and on the sensitivities of the local geography and surface waters to spills.
• Process units will include strategically placed spill kits to assist with spill containment if required.
• All spills will be reported to PCOSI management. Spill with volumes above reporting thresholds will be reported to regulators as required.
11.7 Project Residual Effects
11.7.1 Analyses Analytical hydrogeologic models (e.g., Darcy Equation and Theis Method) were used to assess the effects of the Project on groundwater. Because extensive, thick, saturated surficial sand units were not present in the PDA, numerical modelling of the local groundwater flow system was not required.
11.7.1.1 Dewatering Effects on Water Table and Well Users The surficial soils in the PDA are mainly low permeability clay or till that would not present a dewatering concern during construction. Near-surface sand units are present mostly in the northern half of the PDA and have been noted at 14 borehole locations (Figure 11-22). At most of these occurrences, the saturated thickness of the sands is low, ranging from 0.2 m to 4.2 m, with an average thickness of 1.0 m (Figure 11-22). The lateral extent of the surficial sands is interpreted to also be low, as sand at similar elevations was rarely encountered in neighbouring boreholes (Figures 11-10 to 11-13). Surficial sands of aeolian origin have also been identified in the northern half of the PDA by the soils survey (Section 17: Terrain and Soils) to depths of up to 1.5 m bgs (maximum depth of investigation). These surficial sand dunes are generally above the water table and, as such, are not saturated. In some locations, interspersed layers of clay or silt in the surficial sand might lead to very limited availability of free water. Dewatering might be required in localized areas during construction in Section 14 or in the western half of Section 13.
Water wells within the PDA will be decommissioned as per the Water Act regulations (Alberta Regulation 205/98). Outside the perimeter of the PDA, all but three existing water wells are located at distances greater than 500 m from the PDA. As shown in Figure 11-21, water wells #26, #34 and #102 are located at distances of approximately 50 m, 350 m and 400 m from the PDA. Table 11-6 indicates that all three water wells have been completed in bedrock at depths between 37 m and 48 m.
The closest water wells completed into surficial deposits are #36, #37 and #38 located approxi-mately 500 m north of the PDA; and #71, #74 and #76 located between 750 m and 850 m west of the PDA. Total depths for these wells range from 9 to 11 m, except for #71 which is completed at a depth of 21.3 m. Considering that there is a 400 m wide buffer zone along the northern boundary of the PDA and a 750 m wide construction support and laydown area along the western boundary of the PDA, the distances from construction areas, where dewatering might be required, to the closest water wells would be a minimum of 900 m to the north and 1500 m to the west.
11.7.1.2 Spills and Pond Seepage on Groundwater Quality and Well Users The soil conditions at the site provide natural protection to potential effects of surface spills, leaks or seepage. A low-permeability layer above bedrock is inferred throughout the PDA, based on clay or till dominated sediments. The thickness of this low-permeability layer ranges from a minimum of 1.0 m at TH06-G-28 to over 27 m at TH06-DD-21 (Figure 11-10). Within Section 9, south of Highway 643, the thickness of the low-permeability layer ranges from 2.3 m to 5.2 m. In many instances, the low-permeability layer is underlain by shale or siltstone, and by sandstone in other instances.
Within Section 14 and the western half of Section 13, the thickness of the low-permeability layer ranges from 2.8 m at the southwestern portion of Section 14 to over 27 m at the northwestern portion of Section 13. There is a northeastern trend of increasing thickness because of the bedrock valley that is present in that area (Figure 11-15).
The thickness of the low permeability layer increases when the underlying shale or siltstone is included. At TH06-E-2, for example, the thickness of the clay till is 2.3 m and that of the underlying clay shale is 6.8 m, for a total thickness of 9.1 m for a low-permeability layer. At TH06-J-7, on the other hand, a 2.5-m thick clay till unit is underlain by a 6-m thick sandstone layer. Figure 11-23 presents a summary of the combined thickness of the low permeability layers (clay, till, shale or siltstone) above a major layer of sand or sandstone.
