Well

Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Program
2013 Annual Report

A Report Issued Under Terms and Conditions of Water Licence S03LI-001
Submitted to the Sahtu Land and Water Board by Imperial Oil Resources NWT Limited
September 2014
Table of Contents
Tables within Text .......................................................................................................... iii
Photographs within Text ................................................................................................. iii
Tables ............................................................................................................................ iv
Figures ........................................................................................................................... iv
Appendices .................................................................................................................... iv
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Objective ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Report Content and Format............................................................................... 1
2.0 Occupational Health and Safety............................................................................ 2
3.0 Remediation Criteria ............................................................................................. 3
3.1 General ............................................................................................................. 3
3.2 Background Conditions ..................................................................................... 6
4.0 Abandonment and Restoration Activities .............................................................. 7
5.0 Mainland East ..................................................................................................... 11
5.1 Refinery .......................................................................................................... 11
5.1.1 Soil and Groundwat er Remediation Program........................................ 13
5.1.2 Phase II Environment al Site Assessment ........................................... 15
5.1.3 Groundwater Monitoring Program ............................................................ 16
5.2 B-42X Well Site ............................................................................................... 17
5.3 B-38X Well Site ............................................................................................... 17
5.3.1 2013 Status Update ................................................................................. 17
5.3.2 In Situ Soil and Groundwater Remediation ............................................... 18
5.3.3 Groundwater Monitoring Program ............................................................ 19
5.4 Mainland Tank Farm ....................................................................................... 20
5.5 Former A-45X Well Site – Town Lease ........................................................... 21
5.6 Background/Control Point Locations (MEBG).................................................. 22
6.0 Mainland Central ................................................................................................ 23
6.1 Battery #3 ....................................................................................................... 23
6.1.1 Battery #3 Flare Pit (BT3)......................................................................... 24
6.2 Bosworth Creek and Bosworth Delta Area ...................................................... 24
6.3 B-30X Well Site ............................................................................................... 26
6.4 Tank 401 Area ................................................................................................ 27
6.5 Tank 53 Area .................................................................................................. 28
6.6 Background/Control Point Locations (MCBG) ................................................. 29
6.7 Biocell, ARB, and B-33X Area ......................................................................... 29
6.8 Biocell Operation in 2013 ..................................................................................... 31
7.0 Mainland West .................................................................................................... 33
7.1 E-27X Well Site ............................................................................................... 33
7.2 F-28X Well Site ............................................................................................... 34
7.3 Mainland West Background Locations (MWBG) .............................................. 34
8.0 Sumps ................................................................................................................ 35
8.1 Mainland Sumps ............................................................................................. 35
8.2 Cemetery Sump .............................................................................................. 39
8.3 C-27X Sump ................................................................................................... 41
9.0 Bear Island ......................................................................................................... 42
9.1 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment ........................................................ 42
9.2 Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling and Surface Water Sampling ............. 43
9.2.1 Bear Island East Sump ............................................................................ 43
9.2.3 Bear Island East – Other Sites ................................................................. 43
2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page i

9.2.4 Bear Island West Sumps .......................................................................... 43
9.2.5 Bear Island West – Other Sites ................................................................ 45
9.3 Remedial Action Plans .................................................................................... 46
9.3.1 Q-Pad Area Former Tank Farm (BIBT1) .................................................. 46
9.3.2 Bear Island Flare Pit (BIFP) ..................................................................... 46
10.0 Goose and Frenchy’s Islands ............................................................................. 48
11.0 Research and Other Initiatives ............................................................................ 49
11.1 Plant Eco-Toxicity Testing ............................................................................... 49
11.2 Invertebrate Eco-Toxicity Testing .................................................................... 50
11.3 Thermistor Installations ................................................................................... 51
12.0 2014 A&R Program............................................................................................. 53
2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page ii

Tables within Text
Table A CCME Environmental Quality Guidelines Summary ................................................... 5
Table B Summary of Abandoned Facilities ............................................................................... 7
Table C Summary of Actively Monitored Piezometers ............................................................ 10
Table D Refinery Bank Remediation System Fluids Recovered ............................................. 13
Table E B-38X Remediation System Fluids Recovered ......................................................... 18
Photographs within Text

Photo 1 Refinery Bank Soil & Groundwater Characterization ................................................ 12
Photo 2 Refinery Bank Gathering Systems Before & After Upgrades .................................... 14
Photo 3 B-38X DPE Remediation Area West of Mainland Tank Farm ................................... 19
Photo 4 Remediation Activities at Former A-45X Wellsite After Backfill ................................. 22
Photo 5 Closure Monitoring at Tank 401 area ........................................................................ 28
Photo 6 Closure Monitoring at Tank 53 area .......................................................................... 28
Photo 7 Base of Remedial Excavation in ARB Area South of Biocell..................................... 30
Photo 8 Sump Capping Activity at North End of Mainland Sumps ......................................... 36
Photo 9 Closure Monitoring at Cemetery Sump ..................................................................... 40
Photo 10 Bear Island Sump # 2 ................................................................................................ 45
Photo 11 Installation of Thermistor MLS-13-7 and Internal Data Logger ................................. 52
2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page iii
Tables
Table 1 Soil Analytical Results: General and Salinity
Table 2 Soil Analytical Results: Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC)
Table 3 Soil Analytical Results: Metals and Trace Elements
Table 4 Monitoring Well Datum and Groundwater Surface Elevations
Table 5 Water Analytical Results: Field Measurements
Table 6 Water Analytical Results: Indicators and Nitrogen Parameters
Table 7 Water Analytical Results : Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Phenols
Table 8 Water Analytical Results: Dissolved Metals and Trace Elements
Table 9 Water Analytical Results : Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Site Work Areas
Figure 3A Mainland East and Mainland Sumps
Figure 3B Former Refinery Area
Figure 4 B-38X Area
Figure 5 Town Lease Locations
Figure 6 Mainland Central Area
Figure 7 Mainland West Area
Figure 8 Bear and Frenchy’s Islands
Figure 9 Goose Island
Appendices
Appendix A Background Conditions
Appendix B Determination of Soil Geochemical Background and Glossary of Soil
Quality Parameters
Appendix C Determination of Groundwater Geochemical Background and Glossary of
Groundwater Quality Parameters
Appendix D Norman Wells A&R Work Areas Summary
Appendix E List of Acronyms, Abbreviations and Definitions
2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page iv

1.0 Introduction
This report has been prepared to meet condition Part H, Section 6 of Norman Wells
Water License S03L1-001 and to provide the Sahtu Land and Water Board (SLWB) with
a status update of abandonment and restoration activities at the Imperial Oil Resources
(IOR) Norman Wells site, as indicated on Figure 1. Abandonment and Restoration
activities at the Site are managed by Imperial Oil Environmental Services (IOES).
1.1 Objective
The objectives of the Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration (A&R) Program
Annual Report are threefold:
• to provide the SLWB with a status update of the overall A&R program;
• to help regulatory inspectors assess alignment of A&R activities with commitments
made in A&R plans previously approved by the SLWB; and
• by addressing the above two objectives, to meet the Terms and Conditions
(Part H, Section 6) of the Norman Wells Water Licence SO3L1-001 to provide
such information.
1.2 Report Content and Format

The 2013 Annual A&R Report provides details of A&R work completed by IOES in
Norman Wells. The format of the 2013 report is consistent with the August 2012 report,
in accordance with the needs and specifications of the SLWB. Work completed to date is
summarized in table format in this document. The annual report provides a summary of
the work completed in 2013. Historical information can be found in previously submitted
annual reports.
Consistent with the modified 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 report formats, this 2013 report
also includes:
• larger scale figures illustrating soil sampling locations and monitoring well
installations drilled from 2008 through 2013 over the entire Norman Wells lease
area. Note that borehole, monitoring well and remediation well locations drilled
prior to 2008 are not shown on these figures; and
• tables summarizing the soil and water laboratory analytical data from
environmental site assessment (ESA) activities undertaken in 2013. Tables 1 to 3
summarize soil quality analytical results, while Tables 4 to 9 provide 2013 data for
groundwater and surface water analytical results.
2012 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 1

2.0 Occupational Health and Safety
IOES has a formal occupational health management system in place for all work
completed at the IOR lease in Norman Wells. Specifics of this management system are
not discussed in this report. This section is intended to identify situations that are
periodically encountered during abandonment and restoration activities, but are not
normally encountered in the context of typical IOES work at the site, such as:
• asbestos;
• lead;
• PCBs; and
• mercury.
The management and removal of these materials has been described in previous
reports. None of these materials were encountered in the 2013 work program.
In addition to the above noted special materials management requirements, IOES
applies a comprehensive set of occupational health and safety standards, protocols and
procedures to every task undertaken at the Norman Wells site. Of particular note are the
extensive ground disturbance procedures that are undertaken prior to conducting any
intrusive drilling or excavation activities associated with the A&R program. All lead
project personnel are trained and certified in ground disturbance procedures and each
ground penetration location is typically surveyed and cleared by two independent survey
companies, to ensure all underground infrastructures within 30 m of the work area have
been identified and clearly marked. Where necessary, infrastructure is exposed to
confirm locations before drilling or excavation is initiated.

3.0 Remediation Criteria
3.1 General
IOES has proposed that clean-up criteria for the Norman Wells site be consistent with
established Canada-wide standards as defined by the Canadian Council of Ministers of
the Environment (CCME). Given the northern setting of Norman Wells and certain
unique aspects of the site (discontinuous permafrost, presence of natural oil seeps), the
CCME concept of risk-based closure is deemed to represent the most appropriate
clean-up standard for the Norman Wells A&R program.
The above recommendation for adherence to CCME risk-based standards is proposed
for all A&R sites addressed elsewhere in this report. Any reference to guidelines in this
document refers to CCME standards, unless otherwise identified.
For the purposes of this report and as interim remediation targets, analytical results are
compared to existing contaminated site assessment and remediation criteria, as well as
background soil and water conditions. Relevant background information related to
natural seeps is located in Appendix A, while background geochemical parameters are
described in Appendix B (soil) and C (groundwater). Any reference in this report to
background conditions is described below or in these appendices.
The Government of the Northwest Territories (NT) has adopted the soil criteria
established by the CCME (1999 and updates), which are based on specific land uses
(agricultural, residential/parkland, commercial and industrial). However, the NT
Contaminated Site Guidelines were published in 2003, CCME has subsequently revised
and updated numerous guidelines for soil and water quality. Consequently, current
CCME Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (CEQG) are considered appropriate.
Soil analytical results have been compared to the CCME CEQG Soil Quality Guidelines
for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health and to the CCME Canada-wide
Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil (PHC F1 to F4 only). Appropriate
land uses under the CCME framework have been applied as follows:
• for comparison of soil analytical data from A&R work conducted on the mainland
portion of the Norman Wells lease, CCME CEQG guidelines for industrial land use
have been adopted; and
• for comparison of soil analytical for A&R activities on Bear and Goose Islands as
well as some in Town sites, CCME residential/parkland guidelines are more
consistent with the expected end land use.
At present, no specific groundwater quality guidelines exist for the NT. As a conservative
measure, groundwater and surface water quality assessment parameters in this report
and the A&R program in general are compared to the CCME Freshwater Aquatic Life
(FWAL) guidelines as well as background groundwater quality conditions where
available. It is important to note that exceedances of the CCME FWAL values do not
necessarily indicate a facility-related source, and may reflect natural conditions.

The appropriate interim guidelines are presented in the soil and water quality analytical
Tables 1 through 9 included in this report.
In the groundwater geochemical background tables (Appendix C), additional water
quality guidelines are listed for comparison purposes. These are the Federal Interim
Groundwater Quality Guidelines (2010), for Residential/Parkland land use, with the
marine life pathway eliminated since it is not applicable at Norman Wells.
The following table (Table A) summarizes selected CCME guidelines for Industrial
and/or Residential/Parkland land use (primary parameters only), currently being used as
reference points for soil and water quality assessment unless established background
conditions exceed the CCME standards. The Federal Interim Groundwater Quality
Guidelines (2010) are not included in this table.
The CCME FWAL water quality guidelines for a number of trace metals vary depending
on the pH and total hardness of the water (see footnotes of Table 9). For the purpose of
selecting appropriate guidelines for comparison to Norman Wells water samples, the pH
value is considered greater than 6.5, and the total hardness as calcium carbonate
(CaCO3) is greater than 180 mg/L (very hard water). The 95th percentile value for
groundwater samples from background locations was as follows:
• surficial sediments on mainland, pH of 7.1 and hardness of 1345 mg/L;
• surficial sediments on islands, pH of 7.2 and hardness of 1681 mg/L; and
• shallow bedrock, pH of 7.8 and hardness of 254 mg/L.
Details of the background wells and calculated background geochemistry for the three
distinct hydrogeological units listed above are described further in Appendix C.

Table A CCME Environmental Quality Guidelines Summary
Parameter Industrial Land Use Residential/Parkland Land Use
Soil Water Soil Water

pH 6-8 6.5-9 6-8 6.5-9
EC 4 dS/m --- 2 dS/m ---
Chloride --- 120 mg/L --- 120 mg/L
SAR 12 --- 5 ---
Nitrate as N --- 2.9 mg/L --- 2.9 mg/L
Nitrite as N --- 0.06 mg/L --- 0.06 mg/L
Benzene 0.28 mg/kg 0.37 mg/L 0.21 mg/kg 0.37 mg/L
Toluene 330 mg/kg 0.002 mg/L 110 mg/kg 0.002 mg/L
Ethylbenzene 430 mg/kg 0.09 mg/L 120 mg/kg 0.09 mg/L
Total Xylenes 230 mg/kg --- 65 mg/kg ---
PHC F1 320 mg/kg --- 210 mg/kg ---
PHC F2 260 mg/kg --- 150 mg/kg ---
PHC F3 2,500 mg/kg --- 1,300 mg/kg ---
PHC F4 6,600 mg/kg --- 5,600 mg/kg ---
Phenols --- 0.004 mg/L --- 0.004 mg/L
Aluminum --- 0.1 mg/L --- 0.1 mg/L
Arsenic 12 mg/kg 0.005 mg/L 12 mg/kg 0.005 mg/L
Barium 2,000 mg/kg --- 500 mg/kg ---
Boron --- 1.5 mg/L --- 1.5 mg/L
Cadmium 22 mg/kg 0.00031 mg/L 10 mg/kg 0.00031 mg/L
Chromium 87 mg/kg 0.0089 mg/L 64 mg/kg 0.0089 mg/L
Cobalt 300 mg/kg --- 50 mg/kg ---
Copper 91 mg/kg 0.004 mg/L 63 mg/kg 0.004 mg/L
Iron --- 0.3 mg/L --- 0.3 mg/L
Lead 600 mg/kg 0.007 mg/L 140 mg/kg 0.007 mg/L
Mercury 50 mg/kg 0.000026 mg/L 6.6 mg/kg 0.000026 mg/L
Molybdenum 40 mg/kg 0.073 mg/L 10 mg/kg 0.073 mg/L
Nickel 50 mg/kg 0.15 mg/L 50 mg/kg 0.15 mg/L
Selenium 2.9 mg/kg 0.001 mg/L 1 mg/kg 0.001 mg/L
Silver --- 0.0001 mg/L --- 0.0001 mg/L
Thallium 1 mg/kg 0.0008 mg/L 1 mg/kg 0.0008 mg/L
Vanadium 130 mg/kg --- 130 mg/kg ---
Uranium --- 0.015 mg/L --- 0.015 mg/L
Zinc 360 mg/kg 0.03 mg/L 200 mg/kg 0.03 mg/L

3.2 Background Conditions
The CCME environmental quality guidelines summarized in Table A above have been
used to screen site-specific data being collected at the Norman Wells site, unless
background conditions for soil or water indicate that the guideline values are not
appropriate or representative of actual site conditions. Background information collected
to date is further described in Appendices A, B and C of this document. Background soil
or water parameter values, which exceed the above noted CCME guidelines, are
indicated and rationalized in Appendices B and C. The reported background values or
ranges are assumed to supersede the corresponding CCME guideline unless stated
otherwise.
Each year additional water samples are collected from selected background locations
and added to the database. Results are reported in the attached data tables. The
statistical background values for groundwater first calculated in early 2013, and provided
in Appendix C, remain unchanged from the 2012 report. As additional data is compiled,
the information will be periodically reviewed to determine whether the statistical
background data requires updating.

4.0 Abandonment and Restoration Activities
The following sections detail the 2013 A&R Program. A brief description and summary of
work completed prior to and during 2013 is provided for each sub-area on the Norman
Wells site. Portions of the site that did not have work done as part of the 2013 program
have been omitted from this annual report but are included in the summary table in
Appendix D. The primary Norman Wells site areas are illustrated on Figure 2.
The summary table in Appendix D outlines the start date and current status of various
A&R activities undertaken at each Norman Wells sub-area between 1996 and present
day.
In accordance with the Water Licence terms and conditions (Part H, items), the following
table (Table B) lists abandoned well heads and sumps, their current status and planned
mitigation.
Table B Summary of Abandoned Facilities

Well/Sump Location Current Status Planned Mitigation
Identifier
Well A-45X Mainland Well abandoned, cut and Minor delineation and
East capped in 2009, excavation work planned
infrastructure removed, for 2014-2015. Preparation
remediation of impacted to close out lease and
soil to Residential/Parkland return property to
guidelines undertaken in productive use
2010 and 2012. Phase 2
ESA with additional
delineation completed in
2013. Remedial excavation
completed in 2013.
Refinery Bank Mainland Ongoing remediation Continued remediation
East activities. Phase 2 ESA with activities. Continued
additional delineation groundwater monitoring
completed in 2013.
Mechanical upgrades to
remedial systems ongoing.
Well B-30X Mainland Well cut and capped in Restoration as required to

Central 2012, above-ground meet CCME Industrial Land
infrastructure was removed; Use Standards
Phase 2 ESA was
completed with additional
delineation in 2013.

Identifier
Well B-33X Mainland Well abandoned in 2009. Restoration as required to

Central Above-ground infrastructure meet CCME Industrial Land
was removed in 2010, and Use standards
Phase 2 ESA was
completed. Remedial
excavation initiated in 2013.
Well B-35X Mainland Well cut and capped in Restoration as required to
Central 2012, above-ground meet CCME Industrial Land
infrastructure was removed; Use Standards
Phase 2 ESA was
completed.
Well Services Mainland Discontinued, remediated, Continued groundwater and
Sump Sumps restored as of 2009, Phase vegetation monitoring
Area 2 ESA complete.
Mainland Mainland Discontinued, contained Continued groundwater and
Drilling Sump Sumps and capped with surface vegetation monitoring,
Area restoration as of 2009, development of long term
Phase 2 ESA complete. management strategy
Mainland Mainland Discontinued and capped. Continued groundwater and
Sumps A to F Sumps Phase 2 ESA nearly vegetation monitoring,
Area complete, some data gaps development of long term
to be addressed in 2013/14. management strategy for
additional sumps in the
area. Most northerly sump
fluids to be removed and
depression backfilled to
grade with clean soil.
Further capping and re-
contouring to be completed
in 2014 on additional
sump.
Cemetery Mainland Discontinued and capped, Continued groundwater and
Sump West screening level risk vegetation monitoring,
assessment complete. development of long term
Surface restoration as of management strategy
2010, Phase 2 ESA
complete. Cap upgrade and
recontouring in 2013 to
address minor settling.

