analysed for energetic materials. No explosives were detected in any of the surface
water samples SW-JL-1, 2 and 3 and SW-PL-2 and 4. Only one surface water sample
revealed the presence of energetic materials, the sample collected in the crater on
Shaver River Range (Table VIII). In Jimmy Lake, the 3 water samples and the 12
sediment samples including 2 duplicates were collected using a small row boat, while
in Primerose Lake a motorized boat was used to collect the 4 surface water samples
and the 16 sediment samples including 3 duplicates (Fig. 9). Moreover, a last surface
water sample was collected at the mouth of the Shaver River; no explosives were
detected in that sample. Therefore, no contamination of the surface water by
explosives was detected in the lakes. No explosive analyses were done with the
sediment samples. All of the GPS locations of the surface water samples and the
sediment samples were noted (Table I).
Sediment
The metal concentrations in sediment samples were determined and compared to the
ISQG. Some parameters exceeded the Interim Sediment Quality Quideline (ISQG) or
the Probable Effect Level (PEL) and were highlighted in red in Table V A, B and C.
Only As and Hg exceeded the CCME threshold criteria. For As, only 2 samples in
Jimmy Lake, Sed-JL-7 and Sed-JL-8 and 4 samples in Primerose Lake, Sed-PL-1, 2,
3 and 5, exceeded the most severe ISQG, but were of the same order of magnitude.
For mercury, only 3 samples, all in Jimmy Lake, exceeded the ISQG. Sed-JL-3 even
exceeded the most permissive PEL criterion. All of the other parameter
concentrations were below the CCME ISQG or CCME PEL criteria, showing that the
sediment are in excellent condition.
Surface water
Eight surface water samples were analysed for metals including the sample collected
at the mouth of the Shaver River. Concentrations for each parameter were compared
to CCME aquatic life in freshwater criteria when available or to the CCME drinking
or irrigation criteria as stated in Table IV A, B, C and D. Concentrations higher than
the CCME criteria were highlighted in red. On some occasions, the CCME criteria
was expressed as an interval of values. In these instances, when the concentration of
the considered parameter was within the interval, the concentration was highlighted in
green. The detection limit for cadmium in water is 0.2 ppb, a value superior to the
CCME criteria. According to our evaluation, when not detected, a value at half the
detection limit is written but this value of 0.1 ppb is still higher than the criterion. In
this case, when cadmium was not detected, it was not highlighted in red even if the
value in the table was greater than the CCME criterion.
Out of the 30 parameters measured in surface water samples, only Al, Cd, Cu, Fe and
Ag exceeded the CCME threshold criteria. For Aluminum, all samples showed
concentrations within the interval of the CCME criterion. High levels of aluminum
and arsenic are not unusual in western water bodies. This had already been observed
in CFB Shilo where aluminum, arsenic and iron were naturally elevated [28].
Cadmium concentration at 0.3 ppb was observed in only one sample, SW-JL-3.
Copper concentrations in surface water samples in Jimmy Lake were within the
interval of the CCME criterion, while for the only sample collected in Shaver River,
the copper concentration was twice the CCME criterion. Iron was also observed in the
20
DRDC Valcartier TR 2004-204
Previous Page