Although the uppermost sandstone layers might correlate over short distances, they do not form extensive lateral units because of the fluvial nature of such deposits and because of bedrock erosion (Figure 11-12). Groundwater flow through the uppermost sandstone layers is impeded by the thick, low-permeability till unit that is present in the bedrock valley along the northeastern portion of the PDA (Figures 11-11 to 11-15). In addition, the sandstone layers have low hydraulic conductivity that ranges from 1.4 x 10-8 m/s to 4.1 x 10-6 m/s, with a geometric mean of 2.4 x 10-7 m/s. This geometric mean is very similar to the geometric mean of 1.6 x 10-7 m/s obtained for clay and clay till units, indicating that groundwater flow movement is similar in the clay/clay till units and the underlying sandstone layers. Overall, groundwater flow in both the surficial deposits and upper bedrock is controlled by the thick, low-permeability till unit present in the bedrock valley.
Based on a geometric mean hydraulic conductivity of 2.4 x 10-7 m/s for the sandstone layers, a horizontal hydraulic gradient of 0.005 m/m (measured in May 2006), and an assumed effective porosity of 0.10 for the sandstone layers, the average linear groundwater velocity in the sandstone layer would be in the order of 0.4 m/a. However, because groundwater flow is controlled by the clay till unit, the groundwater velocity in the sandstone layers would likely be similar to the groundwater velocity of 0.1 m/a estimated for the clay till unit (Section 11.5.5.4).
The mobility of cationic and organic contaminants is expected to be further limited by cation exchange and sorption within the clay-dominated matrix. The clay-dominated sediments are, therefore, considered an effective barrier to the migration of dissolved contaminants that will allow enough time for mitigation measures to be implemented.
Based on Figure 11-18, the groundwater flow is primarily to the northeast in the southern portion of the PDA and primarily to the east in the northern portion of the PDA. Therefore, the only water well that could be considered to be hydraulically downgradient from the PDA would be #26 (Figure 11-21), which is completed in bedrock to a depth of approximately 48 m (Table 11-6). Based on the overall plot plan described in Volume 1, Section 2: Processing Facilities, FHELP is not currently proposing any facilities in the southwest quarter of Section 12, which is immediately adjacent to water well #26. Therefore, based on the groundwater flow directions (Figure 11-18), water well #26 would no longer be considered hydraulically downgradient from Project facilities.
At locations #20 and #22, the water wells have been abandoned and the owners use city water. At locations #42 and #44, North West Upgrading (Komex 2006a) reported that water wells, if present, are no longer in use and will be decommissioned prior to the construction of the North West Upgrader. At location #19, there is a building, but it has not been verified whether a water well is present at that location. Based on the groundwater flow directions presented in Figure 11-21, it appears that location #19 might not be hydraulically downgradient from the PDA.