Identifier
C-27X Sump Mainland Discontinued and capped Additional Phase 2 ESA to

West address some data gaps.
Continued groundwater and
vegetation monitoring,
development of long term
management strategy
Bear Island Bear Discontinued and capped Additional Phase 2 ESA to
Sumps 1 – 6 Island address some data gaps.
Continued groundwater and
vegetation monitoring,
development of long term
management strategy
Bear Island Bear Phase 2 ESA complete, Remedial excavation.
Flare Pit Island remedial action plan Restoration as required to
prepared. meet CCME Parkland
Standards
Bear Island Bear Well abandoned, cut and Continued groundwater and
Well #1 Island capped. Phase 2 ESA vegetation monitoring.
completed in 2012 followed
by remedial soil excavation
around wellhead. Site
recontoured in 2012/13.
The following table (Table C) summarizes the active piezometers in each of the Norman
Wells areas current to August 2013. These piezometers constitute part of the monitoring
program for areas where abandonment and restoration activities have occurred, are
ongoing or are anticipated to occur.
Phase 2 ESA drilling during 2013 included 49 shallow soil boreholes, 36 of which were
completed as new shallow groundwater monitoring wells and seven as Thermistor
locations. Drilling focused on areas where data gaps had been identified from previous
investigations.
It should be noted that due to the significant ice scouring effects on the Mackenzie River
shoreline during spring ice breakup, piezometers installed within 100 m of the river may
be subject to damage or destruction each year. The exact number of piezometers
monitored, therefore, may change from year to year.

Table C Summary of Actively Monitored Piezometers
Monitoring Area1 Actively Monitored Wells
Overburden Bedrock Total1

Former Refinery 24 28 52
Mainland East (excl. Refinery) 53 2 55
Mainland Central 38 6 44
Mainland West 24 5 29
Mainland Sumps 25 0 25
Bear Island 48 0 48
Goose Island 15 0 15
Totals 227 41 268
1
Notes: Totals include both A&R and Operations monitoring wells, but excludes remedial extraction wells.
In addition to the above-noted groundwater monitoring program, individual areas are

being monitored for physical stability (visual inspection for backfill settlement) and
re-vegetation success following surface reclamation activities. This monitoring is
currently occurring at the following areas:
• former reduced crude flare pit;
• former well services sump;
• former mainland drilling sump;
• former B-38X buried pit;
• former Tank 53 area;
• former cemetery sump; and
• former Tank 401 area.
These areas are discussed in more detail in Sections 5, 6 and 8 of this document.

5.0 Mainland East
The Mainland East area on the Norman Wells lease includes the land area bounded by
the Town of Norman Wells on the east, the former Battery #3 site to the west, the
Mackenzie River to the south, and the site access ring road to the north (Figure 3A).
Geophysical surveys to assess terrain conductivity related to potential saline shallow
groundwater or buried metal, soil and/or groundwater sampling activities and thermistor
installation for the assessment of shallow permafrost conditions were conducted at the
following Mainland East target areas in 2013:
• Refinery:
− Refinery Bank; and
− Former Reduced Crude Flare Pit (RCFP).
• B-42X Well Site;
• B-38X Well Site:
− Former Fire Training Area (FTA);
− Land Terminal #7 (LT7) area; and
− East of B-38X well.
• Mainland Tank Farm;
• Town Sites (A45X Well Site); and
• Cemetery Sumps.
The following subsections provide summaries for areas where A&R activities were
undertaken in 2013.
5.1 Refinery
The Norman Wells Refinery was located on the north bank of the Mackenzie River on
the east side of the Norman Wells lease area (Figure 3B). It began operation in 1921,
processing crude oil from the Norman Wells oilfield until May of 1996 when IOR
announced that the facility would close. The Phase I and Phase II ESA A&R Plans for
the facility were submitted by IOR in 1998 and 1999, respectively and approved by the
SLWB in 2001. Initial A&R work on the Refinery site began in 1996 with
decommissioning and dismantling activities, followed by environmental assessment,
characterization and development of a remediation and reclamation plan. In 2002, soil
remediation activities were initiated. In 2003, an in situ groundwater containment and
hydrocarbon remediation system was commissioned on the Refinery Bank.
The 2013 A&R program for the former Refinery site included the following activities:
• continuation of in situ groundwater containment and remediation systems at the
Refinery Bank area;

• design changes were implemented in 2012 and 2013 to improve performance of
the remedial systems, with additional optimization to be completed in 2014;
• annual groundwater and surface water monitoring program;
• characterization of current soil and groundwater conditions at the in situ
remediation area on the Refinery Bank; and
• on-going surface restoration/monitoring activities at the former RCFP.
Photo 1 Refinery Bank Soil & Groundwater Characterization
The 2013 Phase 2 ESA investigation focused on the Refinery Bank area, to characterize
and monitor current soil and groundwater conditions down-gradient from the in-situ
remediation system. Results of the drilling investigations in this area are provided below
in Section 5.1.2.
Additional bedrock monitoring wells installed in 2009 on the upper Refinery Bank
indicated that facility-related hydrocarbon impacts are now effectively delineated to the
north. Guideline exceedances of nitrogen species, arsenic, cadmium, copper, selenium
and phenols confirmed from sampling deeper groundwater were consistent with
background conditions. Wells monitored for groundwater chemistry in this area in 2010
and 2011 effectively delineated dissolved hydrocarbon impacts on the perimeter of the
free product hydrocarbon distribution on the Refinery Bank.
Liquid hydrocarbons consisting of both refined light-end free product and
naturally-occurring crude oil seepage are present on the Refinery Bank. A total of
26 monitoring and remediation wells in this area contained free product hydrocarbon
during the 2012 and 2013 programs.

An active groundwater containment and remediation system has been operational in this
area since 2003. An extensive network of wells is used to monitor the effectiveness of
this system.
5.1.1 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Program

Design of the Refinery Bank in situ remediation system is based on a combination of
groundwater pumping in three wells and multiphase extraction (MPE) in an adjacent
network of seven wells. The remedial goals are hydraulic plume containment by
groundwater pumping and bulk hydrocarbon mass removal with the MPE system.
Monitoring data indicate effective plume capture by the pumping system. The MPE
system has also been effective for hydrocarbon removal purposes. Total groundwater
removed annually since pumping system initiation is listed in the table below, along with
hydrocarbon mass removal estimates.
Table D Refinery Bank Remediation System Fluids Recovered

Year Total Fluids Recovered, Hydrocarbon Mass Removed
Groundwater (in Kilograms)
(in Kilograms or Litres)
2001 pilots 163,000 1,465

2002 pilots 184,000 3,340
2003 8,597,000 3
2004 8,914,000 6,074
2005 8,156,000 17,952
2006 6,543,000 2,251
2007 8,114,000 5,217
2008 6,396,000 3
2009 4,727,000 2,125
2010 3,230,000 792
2011 1,113,000 1,522
2012 3,061,000 1,896
2013 7,775,500 878
Activity related to the Refinery Bank remediation area during 2013 included
measurement of fluid levels in wells (groundwater depth and hydrocarbon thickness,
where present), lab analysis of hydrocarbon vapours in gas samples from the MPE off
gas, and water sampling for lab analysis from the submersible pump effluent.
A number of repairs, upgrades, and modifications to the groundwater pumping system
were undertaken during 2012 and 2013. These included resolution of instrumentation,
software, and hardware problems. Due primarily to heating and pipe insulation problems,

it previously was not feasible to operate the pumping system during the winter months
from January 2009 to March 2013. Warm weather operation was also frequently
interrupted by unscheduled downtime due to instrumentation issues and equipment
damage due to previous freezing events. Extensive pipe, insulation, and heat trace
upgrades were undertaken between October 2012 and March 2013. During the
recommissioning process the controlling software and operating procedures were
modified to resolve a number of issues. Year-round operation of the groundwater
pumping system resumed from March 22, 2013, when the groundwater pumping system
was re-commissioned.
Photo 2 Refinery Bank Gathering Systems Before & After Upgrades

The pumping system operated for 259 of 275 available days after recommissioning, from
late March to end of December 2013. The mean flow rate was 29.9 m3 per day
(20.8 L/min) of groundwater extracted on average.
The MPE system extracted hydrocarbon vapours periodically for a total of 15 days
between July and September 2013. MPE runtime was limited during 2013 compared to
previous years, due to the repairs and modifications to the adjacent pumping system
which were ongoing concurrently. An estimated 43,388 kg of hydrocarbons (equivalent
to 56.4 m3 of hydrocarbon liquids) have been removed by MPE over the past 13 years,
since remedial pilot tests were undertaken near the Former Refinery in 2001.
Since the higher-priority groundwater pumping system optimization is nearing
completion, additional design optimization, repairs, hardware and software modifications
to the MPE system are planned for 2014 and 2015. This work should result in more
consistent seasonal MPE operation by summer 2015, and improved hydrocarbon
recovery rates from the remaining wells that still contain refined LNAPL in the area.
A number of shallow bedrock monitoring wells that previously contained refined
hydrocarbon LNAPL prior to implementation of the MPE system contained little or no
measurable LNAPL during the 2011, 2012 and 2013 programs. This trend is particularly
apparent in wells located on the southern half of the remediation area, closer to the river,
including wells RB-RW-3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, and RB-OBS32. Other monitoring wells
formerly located lower on the Refinery Bank (NWR-99-22-4 and NWR-01-33-4)
demonstrated a similar downward trend in LNAPL thickness prior to being destroyed by
rafted ice over the past several years.
None of the 8 new shallow monitoring wells (RB-13 series, Table 4) installed during
2013 on the mud flats down-gradient of the MPE remediation area has exhibited any
measurable LNAPL thickness to date. Sampling results at these new wells are
discussed further below.
5.1.2 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment

A Phase II ESA was completed in 2013 to further characterize soil and groundwater
conditions in the Refinery Bank area, particularly on the grassy mud flats adjacent to the
Mackenzie River. Six boreholes were completed with a drill rig as monitoring wells, while
a further two monitoring wells were installed manually using the drivepoint method. No
soil samples were collected for the two drivepoint holes. Soil samples from the 6 drilled
boreholes were analyzed for inorganic parameters, petroleum hydrocarbon parameters,
metals and grain size. The 2013 soil sampling results for RB-13 series samples (Tables
1 to 3) are summarized as follows:
• the majority of the soil samples were characterized as fine-grained;
• at least one soil sample collected from each borehole location had pH and/or
sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) values outside of the guideline range (pH) or above
the guideline value (SAR);
• at least one soil sample collected from each borehole location had measurable
PHC concentrations, including benzene, PHC F1, PHC F2, PHC F3 and/or PHC
F4, above guideline values;

• soil samples collected from four borehole locations had metal concentrations,
including arsenic (As), nickel (Ni) and/or thallium (Th), above guideline values;
and,
• the presence of natural hydrocarbon and saline water seeps in the area
complicates the interpretation of background versus facility-related hydrocarbon,
salts and metals values in local soils. However, some of the hydrocarbon values
are characteristic of a refined hydrocarbon source (i.e. soil borehole RB-13-1 from
well location RB-13-1-2.4).
Borehole and monitoring well locations are shown on Figure 3B, while analytical results
are presented in Tables 1 through 3.
5.1.3 Groundwater Monitoring Program

The monitoring well network and analytical schedule were further refined in 2013. The
annual groundwater monitoring program is primarily focused on groundwater sampling
for laboratory analyses and field parameter measurements. The 2013 groundwater
sampling results are summarized as follow.
• currently, 18 monitoring wells are included in the annual groundwater program in
the Former Refinery area (NWR and RB series wells in Table 4), excluding the
remediation system extraction and observation wells discussed above. This
includes an additional eight new monitoring wells which were installed and
sampled in 2013.
• Three wells out of the 18 scheduled for monitoring could not be sampled because
they contained free-phase hydrocarbons;
• groundwater flow is inferred to be generally southward towards the Mackenzie
River. Three active groundwater pumping wells for remediation purposes locally
alter hydraulic gradients and flow direction immediately north of the fuel loading
dock;
• reported chloride values exceeded the FWAL guideline at 11 monitoring locations,
but remained within the expected background range for shallow bedrock
groundwater (see Table 6 for data and a summary of background values). All of
the wells in question are completed with well screens either in bedrock or
immediately above the top of bedrock;
• The Refinery Bank area is well documented as an area of natural crude oil and
saline water seepage. As such, the observed chloride in groundwater is inferred to
be primarily from natural upward seepage of deeper saline groundwater;
• five bedrock monitoring wells returned total phenols concentrations in excess of
the FWAL guideline in 2013, of which one exceeded the expected background
range;
• dissolved metals and trace metals exceeding FWAL guidelines within the Former
Refinery area in 2013 included arsenic (As) and selenium (Se). The observed
values are primarily attributed to natural background seepage from shallow
bedrock;

• one or more dissolved benzene, toluene and ethylbenzene (BTE) compounds
exceeding FWAL criteria were noted at four monitoring wells in 2013 (Table 7).
The observed values are attributed to a combination of natural background
seepage and refined hydrocarbons;
• the eight newly installed monitoring wells were sampled for polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Table 9. Exceedances of the FWAL guidelines included
fluoranthene, phenanthrene, pyrene and naphthalene. An exceedance of one or
more of these compounds was found in samples from six monitoring wells. Since
data characterizing PAH’s at the site is relatively sparse, it is unclear whether the
observed values are due to natural background seepage.
5.2 B-42X Well Site

2013 A&R activities around the B-42X Well Site included an EM survey prior to an
anticipated well cut and cap.
Background terrain conductivity values for the site range between 5 mS/m and 15 mS/m.
Elevated terrain conductivity is considered to be values exceeding 50 mS/m. Three
elevated terrain conductivity features were identified on the site, and appear to be
associated with site infrastructure (i.e. the above ground pipeline and fence).
5.3 B-38X Well Site

The B-38X well site is located approximately 200 m north of the former Refinery. The
B-38X area collectively encompasses the B-38X well, the former Fire Training Area
(FTA), a buried pit, and the LT7 Satellite building (Figure 4).
Historical air photos and files indicate that this area was also the site of several large
storage tanks (pre-1975). The B-38X well was one of the first wells drilled in Norman
Wells; it produced from 1942 to 1957, when it was converted to a naphtha injection well.
The B-38X well is currently an oil-producing well and is no longer used for injection
purposes.
Initial assessment work on the B-38X site began in 1997 with environmental assessment
and characterization, followed by development of a remediation and reclamation plan. In
2004, an in situ soil and groundwater treatment system (Dual Phase Extraction or DPE)
was commissioned to the east of the B-38X well.
5.3.1 2013 Status Update

The 2013 A&R program for the B-38X site included the following activities:
• continuation of long term in situ soil and groundwater treatment with the DPE
system in place to the east of the B-38X well and near the former FTA;
• ongoing surface restoration activities (vegetation monitoring, recontouring and
filling of areas where soil settling/subsidence has occurred) at the former buried pit
site to the west of the B-38X well; and
• annual groundwater and surface water monitoring program.
Results of these programs are summarized below.

5.3.2 In Situ Soil and Groundwater Remediation
Shallow groundwater in the vicinity of B-38X is interpreted to be a hydraulically active
zone perched on top of the discontinuous permafrost. Hydrocarbon impacts are
predominantly volatile light-end hydrocarbons from ground surface to about 5 mbgs,
covering an area of about 35,000 m2. The DPE system recovers hydrocarbons in
groundwater and vapours from a network of 30 trenches covering the B-38X well site,
the former FTA, and the LT7 Satellite area southwest of the Mainland Tank Farm. This
remediation system has been operated seasonally each summer since 2004. Total fluids
recovered and an estimate of hydrocarbon mass removed annually since system
initiation are listed in Table E below.
Table E B-38X Remediation System Fluids Recovered

Year Total Fluids Recovered, Hydrocarbon Mass Removed
Groundwater (in Kilograms)
(in Kilograms or Litres)
2004 400,000 2,911

2005 553,000 7,313
2006 1,480,000 1,926
2007 1,043,000 7,856
2008 489,000 2,964
2009 1,941,000 2,674
2010 2,677,000 5,417
2011 3,056,000 6,319
2012 2,462,000 15,994
2013 92,300 1,648
Activity related to the B-38X and FTA area remediation systems during 2013 included
measurement of fluid levels in wells (groundwater depth and hydrocarbon thickness,
where present), lab analysis of hydrocarbon vapours in gas samples from the DPE off
gas, and water sampling for lab analysis from the diaphragm pump effluent.
The dewatering pumps and DPE blower operated periodically for a period of 40 days
from July to October 2013. The run time and hydrocarbon mass removal totals were
limited due to software issues and equipment problems, particularly related to a faulty air
compressor. Engineering re-design of these components is ongoing, while repairs and
enhancements to the systems will be in place by fall 2014.
Over 55,000 kg of hydrocarbon, equivalent to more than 71.5 m3 of hydrocarbon LNAPL,
has been recovered by the DPE in-situ remediation system to date.

Photo 3 B-38X DPE Remediation Area West of Mainland Tank Farm
Ex-situ soil remediation work has previously been completed nearby in soils not suitable
for in-situ treatment. In 2007, an estimated 2,000 m3 of hydrocarbon impacted soil was
excavated from the B-38X buried pit area located 150 m west of 8-bay. The impacted
soil was transported to an on-site biocell for treatment. This soil was subsequently
tracked and re-used as industrial fill material on site.
5.3.3 Groundwater Monitoring Program

Seventeen monitoring wells were included in the 2013 groundwater analytical program
for this area (B38 and FTA series wells, Table 4). The results are summarized below.
B-38X Well Site and Buried Pit Area (B38)

• twelve monitoring wells are associated with the B-38X well site and buried pit
areas. Within this network, field measurements indicated that 5 of the wells
contained free-phase hydrocarbons in 2013, and two wells were dry and could
not be sampled;
• groundwater surface elevations indicate that groundwater flow is generally
southward towards the Mackenzie River. Groundwater flow in this vicinity occurs
seasonally within the active groundwater zone overlying permafrost. The
seasonally-active remediation system in the area is expected to decrease the
potential for lateral or vertical migration of impacted groundwater during the
summer months;

• groundwater from down-gradient perimeter well B38 02-17-3, located south of the
hydrocarbon remediation system trenches and north of the Former Refinery, has
been confirmed within the FWAL guidelines for BTE in the past. This location was
dry or frozen in 2013:
• measurable LNAPL thicknesses were identified in two wells near the former
buried B-38X pit (B38 00-27-7 and B38 03-39-5). Based on field observations
from when this pit was excavated in 2007, these hydrocarbons are attributed to
natural crude oil seepage from the underlying bedrock;
• reported concentrations of total phenols exceeded the FWAL guideline in all
sampled wells in 2013, two of which also exceeded the expected background
concentration; and
• in 2013, dissolved As, Cu, Fe and Se exceeded guidelines in one or more
monitoring wells. These concentrations generally also exceeded the applicable
background values.
Monitoring well locations are shown on Figure 4. Groundwater field measurements and
analytical results are presented in Table 4 through 8.
Fire Training Area (FTA)

• groundwater from five FTA-area wells was analyzed in 2013, returning
concentrations of benzene (all wells), toluene (all wells) and ethylbenzene (four
wells) that exceeded CCME FWAL criteria;
• two monitoring wells in the area returned concentrations of dissolved chloride
exceeding both the CCME FWAL criterion and the background concentration in
2013;
• groundwater flow is inferred to be generally south towards the Mackenzie River,
but seasonal water pumping from the remediation trenches is expected to
minimize the potential for lateral and vertical contaminant migration in local
groundwater.
5.4 Mainland Tank Farm

In 2013, two boreholes were completed south of the Mainland Tank Farm (MTF). Each
borehole was completed with thermistors as part of permafrost barrier evaluation along
the roadway. The results of the ESA at these boreholes are summarized below:
• The majority of samples submitted for grain-size analysis were determined to be
fine-grained;
• analytical results for all salinity parameters were below their respective guidelines
for all samples;
• concentrations of benzene, xylenes and PHC F1 to F4 exceeding the respective
applicable guidelines were found in soil samples taken from one borehole; and
• no temperature data was collected from the newly installed thermistors in 2013,
the first download was in early 2014 as discussed in Section 12.3.

5.5 Former A-45X Well Site – Town Lease
2013 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Four boreholes were advanced and completed as monitoring wells to further assess soil
and groundwater conditions for PHC and metal concentrations as identified in previous
investigations. The 2013 soil and groundwater sampling results are summarized as
follows:
• soil analytical results were compared to CCME guidelines for residential/parkland
land use based on the site’s location within the town. Fine-grained soil guidelines
have been applied based on grain-size analytical results from the 2013 investigation;
• concentrations of toluene in soil exceeded the applicable guideline in samples from
two borehole locations;
• SAR values in soil exceeded the applicable guideline in one soil sample; and
• concentrations of As in soil exceeded the applicable guideline in one soil sample
collected.
Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling

Four groundwater monitoring wells were included in the 2013 monitoring and sampling
program (A45 series wells in Table 4). Monitoring and sampling results are summarized
below:
• static water levels measured for the surficial sediments ranged from 0.23 mbgs to
0.81 mbgs. Preliminary groundwater surface elevations (from a single monitoring
event) suggest that the hydraulic gradient is generally southward towards the
Mackenzie River;
• all four monitoring wells returned total phenols concentrations which exceeded the
CCME FWAL guideline, three of which remained within the expected background
range;
• dissolved metals exceedences of the FWAL criteria included dissolved As, Cu and
Fe. Results were generally within range of expected background conditions; and
• no detectable benzene, toluene, or ethylbenzene in groundwater collected from the
four new wells.
Groundwater field measurements and analytical results are presented in Tables 4
through 8.
2013 Remediation Activities

Following the borehole program at A-45X, 15 test pits were completed at the site to
delineate boundaries for a remedial excavation. A summary of the 2013 remedial
activities is provided below:
• the testpit investigation indicated that contaminants of concern for the excavation
area included PHC F1, F2 and F3;

• a total of 80 m3 of impacted soil was removed during the remedial excavation and
placed in an on site biocell;
• confirmatory samples taken from the final excavation perimeter were below CCME
Residential/Parkland guidelines for all analyzed parameters with the exception of one
PHC F2 exceedance found at the south property boundary; and
• a liner was placed on the south property boundary and the excavation was backfilled
with clean material.
Further delineation of impacts and possible further remedial excavation is expected to

progress in 2014.
Photo 4 Remediation Activities at Former A-45X Wellsite After Backfill
5.6 Background/Control Point Locations (MEBG)

Several locations have been selected in the Mainland East area to provide data
representative of background conditions for soil and shallow groundwater. These
locations are abbreviated as MEBG (Mainland East Background). Other interpreted
background locations for the area are listed in Appendix C.
Two of the background locations (MEBG-12-1-3 and MEBG-12-2-3) have been dry or
frozen since installation. A single background well in Mainland East was sampled in
2013 (MEBG-10-1-3).

6.0 Mainland Central
The Mainland Central area on the Norman Wells lease includes the land area bounded
by Bosworth Creek and the barge dock area on the west, the former Battery #3 site to
the east, the Mackenzie River to the south and the site access ring road to the north
(Figure 6).
A&R work in 2013 included Phase II ESAs, groundwater and surface water sampling,
remedial excavations, recontouring, closure monitoring and preparation of remedial
action plans. A&R work was conducted at the following sub-areas in 2013:
• Battery #3;
• Bosworth Creek;
• Biocell;
• ARB and B-33X;
• B-30X Well Site;
• Background/Control Point Locations;
• Tank 401 Area; and
• Tank 53 Area.
undertaken in 2013.
6.1 Battery #3
The former Battery #3 site is located on the east side of Bosworth Creek, approximately
200 m north of the Mackenzie River. The Battery was operational from the 1940s until
circa 1990. A&R activities on the site started in 1997 with decommissioning and
dismantling, followed by detailed site characterization (geophysical surveys, soil and
groundwater investigations). The Battery #3 area includes a former flare pit area and a
former tank farm area.
The 2013 A&R activities included groundwater monitoring and sampling as summarized
below.
Groundwater Monitoring Program

The 2013 annual groundwater monitoring program focused on continued well network
and analytical schedule refinement, groundwater sampling for laboratory analyses and
field parameter measurements. The 2013 results are summarized as follows:
• in 2013, ten wells within the Battery #3 area were included in the groundwater
analytical schedule (BT3 series wells in Table 4). Two wells were dry, frozen or
contained insufficient water to sample. One well could not be sampled because it
contained free-phase hydrocarbons;

• groundwater surface elevations in the Battery #3 area indicate that groundwater flow
is generally westward towards Bosworth Creek;
• five sampled wells returned chloride concentrations exceeding the FWAL guidelines
in 2013. The chloride value at one well also exceeded the anticipated background
chloride concentration for shallow bedrock-hosted groundwater. This monitoring well
(BT3 99-23-13) is hydraulically down-gradient from a known source of salt impacts at
the Battery #3 flare pit;
• one monitoring well returned a concentration of dissolved nitrate which exceeded the
FWAL guideline as well as the expected background concentration for shallow
bedrock;
• dissolved metals and trace elements including Boron (B), Fe and Se exceeded
corresponding FWAL guidelines at one or more wells;
• none of the BT3 series wells sampled contained BTE compounds exceeding the
applicable guideline; and
• three wells in the Battery #3 area returned concentrations exceeding the FWAL
criterion for phenols, one of which also exceeded the expected background
concentration.

through 8.
6.1.1 Battery #3 Flare Pit (BT3)
A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) has been developed to address hydrocarbon, salinity and
metals impacts found in the Battery 3 Flare Pit area. The work is expected to commence
in 2015. It is anticipated that approximately 2100 m3 of impacted soil will be removed.
The soil is considered unsuitable for biotreatment and will require disposal at an
appropriate facility. Backfill with appropriate soils, surface reclamation and restoration
activities will commence once the excavation is complete.
The existing network of groundwater and surface water sampling locations around BT3
and the nearby (down-gradient) Bosworth Creek will continue to be analyzed as part of a
long term monitoring program to assess if remedial objectives have been met.
6.2 Bosworth Creek and Bosworth Delta Area

Bosworth Creek effectively bisects the IOR lease area from north to south, as illustrated
on Figure 6. The focus of Bosworth Creek A&R activities to date has been associated
with the removal of a weir formerly located underneath the lower Bosworth Creek bridge.
Since the weir removal in 2005 and the subsequent drop in creek water levels, the focus
has shifted to creek bed and bank restoration activities and characterization of current
surface water quality, as well as fisheries habitat assessment.
In 2009, the surface water quality monitoring program was initiated in Bosworth Creek.
In 2010, the fisheries habitat assessment was initiated in conjunction with the surface

water sampling program. In 2011, the surface water quality, fisheries habitat, and
benthic invertebrates monitoring activities were continued.
Surface restoration activities on the east Bosworth Creek bank have been in progress
since 2006, and included soil characterization, debris and impacted soil removal,
asbestos pipe wrap removal and erosion protection.
2013 A&R activities included advancing three boreholes using a hand auger method and
installation of drivepoint monitoring wells at these locations, groundwater sampling and
surface water sampling. A summary of the 2013 A&R activities is included below.
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment

Three boreholes were completed using a hand auger with three subsequent drivepoint
monitoring wells installed along the east shore of Bosworth Creek (BOS-DP-13 series in
Table 4). A fourth drivepoint location along the creek to the north was installed for IOR
Operations and will not be reviewed here. Soil samples collected were analyzed for
petroleum hydrocarbon parameters and compared to CCME Industrial guidelines for
fine-grained material. A summary of the soil analytical results is as follows:
• petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in soil exceeding the applicable guidelines

included PHC F1, F2 and F3; and
• inorganic parameter values in soil exceeding the applicable guidelines included EC,
SAR and pH.
Borehole and monitoring well locations are shown in Figure 6. Analytical results are
presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling and Surface Water Sampling

The majority of groundwater monitoring wells installed historically on the Bosworth Delta
and in the Bosworth Creek valley have been damaged or destroyed by seasonal ice
break-up within a few years, and many have been subsequently abandoned. New wells
installed in the area in 2013 include the aforementioned drive-point monitoring wells. A
summary of the groundwater and surface water analytical results is provided below:
• two monitoring wells, four drive-points and one surface water monitoring location
were included in the 2013 analytical schedule. Three wells were sampled (D34 and
BOS series in Table 4), while two of the target locations were destroyed, and one
was dry;
• historically, groundwater surface elevation contours indicated that groundwater flow
is generally southward towards the Mackenzie River or towards Bosworth Creek;
• three drive-points on the Bosworth Creek east bank returned concentrations of
dissolved chloride which exceeded both the FWAL guideline and the expected
background concentration for surficial sediments (Table 6). The elevated
concentrations of chloride are likely due, in part, to hydraulic connectivity with the
underlying shallow bedrock where natural chloride values on the order of 330 mg/L
are expected (refer to Appendix C background discussion). One location near the

Bosworth Creek bank situated down-gradient from the former Battery #3 flare pit
(BOS DP-13-2-1.35) contained salt and hydrocarbon impacted soil, and also
exhibited a chloride value in groundwater that exceeded the expected background;
• total phenols concentrations reported at all sampled groundwater and surface water
locations exceeded the FWAL guideline in 2013;
• dissolved Fe exceeded the FWAL guideline at two monitoring locations. Dissolved
Se exceeded the FWAL guideline at one monitoring location; and
• none of the Bosworth Creek valley wells contained BTE compounds exceeding the
applied criteria for gorundwater.

through 8.
6.3 B-30X Well Site

Geophysical surveys (EM 38, 31 and 61) were completed over the B-30X well pad area
in 2012. The surveys identified several zones of terrain conductivity elevated above the
interpreted background levels for this area. Elevated EM38 terrain conductivity values
that may be partially due to inorganic impact (i.e. salt) were denoted west and north of
the well head.
The geophysical survey maps were used to select intrusive investigation locations for
soil and groundwater characterization, as discussed below.
A Phase II ESA was conducted in 2013 to further identify and assess potential areas of
impact for soil and groundwater at the B-30X well site area. In addition, the 2013 A&R
activities included groundwater monitoring and sampling. A summary of the 2013
activities is provided below.

Five boreholes were drilled and completed as monitoring wells in the B-30X well site
area. Soil samples were analyzed for inorganic parameters, hydrocarbon parameters
and metals. Soil analytical results were compared to CCME Industrial land use
guidelines for fine-grained soils. Soil analytical results are summarized below:
• all analyzed inorganic parameters were within the applicable guidelines;
• all analyzed metals parameters were within the applicable guidelines; and
• concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbon parameters exceeding the applicable
guidelines were found in one sample, including PHC F1, F2, F3 and F4.
Site soil profile consisted of shale fill or shale and gravel fill overlying clay, sandy clay or
silty clay. In some locations, a sand, silty sand or clayey sand layer was noted under the
fill layer. Siltstone bedrock was encountered at approximately 3.5 to 4.5 mbgs at the
majority of borehole locations. Wet or saturated soil conditions were encountered at
approximately 1.0 mbgs.

Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling
A total of seven monitoring wells are associated with the B-30X well site area (B30
series in Table 4). The 2013 groundwater monitoring activities and results are
summarized as follows:
• two monitoring wells were installed near the B-30X well site in 2012, with an
additional five monitoring wells installed as part of the 2013 Phase II ESA. Two of
the newly drilled wells (B30-13-4-3.9 and B30-13-5-4.5), located down-gradient of
B-30X on the western perimeter of the Well Services Yard, were dry or frozen in
September 2013. Well B30X-12-2-4 near the former wellhead contained
free-phase LNAPL during the 2013 sampling event and was not sampled;
• groundwater surface elevations indicate that the hydraulic gradient is generally
southward towards Bosworth Creek. Shallow groundwater (less than 5 mbgs) is
present as a seasonally-active zone overlying permafrost in the B-30X well site
area;
• dissolved metals and trace element concentrations which exceeded FWAL
criteria at one or more monitoring locations in 2013 included As, Cu, Fe, Se and
Uranium (U);
• above-guideline concentrations of benzene and toluene were reported in 2013 at
B30X-12-1-4; and
• all sampled locations returned total phenols concentrations which exceeded the
FWAL guideline. Two of these locations also exceeded the expected background
concentrations for groundwater in surficial sediments.

through 8.
6.4 Tank 401 Area

Environmental assessment activities completed prior to 2003 identified an area of
hydrocarbon-affected soil associated with historical spills/releases from a large storage
tank known as Tank 401, located near the D-32X well site. This area was developed as
a re-vegetation research trial plot site in 2000. The re-vegetation plots were monitored
annually between 2000 and 2009. In 2010 the plots were deconstructed and a remedial
excavation and on site soil treatment program was initiated in this area. The affected
soils were excavated and treated in phases, to make optimum use of a small work area
and to avoid having to transport the soil from the source location for treatment. Soils
were placed in windrows, amended with fertilizer as required and processed several
times each season with a twister bucket attachment on a track hoe.
Remediation activities continued in 2011, and in 2012 the area was recontoured,
cultivated and seeded. Recontouring activities continued in 2013 to address settling of
previously imported backfill material. Approximately 120 m3 of soil was added to the
Tank 401 area and graded to allow for drainage to the north.

In terms of groundwater monitoring, one well in this area is on the current analytical
schedule (D32 09-2-13). Groundwater chloride, hydrocarbons, and dissolved metals
(with the exception of selenium) were below the applied guideline during 2013.
Photo 5 Closure Monitoring at Tank 401 area
6.5 Tank 53 Area

Soil treatment work in this area was completed in 2009. All treated soil was used to
backfill the excavation in 2009. 2010 activities included movement of some residual
berm soil to bring the southeast corner of the remediated area to grade to prevent future
surface water ponding. The ground surface was recontoured to direct surface runoff
towards the north. The disturbed area was then seeded. In 2013, the area was assessed
for vegetative growth and settlement. No further restoration activities were required.
Photo 6 Closure Monitoring at Tank 53 area

6.6 Background/Control Point Locations (MCBG)
There are currently two monitoring wells installed in the Mainland Central area for the
purpose of assessing background groundwater quality. Groundwater from both locations
(MCBG-10-1-3 and MCBG-12-1-2) was sampled in 2013 to supplement the background
geochemistry database.
Well locations are shown on Figure 6. Groundwater field measurements and analytical
results are presented in Tables 4 through 8.
6.7 Biocell, ARB, and B-33X Area

The Biocell area consists of Biocell A (formerly referred to as the A&R Biocell or ARB)
and the area of former production well B-33X.
Previous investigations have confirmed the presence of benzene, ethylbenzene, xylenes
and PHC F1 at levels above industrial land use guidelines, as well as inorganic and
metals parameter exceedances, in the area directly south of the current biocell footprint.
These hydrocarbon impacts pre-date biocell construction and operation which
commenced in 2001. A&R activities undertaken in 2013 included a remedial excavation,
a Phase 2 ESA, groundwater and surface water sampling.

In June 2013, six boreholes were drilled and four monitoring wells installed to further
characterize soil and groundwater conditions in the ARB area. Soil samples were
submitted for laboratory analysis of inorganic parameters, petroleum hydrocarbon
parameters and metals. A summary of the soil analytical results is provided below.
• all samples submitted to the laboratory for analysis of inorganic and major ion
parameters returned results below applicable CCME guidelines;
• soil samples collected from one borehole location (ARB-13-6) had PHC F2
and/or F3 concentrations exceeding the applicable CCME guidelines; and
• soil samples collected from one borehole location had As and Ni concentrations
exceeding the applicable CCME guidelines.
Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling

Eleven groundwater monitoring wells were included in the 2013 sampling program for
the Biocell area (ARB and B33 series wells, Table 4). In addition, one surface water
sample was collected in the area. Results of the 2013 sampling program are
summarized as follows:
• groundwater in the area is expected to flow generally south and west, towards
Bosworth Creek;

• dissolved metals concentrations including As, Cu, Fe, Se and U exceeded FWAL
criteria in one or more wells;
• dissolved toluene concentration at ARB 12-1-4 exceeded the FWAL guideline;
• the total phenols concentrations at all sampled locations exceeded the FWAL
guideline and two monitoring wells also exceeded the expected background
concentration for surficial sediments; and
• the surface water sample collected from an area of ponded water on the
southwest side of the biocell returned total phenols, total copper and total iron
concentrations which exceeded their respective FWAL criteria.
Remedial Activities
A remedial action plan developed for the ARB-Biocell area has identified approximately
13,750 m3 of hydrocarbon impacted soil to be removed. The excavation activities are
intended to be completed over two seasons. The purpose of the 2013 field program was
to remove and treat the impacted area between the Biocell and the Well Services Yard
warehouse access road. The 2013 activities are summarized below:
• approximately 3,240 m3 of clean overburden soil was removed from the area and
used or stockpiled elsewhere on site;
• approximately 2,600 m3 of impacted soil exceeding CCME Industrial land use
guidelines was removed from the excavation and placed in on site biocells for
treatment; and
• the excavation was backfilled using approximately 5,883 m3 of material sourced
from previously removed clean overburden, clean treated material and material
sourced from the local quarry and claypit.
Photo 7 Base of Remedial Excavation in ARB Area South of Biocell

6.8 Biocell Operation in 2013
In 2001, IOR constructed two synthetically-lined, engineered biocells for batch treatment
of hydrocarbon-affected soils. These soils are transported to the biocell from various
locations across the field, after they have been appropriately characterized and deemed
suitable for bioremediation, based on evaluation of organic and inorganic soil chemistry.
In 2012 the two original biocells were decommissioned and replaced with a single larger
capacity engineered biocell.
The 2013 scope of work for the Biocell included the following activities:
• collect representative soil samples from each source material prior to Biocell
acceptance and treatment;
• direct transport to and treatment of hydrocarbon impacted material not meeting
Industrial land use guidelines in the Biocell in accordance with the Biocell
Operations Guidance Manual;
• direct addition of fertilizer amendments as required;
• collect representative soil samples from each windrow after treatment sessions;
• submit soil samples to an analytical laboratory;
• assess lab data to determine when remedial objectives are achieved; and
• direct removal and transport of material meeting Industrial land use guidelines
from the Biocell to a stockpile location for future use as fill.
Windrows were treated (twisted) using an excavator mounted twister bucket. Twisting
homogenizes and exposes soil to air, which volatilizes light end petroleum hydrocarbons
(PHCs) containing carbon chain lengths (C) generally less than C10 (benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, or total xylenes [BTEX] and PHC F1). Twisting also incorporates oxygen,
which encourages aerobic biological degradation of PHCs from the C10 to C34 range
(PHC F2 and F3).
The level of available nutrients for bacterial activity was monitored through analysis of
soil samples. The aim is to achieve a Carbon: Nitrogen: Phosphorous ratio of 100:2.5:1.
Generally if nutrient levels fall to a point that they are potentially inhibiting bacterial
growth nutrients are added through the use of Urea and/or mono-ammonium phosphate
(MAP) fertilizer incorporated in the windrows using the twister bucket. Soil which has
salinity parameters (EC) close to the acceptance guidelines should be amended with
fertilizer in phases, or not at all, to prevent creating a soil salinity issue.
During the 2013 field season (July to October 2013), an estimated 1,015 m3 of soil was
processed in the Biocell to meet applicable CCME industrial use guidelines, and was
subsequently transferred to various locations on the Site as fill. The treated soil
originated from excavations on Bear Island (M-43X and BI-1X), Goose Island (O-18X),

and Mainland Central (ARB). The treated fill was used at the Operations storage pad,
Mainland Sumps area, and as backfill for the ARB excavation.
In 2013, no lab analysis was conducted on the biocell sump water as there was no
discharge to the watershed planned. All the sump water was disposed of at the F-31X
wastewater injection facility. An estimated total of 460 m3 of fluids were removed from
the Biocell sumps in 2013.
The Biocell contained an estimated 5,070 m3 of PHC impacted soil in varying stages of
treatment, as of December 2013. Further treatment of these windrows will be required in
2014 to meet applicable guidelines. Impacted soils remaining in the Biocell were sourced
from the O-18X, Q-06X, M-43X, D-42X/E-35X, and ARB excavations.