600
600
600600
600600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
650650650650650650650650650
000000
888888888
171717171717171717
555555555666666666
777777777
181818181818181818131313131313131313
121212121212121212
111111111
111111111111111111
141414141414141414
222222222
101010101010101010
333333333
151515151515151515P06-17-060, 0
TH06-Y-220.8, 0
TH06-Y-190.6, 0
TH06-AA-112.5, 1.0
TH06-AA-120, 0
TH06-Y-143.1, 0
TH06-W-161.6, 0TH06-W-5
4.2, 4.2
TH06-W-90.9, 0
TH06-V-220.5, 0TH06-V-19
2.8, 0
TH06-P-171.5, 0
TH06-I-110.5, 0
P06-16-070, 0
P06-15-050, 0
TH06-EE-151.5, 0
TH06-EE-130.7, 0
TH06-E-20.6, 0
TH06-DD-210, 0
TH06-CC-191.3, 0
P06-14-061.9, 0
P06-09-060.6, 0
P06-04-051.0, 0
P06-02-060.6, 0
TH06-V-111.7, 0
TH06-V-142.0, 1.1
TH06-S-51.2, 1.2
TH06-P-50.7, 0.7 TH06-P-11
0.5, 0.5
TH06-EE-81.1, 1.1P06-06-06
0.5, 0.5
TH06-DD-42.9, 0.5
TH06-CC-151.7, 0.2
P06-20-060.5, 0.4
P06-11-040.3, 0.3
P06-07-051.5, 1.5
P06-05-060.3, 0.3
TH06-W-140, 0
TH06-Y-110, 0
P06-18-060, 0
P06-13-060, 0
TH06-S-140, 0
TH06-S-110, 0
TH06-P-220, 0
TH06-K-280, 0
TH06-K-190, 0
TH06-J-70, 0
TH06-J-20, 0
TH06-G-280, 0
P06-12-040, 0
TH06-G-130, 0
TH06-E-70, 0
TH06-B-80, 0
TH06-B-100, 0
P06-22-060, 0
P06-21-060, 0
P06-19-060, 0
P06-10-060, 0
P06-08-050, 0
P06-03-050, 0
P06-01-060, 0
TH06-FF-171.0, 0
TH06-G-170, 0
TH06-S-200, 0
PREPARED FOR
PREPARED BY
DRAFT DATE
REVISION DATE
DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED
PROJECT SCALE
FIGURE ID
FIGURE
08/09/2006 OS1589 1:25,000
WorleyParsons Komex
SOURCES:Digital Basemaps (1:20,000):
83h14 se,sw, ne, nw; Agrium RedwaterFacility Ponds from Stantec, 2003
Projection:Latitude/Longitude
Distance in Kilometres
STURGEON UPGRADER
Thickness of Saturated Sand Within 5 m of Ground Surface (June 2006 Water Levels)
Note: The sand thicknesses shown in this figure represent thetotal composite thickness of sand within 5 metres of groundsurface. As such, the thickness may include multiple distinctsand units, including surficial or intra-till sands.
NOTE:Within or between layers of low permeability unconsolidated sediments(i.e., clay and till), thin sand layers, generally less than 2 m thick, may occur.These sand layers are not included in the calculation of the total thicknessof low permeability strata. However, due to the interpreted limited lateralcontinuity of these sand units, the total thickness of low permeability strataincludes clay and till units both above and below these sands.
11.7.2 Dewatering Effects on Water Table and Well Users There are no major sand units in the PDA that are saturated with water. Surficial aeolian sand deposits have been noted near the surface of the PDA, but these deposits are generally above the water table. For excavations in the clay or till deposits in the PDA, it is expected that the groundwater inflows will be small and generally manageable with sumps and pumps, because of the low permeability of these materials.
The effects of dewatering during construction on the water table are expected to be localized and limited to the vicinity of the dewatering area. Based on the dewatering data presented for the Shell’s Scotford Complex (Shell Canada 2005), it is expected that the effects of dewatering will be of the same order of magnitude as the seasonal fluctuations in the water table levels (0.2 m to 1.9 m; median of 0.8 m) at a distance of about 100 m from the excavation. This estimate is considered conservative because it was based on dewatering requirements for an extensive surficial sand unit present beneath the Scotford Complex, whereas the sand unit found at the PDA is of limited extent and not as thick. The effects of dewatering on the water table levels will decrease at distances greater than 100 m from the excavation and will be less than the natural fluctuations in water table levels.
Dewatered groundwater will be directed to an onsite holding pond and tested before it is released to the Tributaries 1 and 2 and the NSR. Based on the groundwater quality at monitoring wells completed through surficial sand units in the northern half of the PDA (P06-04-05, P06-05-06, P06-07-05), TDS for dewatered water is expected to be in the order of 500 mg/L.
As there are no users of shallow groundwater in the immediate vicinity (500 m) of the PDA, no water wells will be affected by dewatering within the PDA.
No residual effects are expected from dewatering of groundwater. Once dewatering stops, groundwater levels will return to natural water levels in a time frame similar to the period of dewatering. It is not expected that localized, temporary dewatering will affect other natural features, including Tributaries 1 and 2, vegetation and soil in the PDA.