7.0 Mainland West
The Mainland West area on the Norman Wells lease includes the land area bounded by
Bosworth Creek and the barge dock area on the east, the J-16X well site to the west, the
Mackenzie River to the south and the site access ring road and fire break to the north
(Figure 7).
In 2008, IOR initiated a multi-year Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
program, to investigate target areas identified by the Phase 1 ESA completed in 2008.
Target areas included historical spill sites, former pits and ponds, former dump sites,
locations of former infrastructure (e.g. storage tanks, batteries, garages, camp sites) and
well sites. No further intrusive investigation was conducted in 2013 for the assessment
areas discussed in Section 7.
A&R work was conducted at the following sub-areas in 2013:
• E-27X Well Site (E27);
• F-28X Well Site (F28); and
• Mainland West Background Locations (MWBG).
Two other sub-areas within Mainland West, the C-27X Sumps and Cemetery Sump
areas, are discussed in sectons 8.2 and 8.3, respectively.
undertaken in 2013.
7.1 E-27X Well Site

The E-27X Well Site was selected in 2009 to represent wells located between the
Mackenzie River and the majority of Mainland infrastructure. Two monitoring wells exist
within the E-27X area (E27 series in Table 4), however; one of these wells has
historically been dry or frozen and has thus been removed from the analytical schedule.
The remaining well to be sampled is installed in the shallow bedrock groundwater

bearing zone beneath E-27X. Results of the 2013 sampling program are summarized as
follows:
• an insufficient number of wells exists in the area to accurately determine the
direction of deeper groundwater flow, however; based on local topography and
proximity to the Mackenzie River, the inferred direction of flow is south towards
the river; and
• the dissolved chloride concentration exceeded the applicable CCME FWAL
guideline but remains within range of expected background chloride levels in
bedrock.
Monitoring well locations are shown on Figure 7.

7.2 F-28X Well Site
The F-28X area is located approximately 50 m east of the F-28X well pad on a terrace
near the Mackenize River. Previous environmental investigations in the area near the
well head have confirmed concentrations of hydrocarbons exceeding applicable
guidelines in deep soils and upper bedrock down-gradient from the well head, and
metals concentrations in surface soil exceeding applicable guidelines around the well
head.
There are currently four groundwater monitoring wells (F28 series in Table 4) associated
with the F-28X area. Results of the 2013 sampling program are summarized as follows:
• based on local topography and proximity to the Mackenzie River, groundwater
flow direction is inferred to be south towards the river;
• one monitoring well could not be located and is presumed to have been
destroyed; and
• the remaining three monitoring wells contained measurable LNAPL and were
subsequently not sampled for laboratory analysis.
7.3 Mainland West Background Locations (MWBG)

Three monitoring wells have been installed to assess background hydrochemistry in the
Mainland West area. In 2013, one of these wells could not be located (MWBG-12-1-3); it
was installed in an area prone to ice scouring during spring break up on the Mackenzie
River.
The remaining two background locations (MWBG-10-1-3 and WBIO-08-1-2) were

sampled in 2013 to supplement the background geochemistry database.

8.0 Sumps
There are three former sump areas on the Mainland that were assessed as part of the
2013 A&R program.
Environmental assessment activities to date at the various sump sites have included soil
sampling by drilling and test pitting, installation and sampling of groundwater monitoring
wells and more recently surface water sampling at ponded areas on the capped sumps.
Mainland area sumps included in the A&R program are as follows:
• Mainland Sumps (Figure 3A); an area which collectively includes the Mainland
Drilling Sump (MDS), Well Services Sump (WSS); and six other smaller Mainland
Sumps;
• Cemetery Sump (Figure 7); and
• C-27X Sump (Figure 7).
8.1 Mainland Sumps

The Mainland Sumps area is located on the northern side of the Imperial Oil lease ring
road. Previous investigations in the area indicated the presence of two larger sumps
(MDS and WSS) and six smaller sump or fill areas, historically used for disposal of
drilling or well services waste. These have been assessed as three sub-area: the
Mainland Drilling Sump, the Well Services Sump and the Closed Mainland Sumps
(Figure 3A).
In 2008, the Closed Mainland Drilling Sump was dewatered and the remaining sump
solid material was encapsulated within liners. The sump was backfilled, capped and
recontoured.
Also in 2008, the Closed Well Services Sump was excavated and waste material was
disposed of off site.
2013 A&R activities included a Phase II ESA to address data gaps, dewatering and
capping for one of the remaining sumps, vegetation monitoring on the two reclaimed
larger sumps, and groundwater and surface water sampling. The 2013 activities are
summarized below.
Sump Capping
The most northerly of the Mainland Sumps was dewatered and capped in 2013.
Approximately 785 m3 of fluids were removed from the sump and disposed of on site.
Approximately 210 m3 of soil was imported to cap the sump. The area was contoured to
shed water. Further restoration work is expected to be undertaken in 2014.

Photo 8 Sump Capping Activity at North End of Mainland Sumps

The 2013 Phase II ESA in the Mainland Sumps assessment consisted of nine boreholes,
and the installation of five groundwater monitoring wells (MLS-13 series). The remaining
four boreholes were completed with the installation of thermistors, to assess ground
temperature conditions seasonally in the upper 5 m of discontinuous permafrost. A
summary of the soil results from the 2013 program is provided below:
• PHC F2 and F3 exceedances were found in samples collected from three and
one borehole locations, respectively; and
• inorganic parameter exceedances were found in samples collected from seven
borehole locations and included SAR, EC and pH.
Borehole and monitoring well locations are shown on Figure 3A. Analytical results are
presented on Tables 1 and 2.
Mainland Drilling Sump Area - Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling

The 2013 groundwater monitoring program at the former Mainland Drilling Sump
included five wells, one of which was dry or frozen and could not be sampled. A
summary of the 2013 findings includes:
• shallow groundwater flow is interpreted to be relatively stagnant;
• chloride concentrations ranged between 140 mg/L (MLS-13-1-3) and 2,200 mg/L
(MLS 08-2-5) and all exceeded the FWAL guideline. With the exception of one
well screened across the overburden-bedrock interface (MLS 13-1-3), all
reported chloride concentrations exceeded the expected background chloride
values in shallow bedrock;
• one monitoring well returned a total phenols concentration which exceeded the
FWAL criterion; and
• dissolved Cd and U concentrations were above FWAL criteria at one monitoring
well.
Well Services Sump Area - Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling

The 2013 groundwater monitoring program at the former Well Services Sump included
eight wells surrounding the former sumps, one of which was blocked below ground
surface and could not be sampled. A summary of the 2013 findings includes:
• shallow groundwater flow is interpreted to be relatively stagnant in the vicinity of
the Mainland Sumps;
• chloride concentrations reported for the five wells located within 40 m of the
Sump footprint exceeded the CCME FWAL guideline, and four of the five wells
were above expected chloride background. Results remained within the
historical range for these locations, except at MLS 09-9-2 where an increasing
chloride trend is noted;

• dissolved metals and trace elements exceeding corresponding FWAL criteria at
one or more wells within the area included As, B, Fe and Se; and
• two monitoring wells returned total phenols concentrations above the CCME
FWAL guideline.
Remaining Mainland Sumps Area - Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling

Twelve monitoring wells and six surface water monitoring locations were included as
part of the 2013 analytical schedule for the Closed Mainland Sumps area. Three
monitoring wells were either dry, frozen, or contained insufficient water to yield samples
during 2013, including the two newly installed monitoring wells. Water sampling results
are summarized as follows:
• shallow groundwater flow is interpreted to be relatively stagnant in the vicinity of
the Mainland Sumps. Due to variable frost-jacking observed at most monitoring
wells in 2013, calculated groundwater surface elevations cannot be reliably
compared between wells to determine a lateral hydraulic gradient and/or flow
direction;
• one piezometer returned a field-measured pH value exceededing the FWAL
guideline range;
• all reported chloride concentrations, with one exception, exceeded both the
FWAL criterion and anticipated background concentrations;
• dissolved metals and trace elements exceeding corresponding guidelines at one
or more wells within the Mainland Sumps area included As and Fe. All reported
exceedances remained within expected background ranges;
• a dissolved toluene concentration which exceeds the FWAL criterion was
reported at one monitoring well; and
• all monitoring locations analyzed for total phenols returned concentrations which
exceeded both the FWAL guideline and the expected background range.
Six surface water samples were collected from locations within and adjacent to the
Mainland Sumps area;
• one sample returned a field-measured pH value that exceeded the FWAL
guideline range;
• five samples returned chloride concentrations exceeding the FWAL guideline;
• all sampled locations returned total phenols concentrations that exceeded the
FWAL criterion, two of which also exceeded the expected background range;
• one monitoring location returned a dissolved toluene concentration which
exceeded the FWAL guideline; and
• total metals and trace element parameters which exceeded FWAL criteria at one
or more monitoring locations included Al, As and Fe.

8.2 Cemetery Sump
The Cemetery Sump is located to the west of the CPF and approximately 100 m
northwest of the Town of Norman Wells cemetery. Site investigations, including
geophysical surveys and soil and groundwater sampling programs were conducted in
this area between 1998 and 2010, with results indicating the presence of soil EC,
chloride and petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations above CCME industrial land use
guidelines or expected background conditions to an average depth of 3.0 to 4.0 mbgs.
In 2010, a screening level risk assessment was completed for the Cemetery Sump, and
the former sump area was subsequently recontoured, capped and seeded to establish a
vegetation cover.
In 2013, A&R activities in the Cemetery Sump assessment area included a Phase II
ESA, closure monitoring, groundwater and surface water sampling. The 2013 activities
are summarized below.

The 2013 Phase II ESA in the Cemetery Sump area included completion of five
boreholes and the installation of four groundwater monitoring wells (CEM-13 series
wells). The remaining borehole was completed with the installation of a thermistor to
assess subsurface temperature conditions seasonally in the area. A summary of the soil
results from the 2013 program is provided below:
• all soil samples were below the respective applicable guidelines for all analyzed
parameters; and
Borehole and monitoring well locations are shown on Figure 7. Analytical results are
presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Closure Monitoring
The areas currently undergoing restoration in the Cemetery Sump area were visually
assessed as part of an ongoing closure monitoring program. No signs of plant distress or
ground surface stability issues were identified.
Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling

The 2013 groundwater monitoring program at the closed Cemetery Sump included ten
wells in and around the sump (CEM series). Two surface water samples were also
collected. A summary of the 2013 findings includes:
• ten monitoring wells are currently monitored in the Cemetery Sump area. Of
these, five were dry, frozen, or contained insufficient water to be sampled;
• groundwater surface elevations indicate that hydraulic gradients are generally
southward towards the Mackenzie River. Permafrost surrounding the sump area
is expected to limit the potential for lateral and vertical flow, as indicated by the
dry perimeter wells to the west, south and northeast of the Sump;

Photo 9 Closure Monitoring at Cemetery Sump
• two chloride concentrations exceeded the both the applicable FWAL guideline
and the expected background chloride value;
• one monitoring well returned concentrations of dissolved nitrite and dissolved
nitrate which exceeded the respective FWAL criteria and background;
• reported total phenols concentrations exceeded the FWAL guideline at two
monitoring wells, with the value from CEM 09-3-2 also exceeding expected
background for phenols;
• dissolved metals and trace elements exceeding FWAL guidelines in one or more
piezometer included Cu, Fe and U. The concentrations for all three parameters
exceeded expected background values; and
• two surface water samples were collected from marshy areas north of the
Cemetery Sump. These samples yielded one guideline exceedance for total
phenols, two exceedances for total Fe and one exceedance for total As. All of
these exceedances, with the exception of Fe at one location, remained within
expected background ranges for surficial sediments.

8.3 C-27X Sump
The closed C-27X sump is located to the east of the CPF and north of the C-27X well
site. The 2008 and 2009 investigations (geophysical surveys, soil and groundwater
sampling) in this sump area reported elevated terrain conductivity values throughout the
central portion of the survey area.
Soil analytical results confirmed the presence of soluble salts (EC, SAR, chloride),
BTEX, PHC F1 through F4, As and Zn above Industrial land use guidelines to depths of
up to 4.0 mbgs over an approximate 50 m x 50 m area.
In 2013, A&R activities comprised monitoring local groundwater conditions. 2013 water
sampling program results are summarized as follows:
• four groundwater monitoring locations (C27 series wells in Table 4) were
included in the 2013 analytical schedule; three of these wells were sampled in
2013. The fourth contained LNAPL and was not sampled;
• based on topography, groundwater flow is expected to be eastward toward the
Bosworth Creek valley. Fluid levels measured in 2013 did not indicate a
consistent groundwater flow direction. Shallow permafrost surrounding the sump
area is expected to limit the potential for lateral and vertical flow;
• the field-measured pH value at one monitoring location exceeded the FWAL
guideline range. This location has returned similarly elevated pH values during
previous sampling events;
• two wells returned concentrations of dissolved chloride which exceeded the
FWAL criterion, as well as exceeding the expected background concentration for
surficial sediments;
• one monitoring well returned a total phenols concentration which exceeded the
FWAL guideline, but remained within the range of expected background
concentrations;
• concentrations of dissolved As and Fe exceeding the corresponding FWAL
guidelines were reported for one monitoring well. These concentrations also
exceeded the expected background concentrations; and
• free-phase hydrocarbon detected in one well installed into shallow bedrock is
inferred to be naturally occurring. One well returned benzene and toluene
concentrations in excess of the respective FWAL guidelines.
Monitoring well locations are shown in Figure 7. Groundwater field measurements and
analytical results are presented on Tables 4 through 8.

9.0 Bear Island
Bear Island (Figure 8) is one of two natural islands included in the IOR Norman Wells
lease area and is a vital part of the current production field. Bear Island is located
relatively close to the south bank of the Mackenzie River and is accessible by crew boat
or barge in summer, ice road in winter or helicopter for the remainder of the year.
In 2008, Imperial Oil initiated a multi-year Phase 2 ESA program to investigate target
areas identified by a Phase 1 ESA completed in 2008. Target areas included historical
spill sites, former pits and ponds, former dump sites, locations of former infrastructure
(e.g. storage tanks, batteries, camp sites, etc.) and well sites.
Geophysical surveys, soil and/or groundwater sampling have been conducted at the
following Bear Island target areas (Figure 8):
• Background/Control Point Locations (3);
• Bear Island Well 1X Drill Pad (BIDP);
• Q-Pad Area (former tank farm area BIBT1);
• Bear Island Flare Pit (BIFP); and
• Former Drilling Sumps 1 through 6
Assessment work continued in 2013 included further Phase II ESA investigation,
groundwater and surface water sampling. A&R work conducted on Bear Island in 2013 is
summarized in the following sections.
9.1 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment

The Phase II ESA work conducted in 2013 included drilling seven boreholes (BI-13
series); three of these boreholes were completed in the vicinity of sumps 1 to 5 on the
west end of the island and four boreholes were completed in the vicinity of sump 6 near
the east end. All boreholes were subsequently completed as monitoring wells. Soil
samples collected from the boreholes were analyzed for inorganic paramaters and/or
petroleum hydrocarbons. Analytical soil results are summarized below:
• electrical conductivity values in soil were found above the applicable guideline in
samples collected from four boreholes; and
• all other analyzed parameters were below their respective applicable guidelines.
Borehole and monitoring well locations are shown on Figure 8. Soil analytical results are
presented in Tables 1 through 3.

9.2 Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling and Surface Water
Sampling
The 2013 annual groundwater monitoring program focused on continued well network
and analytical schedule refinement, groundwater sampling for laboratory analyses and
field parameter measurements.
In 2013, 29 monitoring wells and 4 drive-points from the Bear Island monitoring network
were included in the analytical schedule. These monitoring locations have been installed
in surficial sediments. In addition, 10 surface water monitoring locations were sampled in
2013.
Results of the 2013 program are provided in Tables 4 to 8, and summarized as follows:
9.2.1 Bear Island East Sump

• one surface water location and five piezometers (Table 4) are currently monitored
at the eastern Bear Island Sump (Sump #6), four of which were installed in 2013;
• one monitoring well returned a dissolved chloride concentration which exceeded
the expected background conditions and the FWAL criterion;
• dissolved metals and trace element concentrations for As, Cd, Cu, Fe, Se and Zn
were above corresponding FWAL guidelines at one or more monitoring wells;
• all five monitoring wells returned concentrations of total phenols which exceeded
the FWAL guideline, as well as the expected background concentration for
surficial sediments on Bear Island; and
• the surface water sample collected near Sump #6 returned a total phenols
concentration which exceeded the FWAL criterion but remained within the range
of expected background conditions.
9.2.3 Bear Island East – Other Sites

• three monitoring wells and one surface water location were included in the 2013
analytical program for the east-central area of Bear Island (Table 4). One of the
monitoring wells was destroyed by ice scouring, and another contained
insufficient water to be sampled;
• one monitoring well and one surface water location returned total phenols
concentrations which exceeded the FWAL criterion, as well as the expected
background range for surficial sediments on Bear Island; and
• concentrations of dissolved As and Fe exceeded the FWAL criteria at one
monitoring well. Total Fe exceeded the FWAL criterion at the one surface water
sampling location.
9.2.4 Bear Island West Sumps

• fourteen groundwater wells/drive-points (Table 4) and eight surface water
locations are monitored within the vicinity of the western Bear Island sumps

(Sumps #1 to #5). Three new wells were installed in 2013, but were dry or frozen
at the time of sampling. One drive point piezometer contained insufficient water
to obtain samples;
• one monitoring well returned a field-measured pH value which exceeded the
FWAL guideline range. This location has also historically yielded elevated pH
values;
• five groundwater monitoring wells returned dissolved chloride concentrations
which exceeded the FWAL criterion, as well as the expected background
concentration for surficial sediments;
• dissolved metals and trace element concentrations which exceeded FWAL
criteria at one or more monitoring wells included aluminum Al, As, Fe and Se;
• guideline exceedances of dissolved toluene and/or benzene were reported at
wells installed in Sumps #3 and #5;
• all 8 monitoring wells analyzed for total phenols returned concentrations which
exceeded the FWAL guideline, as well as expected background concentration for
surficial sediments on Bear Island; and
• three surface water monitoring locations returned concentrations of dissolved
chloride which exceeded the FWAL criterion, as well as the expected background
concentration. The surface water locations which were analysed for total phenols
concentrations also exceeded the FWAL guideline. Two surface water locations
returned total Fe concentrations which exceeded the FWAL criterion.

Photo 10 Bear Island Sump # 2
9.2.5 Bear Island West – Other Sites

• eleven monitoring wells across the remainder of western Bear Island were
included in the 2013 analytical schedule (Table 4). Of these, one well was frozen,
one contained insufficient water to sample, four wells were destroyed or could not
be located due to ice scouring, and one contained free-phase hydrocarbons;
• one monitoring well returned a dissolved chloride concentration which exceeded
both the FWAL criterion and the expected background concentration;
• dissolved metals and trace element concentrations exceeding FWAL guidelines at
one or more monitoring wells included As, Cd, Cu, Fe, Se and U;
• the dissolved benzene concentration reported at one monitoring well exceeded the
FWAL criterion; and
• all four monitoring wells which were sampled for total phenols in 2013 returned
concentrations exceeding the FWAL guideline, as well as the expected
background concentrations.
Groundwater field measurements and analytical results are presented on Tables 4
through 8.

9.3 Remedial Action Plans
9.3.1 Q-Pad Area Former Tank Farm (BIBT1)

A remedial action plan (RAP) has been developed to address hydrocarbon impacts
found in the BIBT1 area. The work is expected to commence in 2014. It is anticipated
that approximately 4800 m3 of impacted soil will be removed and treated in an on site
biocell. A further 100 m3 is considered unsuitable for biotreatment and will require
disposal at an appropriate facility. Approximately 2400 m3 of overburden is expected to
meet applicable criteria and will be replaced in the excavation when complete.
The existing network of groundwater and surface water sampling locations will continue
to be analyzed, as part of a long term monitoring program to assess if remedial
objectives have been met.
Surface reclamation and restoration activities will commence once the backfilled
excavation is deemed stable.
9.3.2 Bear Island Flare Pit (BIFP)

A RAP has been developed to address hydrocarbon impacts found in the BIFP area.
The work is expected to commence in 2014. It is anticipated that approximately 500 m3
of impacted soil will be removed. The soil is considered unsuitable for biotreatment and
will require disposal at an appropriate facility. No clean overburden meeting applicable
criteria is anticipated.
The existing network of groundwater sampling locations will continue to be analyzed as
part of a long term monitoring program to assess if remedial objectives have been met.
Surface reclamation and restoration activities will commence once the backfilled
excavation is deemed stable.

10.0 Goose and Frenchy’s Islands
Goose Island (Figure 9) is the second natural island included in the IOR Norman Wells
lease area, and is a vital part of the current production field. Goose Island is seasonally
inundated with river ice and water, creating a challenging work environment for both
industrial and environmental activities. Vehicle access is typically limited to a few months
each year.
In 2008, IOR initiated a multi-year Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
program, to investigate target areas identified by the Phase 1 ESA completed in 2008.
Target areas included historical spill sites, former pits and ponds, former dump sites,
locations of former infrastructure (e.g. storage tanks, batteries, garages,
camp sites, etc.), and well sites.
No A&R activities were conducted Goose Island in 2013. The monitoring wells were
sampled under the IOR Operations program.
Frenchy’s Island (Figure 8) is the third natural island included in the IOR Norman Wells
lease area. Located east of Bear Island, the western tip of Frenchy’s Island is seasonally
inundated with river ice and water, creating a challenging work environment for both
industrial and environmental activities. Vehicle access is typically limited to a few months
each year.
In 2010, Imperial Oil initiated a Phase 2 ESA program in this area, to investigate target
areas identified by the Phase 1 ESA completed in 2008.
Groundwater sampling was not conducted on Frenchy’s in 2013, as the previously
installed monitoring wells have been destroyed by ice scouring. No A&R work was
conducted on Frenchy’s Island in 2013.

11.0 Research and Other Initiatives
Several research based initiatives were completed in 2013 and on-going research is
planned for 2014. One area of ongoing research focuses on understanding plant and
invertebrate eco-toxicity in relation to specific petroleum hydrocarbon sub-fractions in
soil. There is currently no guidance published in the Northwest Territories for risk-based
development and application of eco-contact guidelines for use in establishing
remediation objectives and/or to meet site closure requirements. The approach to
derivation of site-specific eco-contact guidelines for PHC F3 for the Norman Wells field is
thus been based on the “weight of evidence” approach outlined by CCME. The
guidelines being developed are to be protective of plants and invertebrates native to the
area and reflective of the typically aged and/or weathered nature of hydrocarbons in soil
and bioremediated soils at Norman Wells.
Progress to date for both plant and invertebrate programs is summarized below and
planned work is briefly described.
11.1 Plant Eco-Toxicity Testing

Beginning in 2009, research has been carried out to develop toxicity testing for plant
species that are native to the Norman Wells region.
Critical research milestones met from 2009-2013 are summarized below:
• a short list of 39 plant species found in the Norman Wells region was generated
through review of published and IOL consultant vegetation surveys;
• ten (10) of the 39 short-listed species were identified as potential test species
based on strong germination and growth testing;
• two sets of growth conditions were established for the project. The first is the
standard Environment Canada (EC) test climate. The second was developed from
climate data for Norman Wells to reflect summer conditions and has longer
daylight hours and cooler temperatures relative to the EC test climate;
• preliminary growth trials were conducted to assess growth and appropriate test
duration in artificial soils under the two climate regimes;
• preliminary screening tests were conducted using four plant species;
• additional growth tests were conducted using the 10 potential test species to
establish growth test durations and confirm the effects of fertilizer, climate
conditions and background soils for all candidate plant species; and
• a number of candidate soils were collected from Norman Wells to be used for
method development and toxicity testing.
Plans for 2014 include range finding tests conducted by the Saskatchewan Research
Council (SRC) in consultation with WorleyParsons for the assessment of hydrocarbon
sensitivity of select plants. Following the range finding tests a more detailed definitive

sensitivity testing will be used to contribute to the development of a PHC F3 site-specific
guideline.
11.2 Invertebrate Eco-Toxicity Testing

Invertebrate toxicity testing provides site-specific, quantitative invertebrate toxicity data
by evaluating organism survival and/or reproduction upon chronic exposure to
contaminated soils. A revision of the Environment Canada methodology is required for
Norman Wells to account for the different species, soils and climate. The invertebrate
toxicity data will be used, in conjunction with plant toxicity data, to derive site-specific
remediation objectives for PHC F3 for the eco-contact pathway.
Critical research milestones met from 2011-2013 are summarized below:

• collection of soils cores from six locations in the Norman Wells field from which
soil invertebrates could be extracted and preserved was completed;
• inventory of invertebrates present and their distributions through the soil profiles
was conducted;
• a total of 8,483 specimens were extracted from 116 samples collected from the six
sampling locations. Preliminary (coarse-level) sorting of the specimens extracted
was carried out in the following manner:
− - Acari were placed into suborders (Astigmata, Mesostigmata, Prostigmata or
Oribatida);
− - Collembola were identified to the family level (Entomobryidae, Isotomidae,
Hypogastruridae, Neelidae, Onychiuridae, and Sminthuridae); and
− - remaining invertebrates were identified at the class, order or family level, if
present.
• Species level identification focused on Acari and Collembola specimens in a
subset of the total samples collected (83 of 116 samples). A total of 4,441
specimens were classified. Eleven species were identified, and a further 28 types
of invertebrates were classified to genus level;
• species abundance and diversity was assessed in relation to sampling depth which
indicated that the large majority of organisms are found in the upper 0.2 m of the
soil profile; and
• four species obtained from Norman Wells soils were selected for ongoing culturing
(Tulbergia pacifica, Folsomia bisetosa, Onychiurus flavencens and Opiella nova).
In the fall of 2013, the decision was made that development of test methods and toxicity
testing for the invertebrate research was to move forward in 2014-2015 using the
springtail (Folsomia bisetosa) extracted from the Norman Wells soils as well as three
additional established invertebrate test species: Folsomia candida, Oppia nitens, and
Proisotoma minuta. Included in the 2014-2015 workplan are the following elements:
• maintenance and routine backup of cultures for the four invertebrate candidate test
species;

• culture acclimation to Norman Wells climate conditions;
• test method development and refinement, to reach survival of all four species in a
minimum number of tests in both artificial and Norman Wells soils;
• quality assurance of test methods using boric acid;
• range-finding tests in one soil to evaluate the sensitivity of all four candidate test
species, if possible, to PHC F3 in Norman Wells remediated soils;
• definitive dilution testing of reproduction for two invertebrate species, shortlisted
based on sensitivity from the range-finding tests, in 2 Norman Wells soils; and
• reporting and derivation of site-specific remediation objectives for PHC F3 in
Norman Wells soils.
11.3 Thermistor Installations

The installation of thermistor strings in selected areas is intended to provide year-round
soil temperature information from surface to 6 m depth to improve understanding of the
presence, nature, vertical distribution and seasonal variability of permafrost near roads
on the perimeter of key A&R investigation areas.
Thermistor installations were completed in the vicinity of the Mainland Sumps, the
Mainland Tank Farm and the Cemetery Sump.
The thermistor installation program included the following activities:
• advancing four boreholes in the vicinity of the Mainland Sumps, including two
boreholes along the north and northeastern sides (MLS-13-5 and MLS-13-6), and
two locations along the Canol Road to the south (MLS-13-7 and MLS-13-8).
• advancing two boreholes to the south of the Mainland Tank Farm (MTF-13-2 and
MTF-13-3);
• advancing one borehole to the south of the Cemetery Sump (CEM-13-1);
• collection and analysis of soil samples from each borehole; and
• installation of thermistor strings, data loggers and required protective housing at
each location.
No temperature data was downloaded or analyzed from the newly installed thermistors
during 2013 with the exception of equipment checks to ensure the units were functioning
properly. Data collected in late winter 2014 will be reported in 2014 summary report.

Photo 11 Installation of Thermistor MLS-13-7 and Internal Data Logger

12.0 2014 A&R Program
Imperial Oil Environmental Services is in the process of planning the 2014 A&R program
for Norman Wells, based on information gathered from the 2013 and previous programs.
It is anticipated that the following activities will be part of the 2014 program:
• the groundwater monitoring program conducted in 2013 will be optimized and
continued in 2014;
• the groundwater pumping, MPE and DPE remediation systems at the Refinery and
B-38X sites, respectively, will continue operation in 2014 and be optimized and
upgraded as required;
• development of long term management strategy for the mainland sumps area.
Draining and backfiling of select sumps;
• the biocell will be operational, and impacted soil suitable for on site biotreatment
will be treated until soil meets CCME Industrial land use guidelines;
• expansion of the Biocell to double capacity for on site biotreatment of soils;
• remedial excavations are planned for the ARB area south of the biocell, the BIBT1
area on Bear Island, the former flare pit on Bear Island and the former Battery #3
flare pit;
• vegetation cover and physical stability monitoring will continue at the Well Services
and Mainland Sump areas, the Reduced Crude Flare Pit, the B-38X Buried Pit, the
Tank 53 Area, the Cemetery Sump Area, the Tank 401 area and the East Bank of
Bosworth Creek;
• wellhead cut and cap and well site Phase 2 investigations will be conducted at O-
29X, B-42X, E-33X and E-27X);
• enhancement works of Bosworth creek bank including stabilization and
revegetation;
• supplementary Phase 2 assessment and/or Phase 3 delineation sampling will be
conducted at the Mainland Sumps, the Cemetery Sump, the C-27X Sump, the
B-30X well site, the Bear Island Sumps and the BIBT1 site; and
• key research programs related to ecotoxicity and thermistors will continue.
Appendix D provides a list of historical and on-going A&R program activities.

TABLES
FIGURES
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Background Information
Introduction
The following information is provided to document background environmental conditions
at the Norman Wells site, as they are understood based on currently available data. This
information provides the rationale for differentiating naturally occurring conditions from
suspected anthropogenic impacts at the site, particularly with respect to soil and water
quality parameters and concentrations.
Natural Hydrocarbon Seeps

A fundamental premise to the conceptual model at the site is the presence of a
hydrocarbon-groundwater-bearing zone that is in hydraulic continuity with the natural
hydrocarbon seeps along the Mackenzie River. The following paragraphs develop this
premise.
Naturally-occurring oil seepage zones at Norman Wells were first documented by
Cornwall in 1911 (Hume and Link 1945). The oil and gas seeps occurred at Oil Creek
(now known as Bosworth Creek), Seepage Lake, and Joe Creek. Therefore, the seeps
existed prior to establishment of the facility.
Link (1920) also describes results of drilling the discovery well in his second report. The
well was located approximately 100 m inland from the bank of the Mackenzie River, and
approximately 10 m above the river level. The lithological log of the discovery well (as
recorded by Debuc & Patrick) indicates that oil was first encountered at a depth of 83
feet (25 m). This documents the existence of hydrocarbon beneath the Norman Wells
site at relatively shallow depths. Supportive evidence for a hydrocarbon source at
shallow depths was also identified by WorleyParsons (formerly Komex International Ltd.)
during various drilling programs. This evidence included a general increase in soil
organic vapour concentrations (OVA results) with depth. This suggests hydrocarbon
source(s) at depth, not from the surface downwards. If the latter situation were the case,
OVA results would be consistent or decrease with depth.
In the former Refinery area, a groundwater surface (as defined by similar, consistently
trending groundwater surface elevations) can be traced laterally from the Mackenzie
River northwards to the area beneath the former refinery. WorleyParsons has identified
seeps in this area along the Mackenzie River. These data suggest hydraulic continuity
between the seeps on the Mackenzie River and the groundwater in the bedrock interval
underlying the former refinery.
Differences in groundwater chemistry can indicate different sources of the groundwater.
It was originally anticipated that some mixing of surface water and shallow groundwater
is occurring along the Mackenzie River. The inorganic analytical results indicate typical
geochemical types of sodium-bicarbonate-chloride (Na-HCO3-Cl) type water in the
bedrock (i.e. from wells NWR 99-16-17 and NWR 98-18-15) and calcium-magnesium-
bicarbonate (Ca-Mg-HCO3) type water in shallower overburden wells near the
Mackenzie River (i.e. NWR 99-2-4). Intermediate or mixed waters are also indicated.
These results are consistent with bedrock-hosted groundwater discharging to a surface
water body.
Appendix A: Background Conditions Page 1

Organic analytical results of hydrocarbon samples from piezometers that are screened in
the deeper bedrock (i.e. NWR 00-25-36, NWR 00-26-40, B38 99-16-17) are similar to
results from the shallow zone near seeps along the Mackenzie River (i.e. NWR 00-20-3).
These results are interpreted to be typical of a “crude” or unrefined hydrocarbon. These
data indicate that the seep interval is related to the crude-bearing groundwater interval
beneath the refinery site. The same patterns in changes in groundwater surface
elevations and inorganic water chemistry cannot be traced laterally in the Battery #3
area as definitively as in the former Refinery area. However, similar patterns
(i.e. inorganic water chemistry, organic geochemistry, occurrence of hydrocarbon at
depth) are apparent in the Battery #3 area.
Geophysical surveys conducted across active hydrocarbon seepage zones have
identified conductive anomalies which appear to be sourced at depth (i.e. more than
20 m into the bedrock). The ERT line for the E-32X well site illustrates this conductive
anomaly directly underlying a hydrocarbon seepage zone, with more resistive interpreted
permafrost defining the anomaly on either side. These conductive anomalies are
interpreted to represent discharge (i.e. seepage) zones.
Supportive evidence for above-mentioned premise include geological observations
(shallow hydrocarbon at depth and OVA results), physical hydraulic data (groundwater
surface elevations), geochemical information (both inorganic and organic), and
geophysical survey results. Although none of the above points singularly prove that the
bedrock water-bearing zone is directly connected to the seeps along the Mackenzie
River, the weight of evidence is substantial and consistent between the different
methods.
Geophysics
Background geophysical conditions were established north of the J-16X Well Site at the
western perimeter of the mainland lease. Results of this survey indicated that permafrost
was generally represented by terrain conductivity values of between 1 and 10 mS/m.
Bedrock (Canol Shale) was represented by terrain conductivity values of up to
200 mS/m. Unfrozen overburden was generally represented by terrain conductivity
values of approximately 20 mS/m. Terrain conductivity values in the unfrozen
overburden that were significantly greater than 35 mS/m were subsequently targeted for
intrusive investigations to confirm the source(s).
REFERENCES
Hume, G.S. and Link, T.A., 1945. Canol Geological Investigations in the Mackenzie River
Area, Northwest Territories and Yukon. Geological Survey of Canada Paper,
45-16.
Link, T.A., 1920. Geological Report on the Ft. Norman Oil Field. Unpublished report
prepared for Imperial Oil Limited.
Appendix A: Background Conditions Page 2

Appendix B
Determination of Soil Geochemical

Background and Glossary of Soil Quality
Parameters
DETERMINATION OF SOIL GEOCHEMICAL BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
Soil and bedrock analytical results from several Phase 2 Environmental Site
Assessments within the Norman Wells Field have indicated that there are concentrations
of hydrocarbons, salts and metals in certain stratigraphic units that are naturally elevated
above generic federal environmental quality guidelines (CCME 1999 and updates,
CCME 2008). Understanding background (pre-industrial disturbance) soil quality is
required to determine appropriate site remediation criteria for the Norman Wells Field.
This section reviews available data with the objective of determining background soil and
bedrock geochemical conditions for the different near surface (i.e., <10 mbgs)
stratigraphic units present within the Norman Wells Field.
Shale material from the Town of Norman Wells quarry has been crushed to varying
degrees and used as fill material across the Norman Wells Field, to allow construction
on the unstable muskeg areas. Further, the underlying siltstone bedrock is at or very
close to surface along the lower terrace of the Mackenzie River on the Mainland portion
of the Norman Wells Site. Given the potential for the shale and siltstone bedrock to be
influencing soil chemistry at this site, bedrock (siltstone and shale) chemical conditions
are also summarized herein.
The available data for background soil and bedrock chemistry collected between 1998
and 2012 have been compiled and assessed to confirm maximum reported values, as
well as 95th percentile values where sufficient data existed within a specific stratigraphic
unit. For the purposes of the Norman Wells environmental assessment programs, soil
and bedrock data were summarized into the following general categories / stratigraphic
units:
• surface organic soil (generally upper 0.5 m of soil profile);
• surface mineral soil (generally upper 0.5 m of soil profile);
− mainland; and
− islands.
• subsurface mineral soil (> 0.5 m below ground surface [bgs] to bedrock contact);
− mainland; and
− islands.
• bedrock;
− mainland (Siltstone); and
− shale (Fill Material from Quarry).
Available Background Soils Data

The majority of the background soils/bedrock data was collected in 1998, 2003, 2010
and 2012. Data were collected for a range of environmental projects and it is possible
that a location considered suitable for background purposes for a groundwater or
subsurface soils investigation may not necessarily provide suitable background surface
soils data due to disturbance of surface soils, or due to the presence of shale fill
Appendix B: Glossary of Soil Quality Parameters Page 1

material. Only data from those background locations considered to have minimal or no
potential industrial impact were included in the attached summary table. Selected
background locations are provided in Table App-B1. In addition to the reduced number
of locations, not all stratigraphic units were sampled or analyzed at each location. As a
result, there is a reduced amount of background data that can be utilized for the specific
objectives of this project.
As indicated in Table App-B1, the suitable data set (i.e. number of analyzed samples) for
each stratigraphic unit comprised the following:
Stratigraphic Unit No. of Sampling No. of Analyzed Samples

Locations
Mainland Surface Organic Soil 10 10
Mainland Surface Mineral Soil 5 10
Mainland Subsurface Mineral Soil 20 43
Mainland Siltstone Bedrock 4 8
Mainland Shale Bedrock 4 4
Islands Surface Mineral Soil 5 5
Islands Subsurface Mineral Soil 9 30
There were insufficient samples to characterize Islands Surface Organic Soil, and no
bedrock was encountered or sampled during intrusive investigations on the Islands.
The data summarized in Table App-B2 (provided in this appendix) have been screened
against generic contaminated sites guidelines for fine-grained soils that were selected to
be a conservative screening tool for the likely post-industrial use of the Norman Wells
Field. Maximum parameter concentrations as well as 95th percentile concentrations
have been provided for each stratigraphic unit when sufficient data were available for
statistical analysis. This land use assumes Imperial Oil will maintain ownership of the
land but will not prevent occasional access by people or wildlife and as such is modified
from CCME Industrial and Residential/Parkland land use conceptual models. In general
terms, the Industrial land use guidelines were applied to Mainland areas, whereas
Residential/Parkland guidelines were applied to the Natural Islands (Bear, Frenchy’s and
Goose). The majority of the soils assessed at the Norman Wells Site were determined to
be fine-grained, especially on the Mainland and Bear Island. On Goose Island, both
coarse and fine-grained alluvial deposits have been identified.
Background Soil Chemistry

As noted above, the background data compiled to date for the Norman Wells Field have
been compiled by geographic area (Mainland versus Islands) and by general
stratigraphic unit as follows: surface organic soil, surface mineral soil, subsurface
mineral soil, and bedrock. The first bedrock interval encountered in the subsurface is
siltstone, although layers of shale are present deeper in the profile.

MAINLAND
Surface Organic Soil

Between 1998 and 2012, surface organic soil or peat was sampled at the ten locations
noted in Table App-B1. Ten samples were subject to laboratory analysis for some or all
of the following general characterization parameters:
• detailed salinity (pH, electrical conductivity [EC], major soluble ions [calcium,
sodium, magnesium, potassium, sulphate and chloride], and sodium adsorption
ratio [SAR]);
• trace elements and metals (antimony [Sb], arsenic [As], barium [Ba], beryllium
[Be], boron [B], cadmium [Cd], chromium [Cr], cobalt [Co], copper [Cu], lead [Pb],
mercury [Hg], molybdenum [Mo], nickel [Ni], selenium [Se], thallium [Tl], uranium
[U], vanadium [V], and zinc [Zn]);
• petroleum hydrocarbon fractions 1 through 4G (PHC F1 through F4G); and
• benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX).
Analytical data are summarized in Table App-B2. The analyzed parameters which were
measured at concentrations/levels exceeding the generic CCME soil quality guidelines
included:
Parameter Range of Values 95th Percentile Value

EC 0.25 to 2.7 dS/m 2.35 dS/m
As 2.6 to 17.1 mg/kg 16.6 mg/kg
Cr 6.7 to 65 mg/kg 48.5 mg/kg
Cu 5.0 to 98.1 mg/kg 76.2 mg/kg
Mo 1.0 to 46.8 mg/kg 45.4 mg/kg
Ni 11 to 239 mg/kg 231 mg/kg
Se 0.53 to 81.6 mg/kg 68.6 mg/kg
Tl 0.15 to 2.5 mg/kg Not Calculated (NC)
Zn 30 to 435 mg/kg 357 mg/kg
It is also noteworthy that concentrations of one or more BTEX and PHC parameters
below the applicable CCME guidelines were present in all of the samples analyzed.
In general, it is not uncommon to find elevated hydrocarbon and metals concentrations
in association with peat/organic material at the Site. Metals tend to bond strongly to
organic matter, and the lower pH of the peat may also increase metals concentrations in
pore water. The elevated EC values are not associated with chloride, a typical indicator
of industrial impact. Based on the available data set, it is considered likely that the above
listed parameters and concentrations are naturally occurring.