The residual effects of dewatering activities during construction on local water tables will be low in magnitude, short term, reversible and have no environmental consequence. The Project will not contribute to cumulative effects on the water tables.
The residual effects of dewatering activities during construction on groundwater users will be negligible in magnitude, short term, reversible and have no environmental consequence. The Project will not contribute to cumulative effects on groundwater users.
11.7.3 Spills and Pond Seepage on Groundwater Quality and Well Users Based on the planned mitigation measures and spill response procedures, it is considered unlikely that a surface contaminant spill or leak would reach the shallow groundwater. Such a release would be contained on the concrete pads or secondary containment systems and prevented from reaching the soil.
In the unlikely event that a spill or leak did reach the ground or subsurface, PCOSI will take measures to recover the spilled product, identify the extent of effects, and remediate the soil and groundwater to acceptable levels. Remediation criteria would be based on generic risk management criteria (e.g., AENV 2001; CCME 1999) or site-specific Tier 2 or Tier 3 approaches conducted as per the AENV and CCME risk assessment protocols (e.g., AENV 2000; CCME 1996a, 1996b). After remediation, the groundwater will meet the applicable guidelines or risk management criteria and the residual effects will be acceptable. In the context of
groundwater remediation, residual effects refer to those effects on groundwater that are above background conditions, yet meet the applicable guidelines or risk management criteria.
As the engineered mitigation measures and operational measures that will be implemented are considered to provide adequate protection to groundwater, no residual effects of concern are expected. After remediation, the effects of surface spills or leaks on groundwater quality will be moderate in magnitude, medium term, reversible and have no environmental consequence. The Project will not contribute to cumulative effects on groundwater quality. 11.7.4 Prediction Confidence The level of confidence in the prediction of potential effects of dewatering on the water table and users is high. There is high confidence in the geological data that indicate that sand units are of limited extent within the PDA. There is also high confidence in the historical data obtained from dewatering activities at the Scotford Complex.
Confidence in the prediction of potential effects of surface spills, leaks or seepage from ponds on groundwater quality is high. There is high confidence in the baseline data, the planned engineered mitigation measures and the operation measures, including the spill response and remediation plans.
11.7.5 Summary of Residual Effects Table 11-7 summarizes the residual effects of the key issues for groundwater after mitigation and their potential to contribute measurably to regional cumulative effects.
Table 11-7: Summary of Residual Effects for Groundwater
Project Phase
Issue/Measurable Parameter
Magnitude/Extent Duration
Reversible/Non-
reversible Environmental Consequences
Potential for Cumulative
Effects Effects of dewatering on local groundwater levels, flow regimes, surface waterbody levels and vegetation
Low Short term
Reversible None No Construction
Effects of dewatering on local groundwater users
Negligible Short term
Reversible None No
Effects of leaks, surface spills and pond seepage on shallow groundwater quality
Moderate Medium term
Reversible None No Operations
Effects of leaks, surface spills and pond seepage on local groundwater users
Negligible Short term
Reversible None No
NOTE:
Refer to Table 11-2 for definitions of Project effect attributes.
11.8 Cumulative Effects Assessment No cumulative effects are anticipated on shallow groundwater levels or quality.
• It is unlikely that dewatering of areas outside the PDA would occur at the same time as dewatering within the PDA. In addition, the effects of dewatering are predicted to be in the same order of magnitude of seasonal groundwater level fluctuations beyond a distance of 100 m from the excavations. Because of a 400-m buffer zone along the northern boundary of the PDA and a 750-m buffer zone (construction support and laydown area) along the western boundary of the PDA, any effects of dewatering will be limited to the PDA.
• There are no current or planned projects hydraulically upgradient from the Project. Hydraulically downgradient from the Project there are the facilities operated by Degussa Canada Inc., North West Upgrading Inc., and Access Pipelines Inc. The facilities operated by Agrium Products and Provident Energy are not considered to be hydraulically downgradient from the Project. Although there is the potential that a contaminant plume originating from the PDA could be further compounded if a spill occurred at the Degussa, North West or Access Pipeline facilities and it also reached the groundwater, it is considered unlikely that spills, leaks or seepage from ponds in the PDA would contribute to cumulative contamination of shallow groundwater. This conclusion is based on the following:
• The planned engineered mitigation measures and operations measures are adequate to protect groundwater.
• PCOSI’s spill response and remediation practice provide for prompt identification of the extent of effects and implementation of mitigation and remediation.
• A groundwater monitoring program will be implemented at the PDA to provide early warning of potential effects on groundwater and to allow prompt assessment, control and mitigation of unacceptable effects.
As no off site effects on shallow groundwater quality are expected, the Project will not contribute to cumulative effects on groundwater quality.
11.9 Follow-up and Monitoring
11.9.1 Groundwater Monitoring During Construction Should dewatering be required in specific areas during construction, monitoring wells will be installed to monitor the performance of the dewatering activities and the extent of effects. In general, monitoring wells will be installed at the center and perimeter of the excavation area to monitor water levels and confirm that the water table has been lowered to below the bottom of the excavation. Additional monitoring wells might also be installed 50 m to 100 m from the excavation to identify the extent of dewatering effects and confirm that the water table has returned to seasonal levels once dewatering is completed.
11.9.2 Groundwater Monitoring During Operations A groundwater monitoring program is proposed to provide early detection of possible effects on the shallow groundwater due to the operation of the Project and allow for prompt assessment, control and mitigation of effects.
The monitoring program will include monitoring wells installed as part of the baseline study, if accessible, as well as additional monitoring wells to target specific process areas within the site
where spills or contaminant releases could potentially occur. Target areas will include: hydrocarbon storage tanks, sulphur storage tanks, effluent ponds, contaminated storm water ponds, coke storage and loading and unloading facilities. Monitoring wells will be installed across the water table (typical depths of 5 m) and within a deeper sand layer or the uppermost sandstone layer if these layers are present within the upper 10 m. Proposed monitoring well locations are shown in Figure 11-24.
For the first two years after installation, groundwater samples will be collected twice per year (spring and fall) to identify baseline conditions for each monitoring well. Each groundwater sample will be analysed for routine potability, dissolved metals and indicator parameters that include: pH, EC, TDS, DOC, phenols, sulphate, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), BTEX, and hydrocarbon fractions F1 (C6-C10) and F2 (C11-C16).
From the third year onward, groundwater will be sampled twice per year (spring and fall) and analysed for indicator parameters: pH, EC, TDS, DOC, phenols, sulphate, chloride, TKN, BTEX and hydrocarbon fractions F1 (C6-C10) and F2 (C11-C16).
The groundwater monitoring data, groundwater levels and quality, will be summarized, interpreted to identify possible trends and effects on groundwater, and reported yearly to AENV. Should the groundwater monitoring program indicate a possible effect on groundwater, the following steps will be taken:
• confirm that the groundwater quality at specific locations has been affected above background conditions
• identify possible sources for the effects
• assess and delineate the extent of effects
• identify and implement mitigation and remediation measures
• conduct monitoring to confirm performance of mitigation and remediation measures
In addition to removal of the source of contamination, remediation measures could include groundwater interceptors, recovery wells, pump and treat, bioremediation, biosparging, reactive barriers, containment curtains or barriers, and monitored natural attenuation (MNA).
11.10.1 Literature Cited Agrium Inc. 2005. Borehole logs, Survey Data, and Water Level Data for Select Monitoring
Wells on the Agrium Redwater Facility. Cited by Komex (2006a).
Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB). 2001. Directive 55: Storage Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum Industry. December 2001.
Alberta Environment (AENV). 1999. Surface Water Quality Guidelines for Use in Alberta. Environmental Sciences Division. November 1999.
Alberta Environment (AENV). 2000. Policy for Management of Risks at Contaminated Sites in Alberta (Draft). Industrial Program Development Branch, Environmental Sciences Division, Alberta Environment. Edmonton, Alberta.
Alberta Environment (AENV). 2001. Alberta Soil and Water Quality Guidelines for Hydrocarbons at Upstream Oil and Gas Facilities. September 2001.
Alberta Environment (AENV). 2006. Final Terms of Reference for an Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Proposed Petro-Canada Oil Sands Incorporated (PCOSI) Sturgeon Upgrader. Edmonton, AB.
Andriashek, L.D. 1988. Quaternary Stratigraphy of the Edmonton Map Area, NTS 83H. Alberta Research Council, Natural Resources Division, Open File Report #1988-04.
BA Energy Inc. 2004. BA Energy Heartland Upgrader, Project Application and Environmental Impact Assessment. May 2004.
Bayrock, L.A. 1972. Surficial Geology of the Edmonton map sheet (83H). Alberta Research Council Map.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. (CCME). 1996a. A Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental and Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. En 108-4/8-1996E, ISBN: 0-662-24344-7. March 1996. Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. (CCME). 1996b. A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: General Guidance. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. En 108-4/10-1996E, ISBN: 0-662-24346-3. March 1996. Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. (CCME). 1999 and updates. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines.
Hamilton W.N., M.C. Price and C.W. Langenberg (compilers). 1999. Geological Map of Alberta. Alberta Geological Survey, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, Map No. 236, scale 1:1,000,000.
Health Canada. 2006. Summary of Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Health Canada, Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water. April 2006.
Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. 1976. Village of Bruderheim Water Well No. 4. April 1976.
Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. 2001a. Strathcona County, Regional Groundwater Assess-ment. April 2001.
Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. 2001b. Sturgeon County, Regional Groundwater Assessment - Final. August 2001.
Komex International Ltd. 2006a. Hydrogeological Assessment, Proposed Upgrader. Report prepared for North West Upgrading Inc. January 2006.
Komex International Ltd. 2006b. 2005 Groundwater Monitoring, Redwater Facility. Report prepared for Provident Energy Ltd. March 2006.
Shell Canada Limited. 2005. Application for Approval of the Scotford Upgrader Expansion Project. April 2005.
Shetsen, I. 1990. Quaternary Geology, Central Alberta. Alberta Research Council Map 213. 1:500 000 Map Sheet.
Stanley Associates Engineering Ltd. 1981. Scotford Refinery – Shell Canada, Interim Water Supply Report. Prepared for C.F. Braun & Co. (Cited by Shell Canada Limited 2005)
Stantec Consulting Ltd.1999a. Environmental Site Assessment N½ and SW¼ of 18-56-21-W4M. Report prepared for Dupont Canada. File No. 1-02-15049, May 1999. Cited by Komex (2006a).
Stantec Consulting Ltd.1999b. Environmental Site Assessment 13-56-22-4, S½-24-56-22-4, and Areas A and B Assessment. Report prepared for Dupont Canada. File No. 1-02-15136. Cited by Komex (2006a)
Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2003. Application for an Amendment to Approval No. 210-01-00. Report prepared for Agrium Products Inc., Redwater, Alberta, Canada. File No. 1-02-71124, April 2003.
Stein R. 1976. Hydrogeology of the Edmonton Area (Northeast Segment), Alberta. Alberta Research Council 76-1, 21 pp.
Underwood McLellan Ltd. 1982. Scotford Styrene Plant, Water Supply Wells, Pump Test Evaluations, Test Well 3 and Test Well 8. Prepared for Canadian Badger Company Limited. File No. 8221-043-00-02.
WorleyParsons Komex (2006). Groundwater Field Investigation – Proposed Sturgeon Upgrader. Report prepared for Petro-Canada Oil Sands Inc. November 2006.
11.10.2 Internet Sites Alberta Environment. 2006. Alberta Environment Groundwater Information System (Water Well