Surface Mineral Soil
The natural soil profile on the Site (excluding muskeg areas) generally consists of a thin
organic layer underlain by varying combinations of silts and clays, which are underlain
by siltstone bedrock.
Between 1998 and 2012, surface mineral soil was sampled at the five locations noted in
Table App-B1. Ten samples were subject to laboratory analysis for some or all of the
following general characterization parameters:
• detailed salinity (pH, EC, major soluble ions [calcium, sodium, magnesium,
potassium, sulphate and chloride], and SAR);
• PHC F1 through F4G;
• BTEX compounds; and
• PAH’s.
Analytical data are summarized in Table App-B2. None of the analyzed parameters were
for unrestricted land use.
Very low concentrations of PHC F2, F3 and F4 were present in the three samples
analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons. BTEX and PHC F1 concentrations were below the
analytical method detection limits.
Although there is a limited background data set for the Mainland Surface Mineral Soil
interval, based on the available data, the analyzed parameters and concentrations meet
CCME guidelines for unrestricted land use.
Subsurface Mineral Soil

The natural soil profile on the Site (excluding muskeg areas) generally consists of a thin
organic layer underlain by varying combinations of silts and clays, which are underlain
by siltstone bedrock. The mineral subsurface soil texture ranges from silty clay to loam,
and is consistently fine-grained. Permafrost was encountered within the upper 3 m of the
soil profile at the majority of background locations, and where a thick organic layer is
present, permafrost may be less than 1 m below ground surface.
Between 1998 and 2012, subsurface mineral soil was sampled at the 20 locations noted
in Table App-B1. Forty-three (43) samples were subject to laboratory analysis for some
or all of the following general characterization parameters:
ratio [SAR];

[U], vanadium [V], and zinc [Zn];
• petroleum hydrocarbon fractions 1 through 4G (PHC F1 through F4G);
• benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX); and
• polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
included:
th
Parameter Range of Values 95 Percentile Value
pH 6.11 to 8.1 8.1
EC 0.26 to 2.4 dS/m 1.82 dS/m
SAR 0.17 to 22 2.26
As 4 to 49 mg/kg 27.1 mg/kg
Mo 0.2 to 11.0 mg/kg 6.1 mg/kg
Se 0.25 to 2.7 mg/kg 1.3 mg/kg
Zn 31 to 350 mg/kg 156 mg/kg
In addition to the above noted guideline exceedances at background locations,

concentrations of one or more BTEX and PHC parameters below the applicable CCME
guidelines were present in all of the samples analyzed. Maximum reported values for
Mainland Subsurface Soil included: Benzene (0.019 mg/kg), Toluene (0.18 mg/kg),
Ethylbenzene (0.059 mg/kg), Xylenes (0.34 mg/kg), PHC F1 (21 mg/kg), PHC F2
(72 mg/kg), PHC F3 (530 mg/kg) and PHC F4 (220 mg/kg). The naturally occurring
levels of PHC F3, in particular, should be considered when determining appropriate soil
remediation objectives relative to background conditions.
In general, it is not uncommon to find elevated select hydrocarbon and metals
concentrations in association with mineral subsurface soil at the Mainland portion of the
Site. The few locations with EC values above CCME Parkland guidelines are not
associated with chloride, a typical indicator of industrial impact. Based on the available
data set, it is considered likely that the above listed parameters and concentrations are
naturally occurring.
ISLANDS
Surface Mineral Soil

Due to the relatively small background soil chemistry data set for the Islands, and the
relative similarity between samples collected on Bear and Goose Islands, the data were
pooled for a resulting five surface mineral soil sampling points (Table App-B1). Five
samples from these locations were analyzed for chemical characterization. As the
natural islands comprise alluvial deposits, there is significant variability in the soil texture.

The majority of the background soils sampled to date have been fine-grained, with
intermittent lenses/layers of coarser sands at depth.
The Island surface soils, particularly on Goose Island, are influenced by ice scouring of
the surface soils during spring breakup on the Mackenzie River. Although an organic rich
‘A’ horizon may be present in some non-scoured locations, profile development is
relatively limited within these alluvial deposits.
Island mineral surface soil samples were analyzed for some or all of the following
general characterization parameters:
• detailed salinity (pH, EC, major soluble ions [calcium, sodium, magnesium,
potassium, sulphate and chloride], and SAR);
• PHC F1 through F4G;
• BTEX compounds; and
• PAH’s.
included:
th
EC 0.49 to 2.9 dS/m 2.7 dS/m
Reported metals concentrations for Island mineral surface soils were within generic
guidelines.
Island Surface Soil included: Benzene (0.0025 mg/kg), Toluene (0.01 mg/kg),
remediation objectives relative to background conditions.
The few locations with EC values above CCME Parkland guidelines are not associated
with chloride, a typical indicator of industrial impact. Based on the available data set, it is
considered likely that the above listed parameters and concentrations are naturally
occurring.
Subsurface Mineral Soil

Due to the relatively small background soil chemistry data set for the Islands, and the
relative similarity between samples collected on Bear and Goose Islands, the data were

pooled for a resulting nine subsurface mineral soil sampling points (Table App-B1).
Thirty samples from these locations were analyzed for chemical characterization. As the
natural islands comprise alluvial deposits, there is significant variability in the soil texture.
The majority of the background soils sampled to date have been fine-grained, with
intermittent lenses/layers of coarser sands at depth.
Whereas permafrost is often reached within 3 m of ground surface on the mainland
locations, permafrost was only reported at one of the island background sampling
locations, at 4.3 m below ground surface. Island subsurface mineral soil samples were
analyzed for some or all of the following general characterization parameters:
ratio [SAR];
included:
th
EC 0.35 to 2.7 dS/m 2.3 dS/m
As 4.0 to 15 mg/kg 9 mg/kg
Mo 1.2 to 45 mg/kg 9.9 mg/kg
Se 0.25 to 3.0 mg/kg 0.93 mg/kg
Tl 0.15 to 2.6 mg/kg Not calculated

Island Subsurface Soil included: Benzene (0.0025 mg/kg), Toluene (0.01 mg/kg),
remediation objectives relative to background conditions. The reported maximum PHC
F2 concentration exceeds the CCME Parkland use guideline (150 mg/kg) for
fine-grained surface soil. This hydrocarbon exceedance was at one location (BIBG-10-3
@ 0.3-0.6 mbgs).
None of the PAH analytical results for background locations exceeded the applicable
CCME Parkland use guidelines for fine-grained surface soil.

The few (three) locations with EC values above CCME Parkland guidelines are not
BACKGROUND BEDROCK CHEMISTRY
Siltstone
Samples of the weathered siltstone bedrock encountered in the majority of sampling
locations on the Mainland were collected from four background locations. A total of eight
samples have been analyzed to date for chemical analyses, including:
ratio [SAR];
included:
th
SAR 0.28 to 26 17.9
As 7.6 to 24 mg/kg 23 mg/kg
PHC F2 5 to 1200 mg/kg 899 mg/kg
PHC F3 58 to 2900 mg/kg 2144 mg/kg

concentrations of PHC F1 and F4 parameters below the applicable CCME guidelines
were present in all of the samples analyzed. Maximum reported values for siltstone
bedrock included: PHC F1 (80 mg/kg) and PHC F4 (1100 mg/kg). The naturally
occurring levels of PHC F3, in particular, should be considered when determining
appropriate soil remediation objectives relative to background conditions.
The elevated hydrocarbon concentrations that are intermittently reported in the Mainland
siltstone bedrock are interpreted to be associated with the presence of natural
hydrocarbon seeps that have been documented throughout the Site, particularly on the
lower terrace of the Mackenzie River where bedrock may be present at or near surface.
The seeps generally occur at the mineral soil / bedrock interface. This interface is found
at greater depths with distance from the river.

None of the PAH analytical results for background location bedrock samples exceeded
the applicable CCME land use guidelines for fine-grained surface soil.
The few (three) locations with EC values above CCME Parkland guidelines are not
Shale
As noted above, shale bedrock from the Town of Norman Wells quarry located to the
northeast of the IOL Site has been extracted for use as fill material both on the Site and
throughout the developed Town site.
To date, a limited number of shale samples have been collected for laboratory analysis
for the purpose of characterizing background conditions. These samples were obtained
from the Town of Norman Wells quarry rather than the Site, to minimize the potential for
industrial effects. Additional investigations are on-going into the potential for this shale fill
to affect underlying and adjacent soil and/or water chemistry.
Analytical results for four shale samples have been included in this background
characterization section. The analysis included pH, and trace elements/metals.
included:
th
As 7.19 to 42.9 mg/kg 39.6 mg/kg
Mo 29.8 to 66.4 mg/kg 64.7 mg/kg
Se 4.38 to 7.9 mg/kg 7.56 mg/kg
Tl 0.88 to 2.33 mg/kg 2.29 mg/kg
Summary
From the review of the available background data, some general trends are apparent:
• concentrations of one or more metals/trace elements (As, Mo, Ni, Se, Tl and Zn)
exceeding CCME guidelines have been confirmed in background organic surface
soil, mineral subsurface soil, and underlying siltstone bedrock on the Mainland.
• concentrations of As, Mo, Se and Tl exceeding CCME guidelines have also been
confirmed in shale bedrock samples collected from the Town of Norman Wells
quarry. This shale material is used as fill throughout the Site and the adjacent
Town.
• above guideline SAR values have been measured/calculated for a limited number
of mineral subsurface soil samples on the Mainland, as well as the siltstone
bedrock.
• in the Island soils, background metals concentrations in surface mineral soil are
typically below CCME Parkland use guidelines. However, several metals (As, Mo,
Se, Tl) may be present at concentrations above guidelines in the subsurface soil.

• EC levels above CCME Parkland guidelines (2 dS/m) may be present in both
organic and mineral soil on both the Islands and the Mainland. The EC is typically
associated with concentrations of sulphate, calcium and magnesium ions rather
than chloride, an indicator of industrial activities.
• one or more BTEX and PHC F1 through F4 parameter concentrations above
detection limits but generally below CCME guidelines have been reported in all
strata and may be associated with organic matter and / or hydrocarbon seeps at
the bedrock / soil interface, particularly in the vicinity of the Mackenzie River.
• background data sets for the organic and mineral surface soil on the Islands, as
well as the underlying bedrock are very limited and should be
interpreted/referenced with caution.

GLOSSARY OF SOIL QUALITY PARAMETERS
GENERAL SOIL PARAMETERS
pH Soil pH provides a measurement of the relative acidity/alkalinity of a

soil/water solution, and is strongly dependent on the salt concentration in
the solution. Soil pH could be affected by both natural processes
(vegetation cover and geology), and industrial activities (accidental release
of acids, or caustic substances). Soil pH <4.5 will result in reduced crop
yield, and pH >8.5 will limit fertilizer and micronutrient uptake from the soil
by plants. The optimum soil pH range for growth of most plant species is
typically 6.0 to 8.0. However, local geological and biological conditions can
result in natural soil pH outside this range. For example, soil developed
under coniferous forest cover (spruce or pine) or muskeg (sphagnum peat)
is naturally acidic with pH below 6.
Electrical Soil EC is a measure of a dissolved salts in a soil/water solution, prepared
Conductivity at a specified ratio. The accumulation of soluble salts (e.g. sodium (Na)
(EC) and chloride (Cl)) may affect plant growth by limiting moisture availability,
creating nutrient imbalances, or producing ion-specific toxicity. Plants such
as rye grass, wheat grass, alfalfa and sweet clover are able to grow in soil
with higher EC (>8 deci-siemens per metre (dS/m)), whereas plants such
as potatoes, peas, timothy and red clover have quite low tolerance for
higher salt concentrations in the soil (prefer EC <4 dS/m). Plant responses
to EC, measured in dS/m, include:
EC (dS/m) Plant Response
0-2 No salinity problems
2-4 Restricts growth of salt sensitive plants, delays seed
germination
4–8 Restricts growth of most plants
8 – 14 Restricts growth of all except salt tolerant plants, seed
germination reduced or prevented
>14 Prevents growth of almost all plants
Note that naturally saline (e.g. marine) environments have a different
(higher) baseline salinity, and vegetation may have already adapted to
naturally higher salt levels in the soil.
Sodium Soil sodicity is expressed as SAR, which is a ratio of sodium to calcium
Adsorption Ratio and magnesium concentrations present in the soil solution. High SAR can
(SAR) have an adverse effect on soil structure by creating “hard pan” layers in
the profile, which in turn restrict plant root development and infiltration of
precipitation. Soil structure is not usually affected at an SAR value less
than 7 or 8. The SAR guidelines in the NT have been set at 5 for Parkland
use, and 12 for Industrial land use.

MAJOR IONS
Calcium (Ca) and Calcium and magnesium naturally present in soil result from the
Magnesium (Mg) weathering of Ca and Mg-rich rocks. These parameters are not usually
indicators of contamination in soil. There are no current regulatory
guidelines for Ca or Mg in soil. Soluble salt levels are measured and
monitored indirectly through the EC parameter noted above.
Sodium (Na) Sodium is a naturally occurring element; however, if present in large
concentrations, soil structure can be adversely affected. There is no
current regulatory guideline for sodium levels in soil – this parameter is
usually measured indirectly through the SAR ratio noted above.
Potassium (K) Potassium is an essential nutritional element for humans, animals and
plants, and is naturally occurring in soils. However, at high concentrations
(>100 milligrams per litre (mg/L)) this constituent may be an indicator of
spills of specific materials such as drilling muds/fluids. There is no current
regulatory guideline for potassium in soil. Soluble salt levels are measured
and monitored indirectly through the EC parameter noted above. Optimum
available potassium levels for good plant growth should be around
200 parts per million (ppm).
Chloride (Cl) Higher chloride levels in soil (i.e. >500 mg/L) can be an indicator of
industry related impact; as this constituent is not usually present at high
concentrations in a natural non-marine, non-saline environment. However,
in marine or naturally saline environments, high concentrations
(>1,000 mg/L) of chloride may be common in soils. There is no current
regulatory guideline for chloride in soil. Soluble salt levels are measured
and monitored indirectly through the EC parameter noted above.
Sulphate (SO4) High concentrations of soluble sulphate in soils (i.e. >1,000 mg/L) are
usually an indicator of naturally occurring salinity. There is no current
regulatory guideline for sulphate in soil. Soluble salt levels are measured
and monitored indirectly through the EC parameter noted above. Optimum
levels of sulphate for good plant growth are around 10 ppm available
sulphate.
Nitrate and Nitrite Nitrate and nitrite occur in natural and contaminated soil. Common
(NO3 and NO2) sources include food preservatives, commercial fertilizers, sewage and
manure. Nitrate presence in soil is essential for plant growth; optimum
levels are plant-specific, but should generally be around 40 ppm available
nitrate.

SECONDARY CONSTITUENTS
Metals Metals in soil naturally result from the weathering of mineral and rock
fragments present in the subsurface. Industry related sources may include
commercial fertilizers, sewage, drilling fluids/muds, process waters,
industrial combustion and smelting activities. When present at high
concentrations, some metals can be toxic to plants and soil
micro-organisms. At northern sites, metals are of particular importance as
certain constituents (e.g. arsenic, molybdenum, nickel, selenium) occur
naturally at high concentrations due to the bedrock geochemistry. There
are a number of metals that are currently regulated by NT and CCME as
listed below, along with the respective CCME (1999 and updates)
Parkland and Industrial guideline concentrations, and interpreted
background levels in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
Metal Parkland Industrial Interpreted

Guideline Guideline Background Level
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Arsenic (As) 12 12 See Table App-B2

Barium (Ba) 500 2,000
Cadmium (Cd) 10 22
Chromium (Cr) 64 87
Hexavalent Chromium (Cr6+) 0.4 1.4
Cobalt (Co) 50 300
Copper (Cu) 63 91
Lead (Pb) 140 600
Mercury (Hg) 6.6 50
Molybdenum (Mo) 10 40
Nickel (Ni) 50 50
Selenium (Se) 1 3.9
Thallium (Tl) 1 1
Zinc (Zn) 200 360

SOIL - VOLATILE ORGANICS
BTEX BTEX is comprised of four different constituents - benzene, toluene,

ethylbenzene, and xylenes. Benzene is a common constituent of gasoline,
but may also be associated with unrefined petroleum products. This
compound is the most soluble of the BTEX constituents, and is a known
cancer causing agent in humans. Therefore, guidelines of 0.5 mg/kg and
5 mg/kg have been set for NT soils under Parkland and Industrial use
respectively. Under CCME, the most conservative recent benzene
guideline for Parkland and Industrial use, fine-grained soil, drinking water
protection pathway, is 0.0068 mg/kg.
Toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes primarily originate from the petroleum
industry, but are also present in various solvents, gasoline additives, and
manufactured chemicals. Unlike benzene, these compounds are not
classified on the basis of potential health effects. This is a function of their
differing physical and chemical properties. The current NT soil guidelines
for toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes under Industrial land use,
fine-grained soil, groundwater protection pathway, are 0.8 mg/kg 20 mg/kg
and 20 mg/kg, respectively. However, the most recent CCME soil
guidelines for these same parameters are 0.08 mg/kg, 0.018 mg/kg, and
2.4 mg/kg, respectively.
SOIL - HYDROCARBONS
Petroleum Petroleum products such as crude oil, jet fuel, and heating oil contain
Hydrocarbon numerous compounds in varying proportions. For the purpose of
Fractions regulating these compounds, CCME (2008) and NT have classified the
1 (PHC F1), hydrocarbons on the basis of specified ranges of carbon present. For
2 (PHC F2), soils, petroleum hydrocarbon fractions (PHC) include F1 (C6 to C10
3 (PHC F3) and excluding BTEX), F2 (>C10 - C16), F3 (>C16 - C34), and
4 (PHC F4) F4 (>C34 - C50+). Due to the more complex molecular structure, these
compounds tend to be less soluble than the lighter hydrocarbons, such as
the BTEX components. As soil texture is one of the primary factors
governing hydrocarbon migration through soil, regulatory guidelines have
been recommended for both fine- and coarse-grained soil as defined by
having a median grain size <75 µm (fine) or >75 µm (coarse).
The CCME PHC guidelines for soil are currently set as follows for
Parkland and Industrial land uses (based on ecological soil contact
pathway).
Land Use Soil PHC F1 PHC F2 PHC F3 PHC F4

Texture (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Parkland Fine 210 150 1,300 5,600
Coarse 30 150 300 2,800
Industrial Fine 320 260 2,500 6,600
Coarse 320 260 1,700 3,300

Polycyclic PAHs are a group of chemicals that are formed during the incomplete
Aromatic burning of coal, oil, gas, wood, garbage, from the burning of tobacco, and
Hydrocarbons are present in charbroiled foods. PAHs are also present in crude oil,
(PAHs) bitumen, coal, tar pitch, creosote, and roofing tar. These organic
compounds generally occur as complex mixtures (for example, as part of
combustion products such as soot), and not as single compounds.
PAHs enter the environment mostly as releases to the air from volcanoes,
forest fires, residential wood burning, exhaust from automobiles and trucks
and discharges from industrial facilities. These compounds tend to adsorb
to organic matter in the subsurface, and are therefore not that mobile.
Exposure of animals to high concentrations of some PAHs has been
linked to the development of cancer.
NT and CCME regulatory soil guidelines for some of the more common
PAHs include.
PAH Parkland Guideline Industrial Guideline

(mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.7 0.7
Naphthalene 0.6 22
Phenanthrene 5 50
Pyrene 10 100
REFERENCES
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment), 1999 and updates. Canadian
Environmental Quality Guidelines. Updated September 2007.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment), 2008. Canada-Wide
Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil. Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg. January 2008.

Appendix C
Determination of Groundwater
Geochemical Background and Glossary
of Groundwater Quality Parameters
DETERMINATION OF GROUNDWATER GEOCHEMICAL BACKGROUND
In order to effectively evaluate the origin of groundwater parameters which may exceed
regulatory guidelines (in this case, CCME FWAL criteria), it is important to defensibly
determine naturally occurring background concentrations for the parameters of interest.
Background monitoring wells would ideally be installed in an undisturbed, up-gradient
area, isolated from any potential sources of anthropogenic impact. However, these
locations tend to be heavily influenced by permafrost in the vicinity of Norman Wells.
Previous attempts to install background wells in up-gradient areas of the lease, removed
from the IOL facilities and in areas of natural vegetation, have resulted in rapidly frozen
groundwater monitoring wells that consistently remain frozen. As such, the use of the
term “background” in this report does not necessarily mean the groundwater monitoring
well is installed in an undisturbed, up-gradient area. Rather, the term is used for
locations inferred to be removed from site facilities and free of facility-related impacts.
In an effort to improve characterization of background soil and groundwater conditions,
the 2010 and 2012 Phase 2 ESA programs focused on installation of new potential
background wells in surficial sediments. This included 6 new wells on the Natural Islands
and 5 wells distributed throughout Mainland East, Central, and West areas over the past
three years. As a result of these new wells, supplemented by annual groundwater
sampling from 1997 to 2012, a sufficient database has now been compiled to determine
a statistical background for key geochemical parameters from a range of
hydrogeological units of interest. As summarized in Table App C-1, twenty-four wells
within the monitoring network have been identified as background locations. These wells
are separated into four groups, based on the hydrogeological zone where the well
screen is completed, as follows:
• surficial sediments on Mainland (10 wells, 9 producing water, total 28 samples);
• surficial sediments on Natural Islands (7 wells, all producing water, total 20
samples);
• shallow bedrock on Mainland (3 wells, all producing water, total 21 samples); and
• deeper bedrock on Mainland (4 wells).
Data from the first three hydrogeological is of primary interest for analysis of the
environmental monitoring results collected to date. As such the statistical background
analyses concentrated on these categories. The deep bedrock category is not
characterized to the same extent, and considering that groundwater quality in the deeper
bedrock is less important for comparison to the environmental monitoring program,
deeper bedrock data will not be considered further in this discussion.
A geometric mean, minimum, maximum, and 95th percentile value for each parameter
listed below was determined for each of the three hydrogeological units of interest.
Appendix C: Glossary of Groundwater Quality Parameters Page 1

Indicator Parameters Dissolved Metals and Trace Elements
pH Iron Nitrite as N Aluminum Boron Mercury Thallium
Chloride Sulphate Nitrate as N Antimony Cadmium Molybdenum Titanium
DOC TDS Phenols Arsenic Chromium Nickel Uranium
Fluoride Barium Copper Selenium Zinc
Hardness Beryllium Lead Silver
One of the key aspects of the statistical calculations is the method of dealing with results
reported below the laboratory method detection limit (MDL), which is a frequent
occurrence with some of the dissolved trace metals in particular. In order to calculate the
95th percentile value, a real number is required rather than a “less than” result. The
approach used was as follows. In cases where the MDL is the normal precision reported
for that particular parameter, then a real number value of ½ the MDL is used in the
calculation. For example, if the dissolved copper result was reported as <0.001 mg/L,
then a real number value of 0.0005 mg/L is assumed for the statistical calculations. In
cases where matrix interferences increase the MDL, this method cannot be used and the
data point is typically discarded for the purpose of the 95th percentile calculation. Note
that although this method is acceptable for 95th percentile calculations, it is much more
problematic in the calculation of geometric means (U.S. EPA Unified Guidance, 2009).
Results of the statisitical analyses are provided in Table App-C2. The following results
are of particular note in the interpretation of data in the attached report:
• The CCME FWAL water quality guidelines for a number of trace metals vary
depending on the pH and total hardness of the water (see footnotes of Table 9).
For the purpose of selecting appropriate guidelines for comparison to Norman
Wells water samples, the pH value is considered greater than 6.5, and the total
hardness as calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is greater than 180 mg/L (very hard
water). The 95th percentile value for groundwater samples from background
locations was as follows:
− surficial sediments on mainland, pH of 7.1 and hardness of 1345 mg/L;
− surficial sediments on islands, pH of 7.2 and hardness of 1681 mg/L; and
− shallow bedrock, pH of 7.8 and hardness of 254 mg/L.
• The attached analysis of background geochemistry in local groundwater has
intentionally avoided using chloride values derived from a background well which
is located within a historically documented natural seepage zone on the
Mackenzie River shore, directly south of the Former Refinery. Well NWR 03-38-3
represents a natural crude oil and saline formation water seepage zone, where
shallow bedrock subcrops within a few metres of ground surface under sediments
along the shoreline. Chloride readings from this well, on the order of 250 mg/L,
have been discounted in the determination of the 95th percentile chloride value for
surficial sediments on the Mainland.
• The 95th percentile analyses indicate that the following parameters may naturally
exceed the applied CCME FWAL criteria in groundwater at this site:

− groundwater from surficial sediments on Mainland sites - iron, phenols,
arsenic, cadmium, copper, selenium, uranium, and zinc. Chloride and petroleum
hydrocarbons can also occur above the applied guideline in natural seepage
zones;
− groundwater from surficial sediments on Natural Islands sites - iron, phenols,
cadmium, copper, selenium, uranium, and zinc; and
− groundwater from shallow bedrock – chloride, iron, phenols, aluminum,
arsenic, copper, and selenium. As noted previously, petroleum hydrocarbons
would also be expected within areas of natural seepage in the upper bedrock.
GLOSSARY OF GROUNDWATER TERMS
GENERAL WATER PARAMETERS
pH One of the main objectives in controlling the pH is to minimize corrosion

and encrustation in the household water distribution system. This can
result from the complex relationships between pH and other constituents,
such as carbon dioxide, hardness, alkalinity and temperature. The
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME 2007) guideline
for protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life (FWAL) is 6.5 to 9.0.
Alkalinity Alkalinity is caused by the presence of carbonates, bicarbonates and
hydroxides of various minerals. Not considered to be detrimental to
humans, alkalinity is generally associated with pH values, hardness, and
the presence of excessive amounts of dissolved solids. There is no set
limit for alkalinity in the current CCME FWAL guidelines.
Electrical EC is a measure of the water’s capacity to carry electrical current. This is
Conductivity in turn, directly related to the concentration of ionized inorganic
(EC) compounds in the water. Values of EC can vary considerably from well to
well, and depend on the well location, depth of completion, and type of
aquifer sediments completed in. Values in excess of 2,000 µS/cm would
be considered elevated for fresher waters. There is no set limit for EC in
the current CCME FWAL guidelines.
Hardness Public acceptability of the degree of hardness may vary considerably from
(as CaCO3) one community to another. The hardness of water is caused by dissolved,
polyvalent ions (principally calcium and to a lesser extent magnesium).
Depending on the interaction of other factors, such as pH and alkalinity,
water with a hardness above 200 mg/L may cause the build-up of scale
deposits in water delivery systems. There is no set limit for hardness in the
current CCME FWAL guidelines.

MAJOR IONS
Calcium (Ca) Calcium in groundwater results from the weathering of Ca-rich rocks and
soils. It is important as a constituent or hardness (see hardness). Excess
calcium may be detrimental for domestic uses such as washing, bathing,
and laundering because of its tendency to neutralize soap and cause
encrustations plumbing fixtures. There is no set limit in the current CCME
FWAL guidelines.
Magnesium (Mg) Magnesium is also a constituent of hardness, and an essential element in
human metabolism. At high concentrations, magnesium may have a
laxative effect, particularly upon new users. Nevertheless, the body can
develop a tolerance over time. There is no direct evidence of adverse
health effects associated with magnesium; therefore no limit has been set
for Canadian drinking water. There is no set limit in the current CCME
FWAL guidelines.
Sodium (Na) Sodium is not considered to be acutely toxic to humans, and up to
5 grams/day are consumed by the average person without apparent
adverse effects. The average intake of sodium from water is only a small
fraction of that consumed in a normal diet. There is no set limit in the
current CCME FWAL guidelines.
Potassium (K) Potassium is an essential nutritional element in human metabolism.
However, at high concentrations (>1,000 mg/L) this constituent may have
laxative effects. Concentrations rarely exceed this value (in most potable
aquifers). There is no set limit in the current CCME FWAL guidelines.
Chloride (Cl) Concentrations of chloride are generally quite low in most shallow
groundwater systems. However, due to the presence of natural shallow
seeps containing hydrocarbon and associated produced water at the
Norman Wells site, significant measurable chloride can be locally present.
The current CCME FWAL guidelines is 120 mg/L chloride.
Sulphate (SO4) No serious health effects are associated with high sulphate levels. At
concentrations above 500 mg/L, sulphate may impart a noticeable taste to
the water and cause a laxative effect in occasional users. There is no set
limit in the current CCME FWAL guidelines.
Bicarbonate Bicarbonate is formed by the weathering of organic matter and
(HCO3) carbonate-bearing minerals (e.g. limestone) present in the subsurface.
The concentration of this anion in natural and contaminated waters is
related to such factors as temperature, pH, concentrations of other
dissolved solids, and biological activity. This parameter is not considered a
health hazard. There is no set limit in the current CCME FWAL guidelines.

SECONDARY CONSTITUENTS
Nitrate and Nitrite Nitrite-nitrogen (NO2) and nitrate-nitrogen (NO3) occur in natural and
(NO2 and NO3) contaminated waters. The current CCME FWAL guidelines are 0.06 mg/L
and 2.9 mg/L for nitrite and nitrate as N, respectively.
Iron and Although iron and manganese are essential elements in humans and
Manganese animals, drinking water is not considered to be an important source. At
(Fe and Mn) high enough levels these metals can stain laundry and plumbing fixtures,
and causes an undesirable taste in beverages. The precipitation of excess
iron gives an objectionable reddish-brown colour to drinking water. There
is no set limit in the current CCME FWAL guidelines for manganese. The
CCME FWAL guideline for dissolved iron is 0.3 mg/L.
Trace Metals Metals are a common occurrence in groundwater, and result from the
weathering of mineral and rock fragments present in the subsurface.
There are a number of dissolved metals, other than iron and manganese,
which are currently regulated for protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life
under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment guidelines
(CCME 2007).
ORGANIC INDICATORS
Dissolved DOC provides a measure of the total amount of dissolved organic matter
Organic Carbon in water. This bulk parameter cannot be used to distinguish between the
(DOC) various compounds making up the organic loading of a sample; therefore
it is only used as an indicator of organic loading.
High DOC readings can be related to soluble compounds originating from
the breakdown of natural organic matter in the subsurface, or soluble
hydrocarbon components originating from an industrial source. DOC
concentrations in most natural waters generally fall within the range of
10 mg/L or less (Hem 1989). Higher concentrations (up to 60 mg/L) can
sometimes occur in pore waters associated with organic-rich soils, such as
lake and swamp sediments and muskeg deposits (Thurman 1985). There
is no current CCME FWAL guideline for DOC.
Phenols (total) Phenols are a common occurrence in groundwater. This class of
compounds is derived from the degradation of natural organic matter, the
distillation of wood and coal, and the refining of oil. Phenols are also
associated with heavy oil. Phenols are quite soluble in water, and easily
degraded by subsurface bacteria. At present the CCME FWAL guideline
for phenols is 0.004 mg/L.
Concentrations of total phenols are generally quite low in most natural
groundwater systems. However, due to the presence of shallow natural
hydrocarbon seeps at the Norman Wells site, measurable phenols are
also present.

Phenols analyses are performed at Maxxam Analytics (Maxxam) using the
4-AAP colorimetric method. This method yields a single phenols value.
However, there are limitations to the colorimetric method, including
interference with other compounds in a sample. Plastics, phenol-
decomposing bacteria, oxidizing and reducing substances and alkaline pH
can interfere with the natural amount of phenols in a sample. These
interferences could result in false-positive results and/or poor precision.
However, while limitations are present, the colorimetric method is
considered to be a useful screening tool for phenols.
VOLATILE ORGANICS
BTEX BTEX is comprised of four different constituents - benzene, toluene,

ethylbenzene, and three isomers of xylene (o-, m-, and p-). BTEX
compounds are associated with both refined petroleum products and
crude oil, and represent some of the more soluble components of
petroleum hydrocarbon mixtures.
The CCME FWAL guidelines for benzene, toluene, and ethylbenzene are
0.37, 0.002, and 0.09 mg/L respectively. There is no current CCME FWAL
guideline set for xylenes.
HYDROCARBONS
Total Purgeable Due to the more complex molecular structure, these compounds tend to
Hydrocarbons be less soluble than the lighter hydrocarbons, such as the BTEX
(TPH) components.
Total Extractable These parameters can only be used to indicate the presence of higher
Hydrocarbons molecular weight hydrocarbons, as the method of analysis is incapable of
(TEH) distinguishing between the different compounds present. However, the
results can be used to more fully characterize areas identified by key
indicator parameters such as DOC and phenols. Therefore these analyses
are useful as an indicator parameter of higher-order hydrocarbons.
Petroleum The former TPH and TEH scans have been replaced with the newer
Hydrocarbon AENV (2001) petroleum hydrocarbon fractions, which include PHC F1 (C6
Fractions 1 and 2 through C10, excluding BTEX) and PHC F2 (C>10 through C16). No CCME
(PHC F1, PHC F2) FWAL guidelines are defined for PHC F1 and F2.

REFERENCES
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment), 2007a and updates.
Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment, Winnipeg. September 2007 and updates.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment), 2007b and updates.
Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Updated
December 2007 and updates.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment), 2008. Canada-Wide
Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil. Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg. January 2008.
Guidance Document on Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines for Federal
Contaminated Sites. May 2010. Accessed through www.esdat.net.
Hem, J.D., 1989. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural
Water (3rd Edition). United States Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 2254,
Library of Congress Card Catalogue No. 85-600603, 263 pp.
Hume, G.S. and Link, T.A., 1945. Canol Geological Investigations in the Mackenzie River
Area, Northwest Territories and Yukon. Geological Survey of Canada Paper,
45-16.
Link, T.A., 1920. Geological Report on the Ft. Norman Oil Field. Unpublished report
prepared for Imperial Oil Limited.
NT (Government of the Northwest Territories), 2003 Environmental Guideline for
Contaminated Site Remediation. November 2003.
Thurman, E.M., 1985. Organic Geochemistry of Natural Waters. Martinus Nijhoff/Dr. W.
Junk Publishers, New York, ISBN 90-247-3143-7, 497 pp.
U.S. EPA, Unified Guidance (2009).

Appendix D
Norman Wells A&R Work Areas
Summary
Appendix D - Norman Wells A&R Work Areas Summary
Norman Wells Area Phase I Phase I Phase 2 ESA - Phase 2 ESA - Drilling Groundwater Dismantling/ Remediation Surface Current Status Planned 2014 Activities
ESA ESA Update Geophysics Monitoring Demolition Restoration
Mainland East
Office Building 2000
Abandoned Camp Site 1999 2008 2008 2008 Phase 2 delineation complete Groundwater Monitoring
Phase 2 delineation complete, Screening Level Risk
Assessment complete. In-situ remediation at Refinery Groundwater Monitoring, Continue operation of
Former Refinery 1999 2008 pre-2008 1993, 97, 98, 99, 2000, 02, 03, 08, 09, 2012, 2013 1997-present 1996-1997 1999, 2002 excavations Bank area from 2003 to present in-situ systems.
API Separator 1999 2008 2003, 2009 2003-present 1997 1997 1997 Phase 2 delineation complete Groundwater Monitoring
In-situ DPE remediation system active seasonally,
upgrades and expansion in 2009, expanded solar panel
water heater capacity in 2012. Completed 2012 soil &
gw sampling to verify current PHC levels in-situ at FTA, Groundwater Monitoring, Operation and
B-38X Well Area 1999 2008 pre-2008 1993, 97, 98, 99, 2000, 02, 03, 08, 2012 1997-present 1992 ongoing 2004-present LT7, B38. Optimization of In-situ Remediation System
Surface restoration complete, delineation drilling to
B-38X Buried Pit/Sump 2008 Pre-2008, 2009 1999, 2000, 02, 03, 2010 1998-present 2006-present 2008-2009 south of former sump in 2010 Vegetation, Groundwater Monitoring
B-40X Well Site 1999 2008 2003, 2008, 2010 2003-present Phase 2 delineation completed in 2010 Groundwater Monitoring
C-36X Well Site 1999 2008 2009, 2010 2009-present Phase 2 delineation completed in 2010 Groundwater Monitoring
C-38X Well Site 1999 2008 1997, 2008 2008-present 2005 Phase 2 delineation complete
D-44X Well Site 1999 2008 2008 2008 Phase 2 delineation complete
F-50X Well Site 1999 2008 1997 Phase 2 delineation complete
Phase 2 delineation completed in 2010, Geophysical
B-42X Well Site 1999 2008 2013 2006, 2010 Investigation complete in 2013 Cut and Cap and limited Phase 2
Well abandoned. Cut and capped in 2012, Phase 2
B-35X Well Site 2012 2012 2012 2012 assessment complete in 2012 Groundwater Monitoring
In-situ DPE remediation system active seasonally,
upgrades and expansion in 2009. Upgrades ongoing to Groundwater Monitoring, Operation and
Fire Training Area 1999 2008 pre-2008 1993, 98, 99, 2000, 03, 08, 2012 1998-present 1992-2008 2008-present engineered system in 2013-2014. Optimization of In-situ Remediation System
Historical Dump Sites and Pits 1999 2008 2009, 2010 On-going
Former Pits (South of E-38X) 2008 2010 Phase 2 delineation complete
Reduced Crude Flare Pit 1999 2008 pre-2008 1993, 98, 99, 2003, 09 1998-present 2002 2002, 2003 2004 Remediation complete Groundwater and Vegetation Monitoring
In-situ remediation system active, groundwater pumping
system upgraded to run year-round in 2012, MPE
running seasonally, Screening Level Risk Assessment
complete, soil & gw sampling. Drilling on beach area in
2013. Upgrades to engineered systems ongoing 2013- Groundwater Monitoring, Operate and
Refinery Bank, Seeps, Former Flare pit 1999 2008 pre-2008 1993, 98, 99, 2001, 03, 08, 09, 2010, 12, 13 1998-present 1999, 2003-present 14. Optimization of In-situ Remediation System.
Airport Landfill 1999 2008 pre-2008 1998 1998-present Preliminary Phase 2 complete
Airport Landfarm 1999 2008 1996-2004 Closure report complete
Phase 2 delineation complete, installed 2 thermistors in
Mainland Tankfarm 1999 2008 1993, 97, 98, 2001, 02, 03 1997-present the area in 2013. Groundwater Monitoring (under Ops)
Historical Dump Site (NE of C-34-1X) 2008 2010 Phase 2 Assessment complete
Former Garage Site on Refinery at NWPC Yard 2008 2010 2010 Phase 2 Assessment complete Groundwater Monitoring
Mainland Tank Farm (former storage yard) 2008 Phase 2 Assessment complete
Former Drum Storage South of NWPC Yard 2008 2010 2010 Phase 2 Assessment complete Groundwater Monitoring
Former Fueling Site near Flint shop 2008 2010 2010 Phase 2 Assessment complete Groundwater Monitoring
Former Camp Site near Flint shop 2008 2009 2009-present Phase 2 Assessment complete Groundwater Monitoring
Mainland Central
Soil treatment by twister bucket continued in 2011.

Phase 2 ESA delineation of historic hydrocarbon issue
south of A&R Biocell complete. Biocells A and B Soil treatment by twister bucket. Groundwater
Decommisioned and Reconstructed as 1 larger cell. Monitoring. Continue remediation of PHC
Remedial excavation of historic hydrocarbon to south impacted soils to south of biocell, excavate
A&R Biocell Area (Biocell A) 2008 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012,2013 2008-present initiated in 2013. across road.
Soil treatment by twister bucket continued in 2011.
Biocells A and B decommisioned and reconstructed as
Operations Biocell (Biocell B) 2008 2009 ,2012 2009-present 1 larger cell in 2012. See above cell.
Phase 2 delineation complete, completed Screening
Level Risk Assessment. Sampled Tank Farm and Flare Groundwater Monitoring. Develop Management
Battery #3 1999 2008 pre-2008, 2008 1993, 97, 98, 99, 2000, 02, 07, 2012 1997-present 1997-1998 1996, 1999, 2000, 2002 Pit areas in 2012. Plan for BT3.
Battery #3 Process Area 1999 (metals removal)
Landfarm North of Battery #3 Flare Pit 2010 1996-2004 Hand sampling completed in 2010 Soil Monitoring for Closure Reporting
Debris storage & dump site north of Battery #3
flare pit 2008 2011 2010 Testpit/soil sampling completed in 2011 Develop management plan
03/07/2014
4:19 PM U:\CAL\GBS\407074-00016\600 - SLWB Report\12.0_Reports\12.3_Backend\Appendix D of 2013 rpt\Appendix_D_A&R_work_summary_3july2014.xls Page 1 of 4
Remedial excavation planned for 2014 for

Battery #3 Flare Pit (Metals Removal) 2012 2002 (metals removal) 2012 supplementary Phase 2 sampling completed. source removal of salts/PHC impacted soil.
Battery #3 Wax Pit 1999 (HC removal) 1999
PCB & Mercury Storage Facility 1996
Bosworth Creek Weir 1999 2008 2007 2005 Complete, weir removed in 2005
2008, 2009, Complete aquatics monitoring, Bank stabilization Monitor restored bank for stability,
Bosworth Creek East Bank 1999 2008 2008 1998, 2000, 06, 08, 2010, 2013 1998-present 2008, 2009 2012 activities completed in 2012. New drivepoints in 2013 revegetation activities as needed.
Bosworth Creek Delta (E-32X Area) 1999 2008 pre-2008, 2008 1997, 98, 99, 2000, 01, 07, 09, 2010 1997-present Phase 2 delineation complete Groundwater Monitoring
Bosworth Creek Delta (Well #6 Near D-34X) 2008 2001, 2009, 2010 2001-present Phase 2 delineation complete Groundwater Monitoring
Bosworth Creek Delta (D-36X Area) 2008 2001, 2008, 2010 2001-present Phase 2 delineation complete Groundwater Monitoring
Bosworth Creek Delta (E-33X Area) 1999 2008 pre-2008, 2013 2009 Phase 2 delineation complete
C-32X Well Site 1999 2008 2008 1996, 1997, 2007 1996 (Flowline spill site) 1997 Phase 2 delineation complete Groundwater Monitoring
C-34X Well Site 1999 2008 2008 2007 Phase 2 delineation complete
Phase 2 delineation complete on flowline spill, former
F-31X Well Site and Area 1999 2008 1997, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2007, 2010 1997-present 1999 (Flowline spill site) 2000 dump site to northwest of F-31X Groundwater Monitoring (under Ops)
North of F-31X (buried metal) 2008 Phase 2 delineation complete
G-32X Well Site and Area 1999 2008 2009, 2010 2009-present Phase 2 delineation complete Groundwater Monitoring
Former Camp Site 1999 2008 2009 On-going Groundwater Monitoring
Former Pits, Dump Sites 1999 2008 2009 On-going Groundwater Monitoring
LT11 Satellite Building 1999 2008 pre-2008, 2008 1997, 2007 1997-present Phase 2 delineation complete Groundwater Monitoring
Closure monitoring of vegetation and
Tank 53 Area 1999 2008 1999, 2002 1999-present 2001-2002 2004-present 2009, 2010 Soil remediation complete, revegetation in progress subsidence.
Excavated, treated and backfilled soil, regraded surface
Tank 401 Area 1999 2008 1999, 2002, 2006 1999-present 2001 2011, 2012 in 2011. Recontoured & seeded in 2012. Monitor Vegetation, repair any subsidence.
Tank 401 Pumphouse 2008 2010 Phase 2 delineation complete
D-32X Well Site 1999 2008 pre-2008 2009 2009-present Phase 2 delineation complete Groundwater Monitoring
Well services yard & warehouses 1999 2008 1997 1997-present 1997-present Phase 2 delineation complete
Historical Camp Site 2008
C-30X Wellsite 2008 2010 2010 Phase 2 delineation started 2010 Groundwater Monitoring
Well abandoned. Cut and capped in 2012, Phase 2 Groundwater Monitoring. Develop delineation
B-30X Well Site 2012 2012 20,122,013 2012-present assessment completed in 2013. and management plan.
Mainland West
Former Battery #1 (LH1 Area) 1999 2008 2008 2008, 2010 2008-present circa 1980 Phase 2 assessment complete Groundwater Monitoring
CPF 1999 2008 1997, 1998, 2006, 2008, 2009 1997-present Phase 2 delineation complete Groundwater Monitoring (under Ops)
E-26X Well Site 1999 2008 2008 Phase 2 assessment complete
D-27X Utilidor 1999 2008 2008 2008 2008-present Phase 2 delineation complete Groundwater Monitoring
E-27X Well Site 1999 2008 2013 2008, 2009 2008-present Phase 2 delineation complete Groundwater Monitoring, cut & cap wellhead.
Phase 2 delineation complete, Screening Level Risk Groundwater Monitoring. Develop Management
F-28X Well Site 1999 2008 1997, 2009 1997, 1998, 2009, 2010 1997-present Assessment complete. Plan
Phase 2 delineation complete, Screening Level Risk Groundwater Monitoring. Develop Management
F-29X & G30X Well Sites 1999 2008 2008 2008, 2009, 2010 2010 Assessment complete. Plan
Former Pit/Tank/Dump Site Near LT3 2008 2010 Phase 2 delineation complete
Sumps
Preparation of long term Sump Management
Interim capping and surface restoration complete, Strategy. Vegetation and Groundwater
Mainland Drilling Sump 1999 2008, 2012 2008, 2013 1992, 93, 97, 98, 2002, 08, 09, 2012, 2013 1997-present 2006 2007, 2008 2008 Screening Level Risk Assessment complete. Monitoring.
Excavation and surface restoration complete, Screening Preparation of Sump Management Strategy,
Well Services Sump 1999 2008 2008 1998, 2002, 2009 1998-present 2006 2007, 2008, 2009 2009 Level Risk Assessment complete. Vegetation and Groundwater Monitoring
Phase 2 and 3 delineation complete, data gaps filled by
drilling in 2009-10, 2012, 2013. Screening Level Risk Drain and re-contour other sumps, reconstruct
Assessment complete. Install thermistors in 2013 to sump caps. Preparation of long-term Sump
characterize permafrost. Reconstruct cap on northern- Management Strategy, groundwater & surface
Closed Mainland Sumps 1999 2008 2008 1997, 1998, 2002, 09, 2010, 2012, 2013 1997-present most sump. water monitoring.
B-38X Sump 1999 2008 pre-2008 1997, 2006, 2007, 2010 1997-present 2007, 2008 2008 Excavation and surface restoration complete Vegetation & groundwater monitoring
Phase 3 delineation sampling, preparation of

Phase 2 delineation nearly complete, Screening Level Sump Management Strategy, groundwater &
C-27X Sump 1999 2008 2005, 2008 2008, 2009, 2013 2008-present Risk Assessment initiated surface water monitoring. Ph2 ESA test pits.
03/07/2014
Vegetation & groundwater monitoring.

Phase 2 and 3 delineation complete, Recontouring and
interim capping completed 2010, Screening Level Risk
Assessment completed 2010. Install thermistor to
Cemetery Sump 1999 2008 2005, 2013 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2013 2008-present 2010 2010 characterize permafrost.
Delineation sampling soil & gw around sumps 1
through 6. Preparation of Sump Management
Phase 2 and 3 delineation nearly complete in accessible Strategy, groundwater & surface water
Bear Island Sumps 1 to 6 1999 2008 pre-2008, 2013 1997, 1998, 2002, 08, 09, 2010, 2013 1997-present areas, Screening Level Risk Assessment complete. monitoring.
Bear Island
Former Drilling Pad Areas 1999 2008 2009 2009-present Phase 2 assessment ongoing Groundwater Monitoring
Former Spill Sites 1999 2008 2009 2009-present Phase 2 assessment ongoing Groundwater Monitoring
Former Tank Farm & Battery 1999 2008 pre-2008 1998, 2002, 2009 1998-present Phase 2 assessment complete Groundwater Monitoring
N-39X Well Site 1999 2008 2008 2008-present Groundwater Monitoring
O-45X/O-46X Well Sites (former spill sites) 1999 2008 pre-2008, 2008 1997, 1998, 2008, 2009, 2010 1997-present 1997, 1998 Phase 2 assessment complete Groundwater Monitoring
P-32X Well Site 1999 2008 2008 2008 2008-present Groundwater Monitoring
1979 Landfarm Area 1999 2008 2008 1979
Former Battery Site Near N-42X 1999 2008 1998, 2002, 2009, 2010 1998-present Phase 2 assessment complete Groundwater Monitoring
N-42X Well Site (former spill site) 1999 2008 pre-2008 2009-present Phase 2 assessment complete Groundwater Monitoring
Initiate remedial excavation & soil treatment.
Former Battery West of Q-34X (BI-BT1 area) 1999 2012 2009, 2010, 2012 2009-present Phase 2 assessment & Phase 3 delineation complete. Groundwater monitoring.
Tank Farm Near Q-38X 2008 2010 2010 Groundwater Monitoring
Lakes and Ponds Surface Water Monitoring 2009-2010 Surface Water Monitoring
Former Tanks West of R-34X 2008 2010 Brush clearing, testpit and soil sampling in 2011
Remedial excavation planned for winter of
Former Flare Pit North of N-42X 2012 2011 2012 2012 Phase 2 assessment complete 2013/14
Well abandonment/cut&cap complete. Phase 2 Surface restoration & groundwater monitoring
assessment complete. Armouring and PHC soil around
Bear Island #1 Well Site, West End 2008, 2012 2012 2010, 2012 2012 wellhead removed.
BIT4 Pigging Station 2010
Frenchy's Island
Phase 2 assessment complete, piezometers destroyed
Well Site, Frenchy's Island East End 2008 2010 2010 by ice, no further gw monitoring needed.
Goose Island
EM Anomalies 1999 2008 2009 Phase 2 delineation complete
Former Borrow Area (T-10X Area) 1999 2008 2008 2009 2009-present Phase 2 delineation complete Groundwater Monitoring (under Ops)
Former Camp Site 1999 2008 2009 Phase 2 delineation complete
Former Drilling Sumps (sump 2, P-9X Area) 1999 2008 2009 2009-present Phase 2 delineation complete Groundwater Monitoring (under Ops)
Former Tank Farm Areas (Q-8X Area) 1999 2008 2009, 2010 2009-present Phase 2 Delineation Completed 2010 Groundwater Monitoring (under Ops)
GIT 4 1999 2008 2008 On-going
GIT 7 1999 2008 2008 On-going
GIT 9 1999 2008 2008 On-going
Historical Spill Sites (Q-10X Area) 1999 2008 2009 Phase 2 delineation complete
O-14X Well Site 1999 2008 2009 Phase 2 delineation complete
O-18X Well Site 2012, 2013 2012-present Phase 2 delineation & remedial excavations complete Groundwater Monitoring (under Ops)
N-25X Well Site 1999 2008 2008 2009 Phase 2 delineation complete
P-11X Well Site 1999 2008 2008 2009, 2010 2009-present Phase 2 Delineation Completed 2010 Groundwater Monitoring (under Ops)
Wellhead Areas 1999 2008 2009 On-going
Town Leases
Phase 2 and 3 delineation complete, well cut and cap in

2009, excavation and recontour complete 2010.
Screening Level Risk Assessment complete. Additional
Phase 2 delineation remediation of southwest corner
A45-X 1999 2008 2008, 2013 2013 complete in 2013 Supplemental excavations planned.
Phase 2 and 3 delineation complete, excavation and
Lot 1000 1999 2008 2008 recontour complete 2010
Continued groundwater monitoring in area
Cemetery 1999 2008 2008, 2013 Phase 2 in up-gradient area complete upgradient of cemetery
03/07/2014
Other A&R Initiatives
Landfill / Borrow Area / Biocell Siting 2009, 2010 Landfill and new Biocell options deferred. Construction of new Biocell in Yard D
Co-operative research on-going with Australian

Antarctic Research Division, final report received in
Metals Stabilization 2011. Next stage of site samples analysis on-going. Project report completion.
Research with SRC continued in 2010/11 & 2012. Soil Continue development of plant and invertebrate
Soil Ecotoxicity samples collected for invertebrate identification. ecotoxicity tests with Norman Wells soil
Plots dismantled at T401 for soil remediation activities in Continue closure monitoring on reclaimed T401
Revegetation Trial Plots 2011. site.
Characterized new inferred background locations in
2010 and 2012 to supplement existing information,
Background Conditions in Soil/Groundwater various years, 1997 to 2012 1997-present completed statistical analysis. Fill in data gaps as needed.
Seventy damaged/surplus monitoring wells were
Monitoring Well Abandonments 2009-2010 abandoned or confirmed destroyed by ice as of 2010
Download data and report annually on

temperature profile trends with depth. Consider
Thermistor Study 2013 Seven thermistors installed on mainland. expanding study to Bear Island sumps area.
Mackenzie River Scour Study Field work completed in 2012. Continue data analysis.
Cut and cap activities planned for O-29X, B-42X,
E-27X and E-33X wells, with preliminary Phase 2
Former Production Well Abandonments B-30X and B-35X cut and capped in 2012 assessment.
03/07/2014
Appendix E
List of Acronyms,
Abbreviations and Definitions
As Arsenic
Attenuation Several mechanisms tend to slow the forward migration of
mechanisms dissolved phase constituents (hydrocarbon compounds, metals,
anions and cations, etc.) compared to water molecules as they
migrate through porous soils or bedrock. Specifically, these
mechanisms include intrinsic biodegradation, sorption on
hydrophobic or charged particle surfaces, hydrodynamic dispersion,
and molecular diffusion. Each dissolved constituent will experience
a different degree of attenuation or retardation as it migrates,
depending on the geochemical properties of both the specific
chemical parameter and the porous media through which it is
travelling.
Ba Barium
Be Beryllium
bgs below ground surface
BIT Bear Island terminal
BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes are among the more
compounds water-soluble compounds found in petroleum hydrocarbons
CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
Cd Cadmium
Co Cobalt
Cr, Cr6+ Chromium and Hexavalent Chromium
Cu Copper
Dissolved phase Some of the more soluble compounds within a hydrocarbon LNAPL
hydrocarbon will tend to dissolve into adjacent groundwater. These include
BTEX compounds, PHC-F1, and PHC-F2 fractions.
DPE Dual phase extraction, an in-situ remediation method involving a
combination of groundwater extraction and application of high
vacuum to remove vapour phase hydrocarbon
Drivepoint A shallow groundwater monitoring well that is installed without a
piezometer drill rig, using a post pounder to push the well 1 to 2 m deep into
soft ground, often near a muskeg or riverbank
dS/m deci-siemens per metre
EC electrical conductivity
EM Electromagnetic, referring to geophysical surveys
ERT Electrical resistance tomography, a type of geophysical survey
Appendix E: List of Acronyms, Abbreviations and Definitions Page 1

ESA Environmental Site Assessment
Free phase Also defined as LNAPL. This is hydrocarbon liquid that forms a
hydrocarbon separate oily phase, which typically floats above groundwater. It
may originate from either anthropogenic or natural sources.
FTA Fire Training Area
FWAL Fresh Water Aquatic Life
GIT Goose Island terminal
Hg Mercury
LNAPL Light non-aqueous phase liquid
LT Land terminal
M or m Metres
mg/L Milligrams per litre
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram
Mo Molybdenum
MPE Multiphase extraction, an in-situ remediation method involving
application of high vacuum to remove vapour phase and liquid
hydrocarbons simultaneously through the same intake tube
Ni Nickel
NWT Northwest Territories
OVA Organic vapour analyzer
Pb Lead
PHC-F1 CCME Petroleum hydrocarbon fraction F1, covering the range from
C6 to C10
C>10 to C16
C>16 to C34
C>34 to C50+
PPM or ppm parts per million
RCFP Reduced Crude Flare Pit
SAR Sodium adsorption ratio
Se Selenium

Subsidence An area of collapsed ground created by uneven settling, sometimes
Area associated with buried sumps
SVE Soil vapour extraction an in-situ remediation method involving
application of vacuum to remove vapour phase hydrocarbon
TDS Total dissolved solids
Tl Thallium
TEH Total extractable hydrocarbon, an analysis for semi-volatile and
non-volatile hydrocarbon fractions typically covering the ranges C11
to C30 or C11 to C60
TPH Total purgeable hydrocarbon, an analysis for volatile hydrocarbon
fraction typically covering the range from C3 to C12
V Vanadium
Zn Zinc

Well

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Well

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Program

2013 Annual Report

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page i

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page ii

Table B Summary of Abandoned Facilities ............................................................................... 7

Table C Summary of Actively Monitored Piezometers ............................................................ 10

Table D Refinery Bank Remediation System Fluids Recovered ............................................. 13

Table E B-38X Remediation System Fluids Recovered ......................................................... 18

Photographs within Text

Photo 4 Remediation Activities at Former A-45X Wellsite After Backfill ................................. 22

Photo 5 Closure Monitoring at Tank 401 area ........................................................................ 28

Photo 6 Closure Monitoring at Tank 53 area .......................................................................... 28

Photo 7 Base of Remedial Excavation in ARB Area South of Biocell..................................... 30

Photo 8 Sump Capping Activity at North End of Mainland Sumps ......................................... 36

Photo 9 Closure Monitoring at Cemetery Sump ..................................................................... 40

Photo 10 Bear Island Sump # 2 ................................................................................................ 45

Photo 11 Installation of Thermistor MLS-13-7 and Internal Data Logger ................................. 52

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page iv

1.2 Report Content and Format

2012 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 1

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 2

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 3

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 4

Soil Water Soil Water

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 5

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 6

Table B Summary of Abandoned Facilities

Well B-30X Mainland Well cut and capped in Restoration as required to

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 7

Well B-33X Mainland Well abandoned in 2009. Restoration as required to

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 8

C-27X Sump Mainland Discontinued and capped Additional Phase 2 ESA to

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 9

Overburden Bedrock Total1

In addition to the above-noted groundwater monitoring program, individual areas are

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 10

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 11

Photo 1 Refinery Bank Soil & Groundwater Characterization

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 12

5.1.1 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Program

Table D Refinery Bank Remediation System Fluids Recovered

2001 pilots 163,000 1,465

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 13

Photo 2 Refinery Bank Gathering Systems Before & After Upgrades

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 14

5.1.2 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 15

5.1.3 Groundwater Monitoring Program

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 16

5.2 B-42X Well Site

5.3 B-38X Well Site

5.3.1 2013 Status Update

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 17

Table E B-38X Remediation System Fluids Recovered

2004 400,000 2,911

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 18

5.3.3 Groundwater Monitoring Program

B-38X Well Site and Buried Pit Area (B38)

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 19

Fire Training Area (FTA)

5.4 Mainland Tank Farm

2013 Norman Wells Abandonment and Restoration Annual Report Page 20

Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling