Three Creeks Power Plant Project
Environmental Evaluation
Prepared for:
Three Creeks Power GP Ltd.
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
November 2018
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Table of Contents
ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................ I
1.0
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1.1
2.0
2.1
PROJECT BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 2.1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................... 2.1
2.1.1
Physical Activities ........................................................................................... 2.2
PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .............................................................................. 2.5
CONSULTATION ................................................................................................................. 2.6
CONCORDANCE WITH PP17........................................................................................... 2.6
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION APPROACH .............................................................. 3.1
SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 3.1
POTENTIAL PROJECT EFFECTS AND EFFECT PATHWAYS .............................................. 3.2
ASSESSMENT AREAS AND TEMPORAL BOUNDARIES .................................................... 3.2
3.3.1
Spatial Boundaries ......................................................................................... 3.2
3.3.2
Temporal Boundaries .................................................................................... 3.3
MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECT EFFECTS ............................................................. 3.3
DISCUSSION OF RESIDUAL PROJECT EFFECTS ............................................................... 3.3
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................................... 3.3
4.0
SELECTION OF VALUED COMPONENTS ....................................................................... 4.1
5.0
5.1
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON AIR QUALITY .............................................. 5.1
ASSESSMENT BOUNDARIES............................................................................................... 5.1
5.1.1
Ambient Air Quality Objectives ................................................................... 5.1
5.1.2
Local Assessment Area ................................................................................. 5.2
ASSESSMENT APPROACH ................................................................................................. 5.4
5.2.1
Background Ambient Air Quality ................................................................ 5.5
5.2.2
Local Emission Sources .................................................................................. 5.5
POTENTIAL PROJECT EFFECTS AND PATHWAYS ............................................................ 5.6
PROJECT INTERACTIONS WITH AIR QUALITY ................................................................. 5.6
PREDICTED AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS ...................................................................... 5.6
5.5.1
Dispersion Modelling Results ........................................................................ 5.6
MITIGATION........................................................................................................................ 5.8
ASSESSMENT OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS ON AIR QUALITY .................................................. 5.9
5.7.1
Summary of Residual Effects on Air Quality............................................... 5.9
SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION ..................................................................................... 5.9
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
6.0
6.1
6.2
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT ....................... 6.1
ASSESSMENT BOUNDARIES............................................................................................... 6.1
6.1.1
Noise Study Area ............................................................................................ 6.1
6.1.2
Noise Receptors ............................................................................................. 6.3
ASSESSMENT APPROACH ................................................................................................. 6.4
6.2.1
Acoustic Modelling........................................................................................ 6.4
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT ...................................... 6.5
6.3.1
Ambient Sound Level .................................................................................... 6.5
6.3.2
Baseline Case ................................................................................................. 6.5
POTENTIAL PROJECT EFFECTS AND PATHWAYS ............................................................ 6.5
PROJECT INTERACTIONS WITH ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT ......................................... 6.5
PROJECT CASE .................................................................................................................. 6.6
6.6.1
Project Case Results ...................................................................................... 6.6
MITIGATION........................................................................................................................ 6.7
ASSESSMENT OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS ON ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT ......................... 6.8
6.8.1
Summary of Residual Effects on Acoustic Environment .......................... 6.8
6.8.2
Significance Determination ......................................................................... 6.9
7.0
MONITORING ................................................................................................................ 7.1
8.0
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 8.1
9.0
REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 9.1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1
Table 2-2
Table 4-1
Table 5-1
Table 5-2
Table 5-3
Table 5-4
Table 5-5
Table 5-6
Table 5-7
Table 6-1
Table 6-2
Table 6-3
Table 6-4
Table 6-5
Table 6-6
Table 6-7
Project Physical Activities ................................................................................... 2.2
Concordance with PP17 Requirements ........................................................... 2.6
Valued Components........................................................................................... 4.2
Ambient Air Quality Objectives .............................................................................. 5.1
Estimated Ambient Background Concentrations .......................................... 5.4
Estimated Ambient Background Concentrations .......................................... 5.5
Potential Project Interactions and Effects on Air Quality .............................. 5.6
Maximum Predicted Ground-level Concentrations (µg/m3)
Associated with the Project Case ..................................................................... 5.7
Maximum Predicted Ground-level Concentrations (µg/m3)
Associated with the Application Case ............................................................ 5.7
Mitigation Measures for Air Quality ................................................................... 5.8
Receptor Locations ............................................................................................. 6.3
Baseline Case Sound Level ............................................................................... 6.5
Potential Project Interactions and Effects on the Acoustic
Environment .......................................................................................................... 6.6
Project Case Sound Level ................................................................................. 6.6
Mitigation Measures for Acoustic Environment .............................................. 6.7
Intermediary Case Noise Impact Assessment Results.................................... 6.8
Application Case Noise Impact Assessment Results ..................................... 6.9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1
Figure 5-1
Figure 6-1
Three Creeks Power Plant Project Location .................................................... 2.3
Air Quality Local Assessment Area and Receptor Grid ................................ 5.3
Noise Impact Assessment Study Area .............................................................. 6.2
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Abbreviations
µg/m3
micrograms per cubic metre
%
percent
°C
Celsius
AAAQO
Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives
ACIMS
Alberta Conservation Information Management System
AEP
Alberta Environment and Parks
AERMET/AERMOD
American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection
Agency Regulatory Model
AUC
Alberta Utilities Commission
asl
Above sea level
AQMG
Air Quality Modelling Group
Carmon Creek Facility
Peace River In-Situ Expansion Project, Carmon Creek Central
Processing Facility
CCME
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
CEMS
Continuous Emissions Monitoring System
CPF
Central Processing Facility
CTG
Combustion Turbine Generator
dBA
A-weighted decibels
EE
Environmental Evaluation
EPEA
Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act
GHG
greenhouse gas
GTG
Gas Turbine Generator
i
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
ha
hectares
HRSG
Heat Recovery Steam Generator
ISO
International Organization for Standardization
km
kilometres
kPa
Kilopascal
LAA
Local Assessment Area
m
metres
MW
Megawatt
NIA
Noise Impact Assessment
NO2
nitrogen dioxide
NOX
nitrogen oxides
PDA
Project Development Area
PSL
Permissible Sound Level
RAA
Regional Assessment Area
Stantec
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
TCP
Three Creeks Power GP Ltd.
The Plant
Three Creeks Power Plant Project
TPA
Trapline Agreement
US EPA
United Sates Environmental Protection Agency
UTM
Universal Transverse Mercator
VC
Valued Component
ii
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Introduction
November 2018
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Three Creeks Power GP Ltd. (TCP) holds Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) approval #22488-D022017 for the Three Creeks Power Plant (Plant). Under the approval, the Plant is described as
comprising of three 230-MW natural gas-fired generators, with a total generating capability of
690 MW and two 5 MW stand-by diesel-fueled generators. TCP is requesting an amendment to
the approval for a change from a simple cycle to a combined cycle power plant comprised of
two 230 MW Gas turbine generators, each with heat recovery steam generators (HRSG), one 230
MW Steam Turbine Generator and two 5 MW stand-by diesel-fueled generators an air-cooled
condenser and steam header (the Project).
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by TCP to conduct an Environmental Evaluation
(EE) for the Project as per the Alberta Utilities Commission’s (AUC) Rule 007 (amended and
approved on March 21, 2018 and effective as of April 2, 2018). Proponents of power facilities are
required to submit an Environmental Evaluation (EE) at a level of detail commensurate with the
size and type of potential effect(s) of the Project. Requirements associated with the EE are
outlined under Rule 007, PP17. This report satisfies the EE requirements as outlined in PP17 and is
organized into three sections: Project Background (Section 2.0), Environmental Evaluation
Approach (Section 3.0) and the evaluation of Project interactions with each valued component
(VC) (Sections 5.0 through 7.0).
The Project will require approximately 20.35 hectares (ha) of previously disturbed land, located
approximately 40 kilometres (km) northeast of the Town of Peace River, Alberta in NE-15-85-18W5M and SE-22-85-18-W5M. Pending regulatory approval, construction of the Project is
anticipated to begin in 2019, with an expected start-up and commissioning date in 2022.
An Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) approval amendment application is
also being prepared for the Project which will be filed with Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP)
in Q4 2018.
1.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Introduction
November 2018
1.2
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Project Background
November 2018
2.0
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Project will be developed entirely within the northwest portion of the previously approved
Peace River In-Situ Expansion Project, Carmon Creek Central Processing Facility area (Carmon
Creek Facility). Ownership of the TCP Project Development Area (PDA) was transferred from Shell
to TCP in February 2017. It is expected that the Project will be complete in Combined Cycle
configuration by 2022. with an anticipated life expectancy of approximately 30 years.
The PDA will require approximately 20.35 ha of land within an area previously cleared for the
Carmon Creek Facility, consisting of approximately 19.62 ha for the power plant equipment and
approximately 0.73 ha for the stormwater runoff retention pond. The PDA is shown on Figure 2-1.
Access to the Project site will be via an existing all-weather gravel road off paved secondary
Highway 946.
2.1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As described in PP28 of the main AUC application, the Project will include the following main
components:
•
Two 230 MW gas turbine generators (GTG), installed in separate buildings with outdoor heat
recovery steam generator (HRSG)
•
One 230 MW steam turbine generator installed in a separate building
•
One air cooled condenser and steam header
The GTG is made up of four major components: (i) an air compressor, (ii) a fuel combustor (iii) a
power turbine and (iv) an electric generator. Combustion air is drawn into the air compressor
where it is squeezed to a high pressure then mixed with natural gas and ignited in the combustor
section. This forms high pressure, high temperature gases that are then expanded as they travel
through the turbine section spinning the turbine thereby converting thermal energy to rotational
energy in the turbine shaft. The turbine shaft is coupled to the shaft of an electric generator
causing it to rotate which produces electric energy. A portion of the shaft energy is also used to
drive (rotate) the compressor.
The gas turbine-generator system is comprised of the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inlet air system with filtering, heating and silencing components
Gas turbine enclosure with ventilation and noise control components
Fuel gas delivery and ignition, which will be delivered via sales gas pipeline
Lubrication and control oil systems
Remote control and monitoring systems
Fire and gas detection with fire suppression systems
2.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Project Background
November 2018
From the Gas Turbines the exhaust gases are sent into the HRSGs to produce steam to drive the
steam turbine, from the HRSGs the cooler exhaust gas is sent to atmosphere via stacks. Each
stack will be equipped with suitable access and platforms to the continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) and aircraft warning lights. Other Project components include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Plant Electrical System
Plant Control System
Water Treatment Plant
General Service and Instrument Air Systems
Cooling System
Substation and Interconnection
2.1.1
Physical Activities
Physical Activities during each stage of the Project construction and operation phases are
presented in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1
Project Phase
Project Physical Activities
Activity
Associated Activities and Equipment
Construction
Transportation of
Equipment
It is anticipated that equipment will be transported by truck to
the Project site along existing public roads.
Construction
Site Preparation
(grading)
Grading will be required to prepare (i.e., level) the site for
infrastructure installation. No vegetation removal is required.
Construction
New Infrastructure
Installation
Buildings and other equipment will be installed. Equipment used
during this activity includes cranes, semi-trailers and trucks.
Construction
Clean-up
Upon completion of construction activities, clean-up procedures
will be initiated using dozers, backhoes and graders. Garbage
and debris will be removed and disposed of in compliance with
municipal regulations.
Operation
Power Generation
Initiation of gas-turbine power generation and associated
equipment and facilities.
2.2
!
(
743
!
(
986
!
(
!
(
!
(
986
688
986
!
(
743
PEACE RIVER
!
(
LSD: 7
688
LSD: 8
(
!
LSD: 5
2
(
(2 !
!2 !
(
2
!2
(
Greene Valley
Provincial Park
W Pe
ild ac
lan e R
d
iv
Pa Prov er
rk in
cia
l
LSD: 6
!
(
684
(2
!
!
(
744
ROUTE MAP
1:500,000
7KUHH&UHHNV3RZHU3ODQW
LSD: 2
LSD: 1
LSD: 4
LSD: 3
TWP.85 RNG.18 W5
&DUPRQ&UHHN&HQWUDO3URFHVVLQJ)DFLOLW\
06/
LSD: 15
LSD: 16
LSD: 13
LSD: 14
LSD: 10
LSD: 9
LSD: 12
LSD: 11
Figure 2-1
Three Creeks Power GP Ltd.
Three Creeks Power Plant
q
1:3,000
'$7($35,/
7KUHH&UHHNV3RZHU*3/WG
The information contained herein is compiled from various government and industry sources, subject to copyright, and includes but is not limited to: © Government of Alberta 2013, © Department of Natural Resources Canada, 2013.
All rights reserved. Shell Canada Limited and its data suppliers provide no warranty regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information, and assume no liability for the interpretation or use thereof.
352-(&7,211$'70$(3)RUHVW
0HWHUV
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Project Background
November 2018
2.4
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Project Background
November 2018
2.2
PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The PDA will require approximately 20.35 hectares (ha) of previously cleared, graded and
graveled land, located within the previously approved Peace River In-Situ Expansion Project
Carmon Creek Facility area (Figure 2-1). Associated topsoil and subsoil from the PDA was
salvaged and stockpiled during site-preparation for the Carmon Creek Facility. No vegetation
clearing or soil handling is required for construction of the Project.
The Project is located within the within the Boreal Forest Natural Region in the Central
Mixedwood subregion. The Central Mixedwood natural subregion is characterized by a mix of
aspen (Populus tremuloides) dominated deciduous stands, aspen-white spruce (Picea glauca)
forests, white spruce and jack pine (Pinus banksiana) forests on upland terrain. Wet, poorly
drained fens and bogs are also common to the sub-region (Natural Regions Committee 2006).
The Project is not located within any caribou zones, key wildlife and biodiversity zones, special
access zones, grizzly bear zones, sensitive amphibian ranges, endangered or threatened plant
ranges, and does not intersect any mapped trumpeter swan buffered areas, colonial nesting
bird areas, sensitive raptor ranges, piping plover areas, or other important bird areas.
There are 32 historical occurrences of wildlife species of management concern, including
species at risk within 5 km of the PDA, including Boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas), Northern Longeared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) (AEP 2018). There
are two historical occurrences of vegetation species of management concern, including
species at risk within 5 km of the PDA, including liverwort (Ricciocarpos natans) and reindeer
lichen (Cladonia stygia) (ACIMS 2018). Wildlife and vegetation species of management
concern, including species at risk are not anticipated to be found within the proximity of the
Project or within the PDA due to the previously disturbed and cleared nature of the site and
proximity to existing industrial disturbance.
Land use in the area of the Project is primarily industrial, developed for the production of heavy
oil, with areas of in-situ process infrastructure, such as central processing facilities, pipelines, well
pads and road networks. Forestry practices are also within the area of the Project.
Existing environmental conditions for each environmental component included within this EE are
detailed in Sections 5.0 and 6.0.
2.5
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Project Background
November 2018
2.3
CONSULTATION
As described in Appendix B of the main AUC application and PP5 and PP6, TCP undertook a
consultation program in support of the Project. The consultation program included stakeholders,
consisting of local business owners, landowners, residents and municipal departments.
As summarized in PP5 and PP6, there was one identified concern related to wildlife and land use,
specifically where the Project is in proximity to an existing trapline agreement (TPA). TCP
responded stating that no fencing, physical barriers or access restrictions to the TPA will result
from construction of the Project. Stakeholders also expressed interest regarding water usage and
the quantity of water required for the Project, which were resolved once water sources (i.e.,
trucking in water) were discussed for the Project.
To date, there are no other known or unresolved concerns with the Project.
2.4
CONCORDANCE WITH PP17
This EE has been tailored to focus on the valued components (VCs) that the Project has the
potential to interact with. Table 2-2 demonstrates concordance of this EE with PP17.
Table 2-2
Concordance with PP17 Requirements
PP17 Requirement
Applicability to Project
Report Section
Environmental conditions of the
local study area
The Project Setting for the Project is
provided in Section 2.2. Baseline
conditions for the VC selected to be
assessed in detail are provided in their
respective VC sections.
Section 2.2 and each
VC Sections (Sections
5.0 and 6.0)
Project activities & infrastructure
Project activities and infrastructure have
been outlined.
Section 2.1
Methodology
Methods used to identify, evaluate and
rate adverse effects are described.
Section 3.0
Valued components
VCs included in this EE are outlined within
individual VC sections. VCs included in
this EE are:
Section 5.0 and Section
6.0
•
Soils and Terrain
•
Surface water bodies &
hydrology
•
Groundwater
•
Vegetation and wetlands
•
Wildlife species & habitat
•
Aquatic species & habitat
•
Air quality and Acoustic
Environment
2.6
•
Air Quality
•
Acoustic Environment
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Project Background
November 2018
Table 2-2
Concordance with PP17 Requirements
PP17 Requirement
•
Applicability to Project
Report Section
Environmentally sensitive
areas
Potential adverse effects
Potential adverse effects have been
considered and evaluated within
individual VC sections.
Sections 5.0 and 6.0
Mitigation measures
Mitigation measures were examined and
summarized within individual VC sections.
Sections 5.0 and 6.0
Predicted residual effects
Predicted residual effects have been
considered and are described within
individual VC sections.
Sections 5.0 and 6.0
Monitoring
Monitoring will be conducted for the
Project to follow the requirements of the
Project’s EPEA approval from AEP.
Section 7.0
2.7
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Project Background
November 2018
2.8
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Evaluation Approach
November 2018
3.0
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION APPROACH
This EE considers the potential effects of construction and operation of the Project on VCs that
may be affected by the Project. Timing considerations and standard best practices will be
incorporated into design and construction to further address general and site-specific effects.
The Project’s EE scope was developed in the context of AUC Rule 007 requirements (PP17),
Project activities and components, the Project setting, input from regulatory consultation, and
results from previous environmental assessments for the Carmon Creek Facility.
Sections 3.1 through 3.6 outline the methods used in the development of this EE.
3.1
SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT
The EE focuses on valued components (VCs), which are environmental elements of particular
value or interest to regulators and other parties and are identified based on biophysical and
socio-economic elements. To focus the EE on matters of relevance, likely interactions of the
Project with the surrounding biophysical environment are identified using a variety of sources,
including:
•
federal, provincial, and municipal regulatory requirements
•
input from the Project’s Consultation Program
•
existing regional information and documentation regarding environmental (biophysical)
components within the vicinity of the Project (e.g., species at risk)
•
documentation relating to other projects and activities within the vicinity of the Project
•
professional judgment of environmental assessment practitioners based on experience with
similar projects elsewhere and other projects and activities in the Project area
The VCs that were selected:
•
represent a broad environmental, ecological or human environment component that might
be affected by the Project, or
•
are of scientific, historical, or archaeological importance
The rationale for selecting each VC is explained in Table 4-1 and each is further detailed in the
applicable section (Sections 5.0 and 6.0).
3.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Evaluation Approach
November 2018
3.2
POTENTIAL PROJECT EFFECTS AND EFFECT PATHWAYS
The evaluation of each potential Project effect for each VC scoped into the EE begins with a
description of the pathways through which specific Project activities could result in an
environmental effect.
The potential effects and pathways by which the Project could affect the VCs were identified
based on Project knowledge, scientific literature and professional judgment. The Project’s
potential effects are discussed in the context of baseline conditions for each VC.
3.3
ASSESSMENT AREAS AND TEMPORAL BOUNDARIES
This EE involved the screening of each VC to determine the spatial and temporal extent over
which an effect could reasonably occur and be evaluated. This involved reviewing existing
literature and using professional judgement to identify the potential zone of influence of the
Project on each VC.
3.3.1
Spatial Boundaries
Spatial boundaries for each VC are selected principally by considering the geographic extent
over which Project activities and their effects are likely to occur. Consequently, assessment
areas are likely to vary among VCs. Generally, boundaries for three nested assessment areas are
established: the project development area (PDA), the local assessment area (LAA), and the
regional assessment area (RAA), as follows:
•
PDA—is the most basic and immediate area of the Project. The PDA typically includes the
area of physical disturbance associated with the construction or operation of the Project.
The PDA for the Project is approximately 20.35 ha.
•
LAA—encompasses the area in which both a) Project-related environmental effects can be
predicted or measured with a level of confidence that allows for assessment; and b) there is
a reasonable expectation that those effects could be of concern
•
RAA—is the area that (a) establishes the context for the determination of significance of
Project-specific effects; and (b) encompasses where Project-specific effects overlap with
effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities. It is, consequently, the
area for which the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects is assessed.
The RAA for both Air Quality and Acoustic Environment are determined by established
guidelines, described in their individual sections, Sections 5 and 6. Additional detail is provided in
the Air Quality Assessment (Appendix F of the main AUC application) and the Noise Impact
Assessment (Appendix D of the main AUC application). A RAA of 5 km has been applied for
baseline searches of other VCs.
3.2
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Evaluation Approach
November 2018
3.3.2
Temporal Boundaries
Temporal boundaries identify when an environmental effect will be evaluated in relation to
specific Project phases and activities. Temporal boundaries for this EE include:
•
Construction: Project construction is anticipated to take approximately three years, with
equipment installation beginning in 2019.
•
Operation: The Project is anticipated to be commissioned in 2022. The Project is designed to
operate for approximately 30 years.
3.4
MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECT EFFECTS
Mitigation measures are applied to mitigate the identified potential effects of Project
construction and operation on the evaluated VCs included in Sections 5.0 and 6.0. These
include industry standard practices, compliance with legislation, regulations and guidelines, and
other measures applicable to the Project.
3.5
DISCUSSION OF RESIDUAL PROJECT EFFECTS
Residual effects (i.e., environmental effects that remain after mitigation has been applied) are
described for each VC and take into account how the proposed mitigation will alter or reduce
the effect. Effects are reviewed on a Project-wide basis and, where relevant to the evaluation, a
discussion of residual site-specific effects is presented. Criteria used to assess residual effects on
VCs are provided in their respective VC sections.
3.6
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
As outlined in PP17 of AUC Rule 007, the EE must determine the significance of residual effects.
The definition of significance of an effect is “[a] measure of the magnitude, duration, frequency,
timing, probability of occurrence, ecological and social context, geographic extent, and
degree of reversibility of an effect on a Valued Ecosystem Component” (Government of Alberta
2010, pg. 12).
Significant effects are those that may cause a change in the VC that will alter its status or
integrity beyond an acceptable level or threshold. Where available, listed or legal standards or
thresholds for defining significance of effects for the VC are identified and incorporated into the
significance definition. Where thresholds are not set by guidelines or regulations, the threshold is
developed using a combination of input from the consultation process, resource management
objectives, scientific literature and professional judgment of acceptable changes in the state of
the VC.
For the purpose of this EE, significant adverse residual effects are defined in each VC section
(Sections 5.0 and 6.0).
3.3
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Evaluation Approach
November 2018
3.4
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Selection of Valued Components
November 2018
4.0
SELECTION OF VALUED COMPONENTS
VCs identified in PP17 are listed in Table 4-1 with rationale for including or excluding them from
the EE. Table 4-1 considers the Project’s physical activities (as listed in Section 2.1.1) that have
the potential to interact with each VC during the Project’s construction and operation phase.
The rationale for selecting each VC is explained in Table 4-1 and each further detailed in the
applicable VC section (see Section 5.0 through 7.0).
VCs included in this EE are:
•
•
Air Quality
Acoustic Environment
4.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Selection of Valued Components
November 2018
Table 4-1
Valued Components
Potential
Project
Interaction
Included in
Assessment
Soils and Terrain
-
-
Excluded, as the Project’s construction activities will be located on
entirely previously disturbed and stripped of topsoil as part of the
construction of the Shell Peace River In-Situ Expansion Project. No
Project interactions are anticipated.
Not covered further
Surface Waterbodies
& Hydrology
-
-
Excluded, as the Project’s construction and operational activities
will not require water withdrawal from surrounding natural sources.
Water requirements for the Project will be trucked in and out and
will be stored in tanks to be shipped off site, as required. No Project
interactions are anticipated.
Not covered further
Groundwater
-
-
Excluded, as the Project’s construction activities or infrastructure
installation are not expected to interfere with groundwater in the
PDA or LAA. Water requirements for the Project will be trucked in
and out and will be stored in tanks to be shipped off site, as
required. No Project interactions are anticipated.
Not covered further
Vegetation and
Wetlands
-
-
Excluded, as the Project’s construction activities will be located
entirely on previously disturbed land that has been cleared of
vegetation as part of the construction of the Shell Peace River InSitu Expansion Project. No Project interactions are anticipated.
Not covered further
Wildlife Species &
Habitat
-
-
Excluded, as the Project’s construction activities will be located
entirely on previously disturbed land that has been cleared of
vegetation as part of the construction of the Shell Peace River InSitu Expansion Project and does not contain wildlife habitat. No
Project interactions are anticipated.
Not covered further
Valued Component
4.2
Rationale for Inclusion or Exclusion in the EE
Section(s) where
addressed in the EE
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Selection of Valued Components
November 2018
Table 4-1
Valued Components
Potential
Project
Interaction
Included in
Assessment
Aquatic Species &
Habitat
-
-
Excluded, as the Project’s construction and operational activities
will not require water withdrawal from surrounding natural sources
and will not interact with fish or aquatic habitat. Water
requirements for the Project will be trucked in and out and will be
stored in tanks to be shipped off site, as required. No Project
interactions are anticipated.
Not covered further
Air Quality


Included, as the Project’s construction and operation activities will
contribute to a change in air emissions within the LAA.
Section 5.0
Valued Component
Rationale for Inclusion or Exclusion in the EE
Section(s) where
addressed in the EE
Construction phase air emissions and interactions will be limited to
the use of equipment, will be short-term, and will be addressed
through the use of codified practices, proven effective mitigation
measures, and best management practices. Standard mitigation
measures include maintaining vehicles and reducing idling of
equipment.
Noise


Included, as the Project’s construction and operation activities will
contribute to a change in the local industrial noise levels within the
LAA.
Section 6.0
4.3
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Selection of Valued Components
November 2018
4.4
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Assessment of Potential Effects on Air Quality
November 2018
5.0
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON AIR QUALITY
An assessment of the effects of NOX emissions from the Project was completed using an air
dispersion model. Dispersion modelling included emissions from the Project, as well as emissions
from nearby industrial emission sources. Background concentrations from a representative
Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) air quality monitoring station were used to determine local
ambient background concentrations. Potential effects on ambient air quality were evaluated
based on model predictions from the AERMOD dispersion model. Dispersion modelling was
performed in accordance with the AEP Air Quality Model Guideline (AQMG, AEP 2013). The Air
Quality Assessment completed for the Project is included in Appendix F of the main AUC
application.
5.1
ASSESSMENT BOUNDARIES
5.1.1
Ambient Air Quality Objectives
AEP has established Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines for a number of substances.
They are referred to as Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAAQO). The Project is a source of
NOX. Oxides of nitrogen are produced in most combustion processes and are almost entirely
made up of nitrogen oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Together they are often referred to
as NOX. Nitrogen dioxide is a respiratory irritant, while NO is relatively inert. As such, regulatory
ambient air quality objectives exist for NO2, and not for NO or NOX. Table 5-1 presents the
relevant AAAQO (AEP 2017).
Table 5-1
Ambient Air Quality Objectives
Key Substances of Interest
NO2
Averaging Period
AAAQO
(µg/m3)
One-hour
300
Annual
45
NOTE:
Concentrations given (µg/m3) at 25°C and 101.325 kPa.
5.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Assessment of Potential Effects on Air Quality
November 2018
5.1.2
Local Assessment Area
Study area boundaries were established to focus the scope of the assessment, such that an
applicable analysis of potential effects from Project operation could be made. For the
assessment, it was determined that a study area measuring 10 km by 10 km centered on the
Project site would be sufficient to determine the effects of Project emissions on air quality (see
Figure 5-1). AQMG states the study area must extend to include all predicted ground-level
concentrations at or above 10% of the ambient air quality objective or background
concentration, whichever is higher.
The Project is situated at a base elevation of approximately 636 m above sea level (asl). Terrain is
gently sloping within the study area with the lowest elevations in the northwest with increasing
elevations towards the east. The minimum and maximum terrain elevations in the study area are
approximately 610 m and 687 m asl, respectively.
A series of nested Cartesian grid with increasing receptor density with proximity to the Project
were developed in accordance with the AQMG. A detailed description is provided in Appendix
F of the main AUC application.
5.2
N:\1_Projects\123512966\disciplines\air_quality\terrain\study_area.srf
N
32
33
34
35
36
31
29
28
27
26
25
30
20
21
22
23
24
19
17
16
15
14
13
18
8
9
10
11
12
7
5
4
3
2
1
6
33
32
34
35
TWP 85 RGE 18 W5M
TWP 85 RGE 17 W5M
TWP 84 RGE 18 W5M
TWP 84 RGE 17 W5M
36
31
NT
Project
Location
Elevation (m asl)
28
29
605
620
635
650
665
27
26
25
BC
30
AB
SK
680
metres
123512966-study_area
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N
Sources: Base Data - Natural Resources Canada, AltaLIS; Thematic Data - Stantec, Three Creeks Power
USA
Disclaimer: This map is for illustrative purposes to support this Stantec project; questions can be directed to the issuing agency.
Terrain Elevations within the 10 km by 10 km Study Area
THREE CREEKS POWER GP LTD.
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
Figure 5-1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Assessment of Potential Effects on Air Quality
November 2018
5.2
ASSESSMENT APPROACH
The first step in the air quality assessment includes the estimation of emission rates associated
with the Project emission sources and other industrial facilities in the Local Assessment Area
(LAA). An air quality transport and dispersion model are then used to predict the magnitude and
the spatial variation of ambient concentrations in the LAA due to Project emissions and other
emission sources in the LAA. The cumulative model predictions including Project emission sources
and other emission sources in the LAA as well as representative background concentrations are
compared to the AAAQO identified in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2
Species
NO2
Estimated Ambient Background Concentrations
Background Concentration a
(µg/m3)
Percent of Applicable
AAAQO
One-hour
48.5
16.2
Annual
13.3
29.6
Averaging Period
NOTE:
a
Background concentration was calculated as per Section 4.2 of the Air Quality Modelling Guideline
(AEP 2013). The hourly average background concentration is the 90th percentile value calculated
from the complete data set. For averaging periods greater than one-hour, the maximum calculated
value, for each averaging period, was based on a reduced hourly data set with the hourly values
above the 90th percentile value removed.
For this assessment, the AERMET/AERMOD model system (US EPA 2018) was used to determine
the effect of Project emissions on ambient air quality. The AERMET model was used to provide
hourly meteorological data required for the AERMOD transport and dispersion model. The
application of the model system is conducted in accordance with the AEP AQMG. The default
AERMET and AERMOD input model options recommended in the AQMG are applied.
To assess the effects on air quality associated with emissions from the Project, dispersion
modelling was conducted for the following scenarios:
•
•
Project Case: Includes emissions from emission sources associated with the Project
Application Case: Includes cumulative emissions from all sources associated with the Project,
the Carmon Creek Facility, and the Peace River Complex and ambient background
Complete details for each assessment scenario are provided in Appendix F of the main AUC
application.
5.4
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Assessment of Potential Effects on Air Quality
November 2018
5.2.1
Background Ambient Air Quality
The AQMG requires the most recent available year of monitoring data be used to establish
background concentration for substances of interest. Data are available from the AEP Airdata
Warehouse (2018) for the substance of interest. The nearest and most representative monitoring
station to the Project is the Grande Prairie Henry Pirker station. The Henry Pirker monitoring station
is 185 km southwest of the Project site and is the closest monitoring station measuring NO2.
Ambient data for NO2 for 2017 were analyzed using the AQMG (AEP 2013) methodology to
calculate background concentrations. Background concentrations for NO2 are presented in
Table 5-3. These concentrations were added to the dispersion modelling results to produce final
predictions (Appendix F of the main AUC application).
Table 5-3
Estimated Ambient Background Concentrations
Species
NO2
Background
Concentration a
(µg/m3)
Percent of Applicable
AAAQO
One-hour
48.5
16.2
Annual
13.3
29.6
Averaging Period
NOTE:
a Background concentration was calculated as per Section 4.2 of the Air Quality Modelling Guideline
(AEP 2013). The hourly average background concentration is the 90th percentile value calculated from
the complete data set. For averaging periods greater than one-hour, the maximum calculated value,
for each averaging period, was based on a reduced hourly data set with the hourly values above the
90th percentile value removed.
5.2.2
Local Emission Sources
The Project is located within the approved Carmon Creek Facility fence line. The Carmon Creek
Facility is partially constructed but is not operating. The existing Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.
Peace River Complex is also located in the 10 km by 10 km study area. Emissions from the
approved Carmon Creek Facility and the existing Peace River Complex were included in the
dispersion modelling.
For more details on these emission sources, please see the Air Quality Assessment (Appendix F of
the main AUC application).
5.5
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Assessment of Potential Effects on Air Quality
November 2018
5.3
POTENTIAL PROJECT EFFECTS AND PATHWAYS
As substances will be emitted to the air, changes to ambient air quality within the surrounding
area may occur as a result of the Project.
5.4
PROJECT INTERACTIONS WITH AIR QUALITY
Table 5-4 identifies which Project interactions have the potential to result in effects to air quality.
These interactions are indicated by check marks. A justification is also provided for noninteractions (no check marks).
Table 5-4
Potential Project Interactions and Effects on Air Quality
Potential Effects
Project Activity
Changes in Ambient Air Quality
Construction
-
Operation

NOTES:
 = Potential interactions that might cause an effect.
- = Interactions between the Project and the VC are not expected.
Project interactions with Air Quality during construction are not assessed further, as the only
source of criteria air contaminants are from Project vehicles and equipment used during
construction. Construction phase interactions will be addressed through the use of codified
practices, proven effective mitigation measures, and best management practices. Standard
mitigation measures include maintaining vehicles and reducing idling of equipment.
5.5
PREDICTED AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS
Air emissions associated with the Project were estimated for the two gas turbines plus the two
duct burners in the HRSGs. All combustion equipment is assumed to operate continuously at
maximum rated capacity with all exhaust exiting through the HRSG stacks.
5.5.1
Dispersion Modelling Results
The air dispersion modelling assessment considered two scenarios: Project Case and Application
Case. Summaries of the maximum predicted ground-level concentrations associated with the
Project Case and the Application Case are presented in Tables 5-5 and 5-6. Contour plots of the
maximum predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, are provided in Appendix F of the
main AUC application (Appendix B Isopleth Maps of Appendix F in the main AUC application).
5.6
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Assessment of Potential Effects on Air Quality
November 2018
Table 5-5
Maximum Predicted Ground-level Concentrations (µg/m3) Associated
with the Project Case
Substance
NOx
NO2 a
Maximum Predicted
Ground-Level
Concentrations
(µg/m3)
AAAQO
(µg/m3)
Comparison of
Predictions to
AAAQO
(%)
1-hour b
53.1
NA
NA
Annual
2.2
NA
NA
1-hour b
47.8
300
16
Annual
2.0
45
4
Averaging Period
NOTES:
a NOx was converted to NO2 using the Ozone Limiting Method.
b
9th highest predictions (AEP 2013).
NA – Not Applicable
The maximum predicted one-hour and annual average ground-level NO2 concentrations
associated with the Project Case are 47.8 and 2.0 µg/m3, respectively. All maximum predicted
NO2 concentrations are much less than the relevant AAAQOs.
Table 5-6
Maximum Predicted Ground-level Concentrations (µg/m3) Associated
with the Application Case
Ambient
Background
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Maximum
Predicted
Concentration
Including
Background
(µg/m3)
AAAQO
(µg/m3)
Comparison
of Predictions
to AAAQO
(%)
Substance
Averaging
Period
Maximum
Predicted
Ground-Level
Concentrations
(µg/m3)
NOx
1-hour b
249
NA
NA
NA
NA
Annual
11.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
1-hour b
101
48.5
150
300
50
13.3
23.0
45
51
NO2 a
Annual
9.7
NOTES:
a NOx was converted to NO2 using the Ozone Limiting Method.
b
9th highest predictions (AEP 2013).
NA – Not Applicable
5.7
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Assessment of Potential Effects on Air Quality
November 2018
The maximum predicted one-hour and annual average ground-level NO2 concentrations
associated with the Application Case are 150 and 23.0 µg/m3, respectively, including
background. All maximum predicted NO2 concentrations are less than the relevant AAAQOs.
5.6
MITIGATION
Standard industry practices and avoidance measures, along with specific mitigation, will be
implemented during construction of the Project to reduce or eliminate environmental effects on
ambient air quality.
Table 5-7 identifies mitigation measures recommended to reduce potential adverse effects of
the Project on ambient air quality.
Table 5-7
Mitigation Measures for Air Quality
Potential Effect
Changes in
Ambient Air Quality
Effect Pathway
•
Changes in ambient
air quality during
operations
Proposed Mitigation Measures
•
Adhere to federal emission standards and
guidelines for new turbine emissions
•
Regular inspection and maintenance of the CTG
to ensure optimum performance and minimize
emissions.
•
Meet ambient air quality objectives, and industry
standard best practices for operational
emissions.
Emissions of NOx comply with the Alberta Air
Emission Standards for Electricity Generation
(December 2005).
Guidelines for the Reduction of Nitrogen Oxide
Emissions from Natural Gas-fuelled Stationary
Combustion Turbines (2017)
Regular inspection and maintenance of the gas
turbines to ensure optimum performance and
minimize emissions.
Construction equipment and vehicles will be
maintained to the appropriate code or industry
best practice.
•
•
•
•
•
5.8
All effort will be made to reduce the idling of
construction equipment and vehicles.
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Assessment of Potential Effects on Air Quality
November 2018
5.7
5.7.1
ASSESSMENT OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS ON AIR QUALITY
Summary of Residual Effects on Air Quality
An assessment of the effects of NOX, emissions from the Project during both Project and
Application Case scenarios was completed using an air dispersion model. Dispersion modelling
included emissions from the Project, as well as emissions from nearby industrial emission sources.
Background concentrations from a representative AEP air quality monitoring station were used
to incorporate local ambient background concentrations. Potential effects on ambient air
quality were evaluated based on model predictions from the AERMOD dispersion model.
Dispersion modelling was performed in accordance with the AEP Air Quality Model Guideline.
The results of this assessment show that the maximum predicted ground-level concentrations of
NO2, associated with emissions from the Project for both the Project Case and the Application
Case are below the AAAQO.
5.8
SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION
A significant residual effect for air quality is defined by the AEP established Ambient Air Quality
Objectives and Guidelines. As per the AAAQO, the predicted ground-level concentrations
associated with the Project and other industrial facilities in the study area are required to be less
than the Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives on and outside of the plant boundary where
public access is not restricted. The maximum predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2
associated with emissions from the Project during are below the Alberta Ambient Air Quality
Objectives.
With the application of recommended mitigation measures, residual environmental effects from
the Project on Air Quality are predicted to be not significant.
5.9
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Assessment of Potential Effects on Air Quality
November 2018
5.10
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Assessment of Potential Effects on Acoustic Environment
November 2018
6.0
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON ACOUSTIC
ENVIRONMENT
A noise impact assessment (NIA) has been completed for the Project. The purpose of the NIA
was to quantify the Project’s noise contribution within the study area. The results of the NIA were
compared to requirements under the AUC Rule 012: Noise Control (AUC 2013) in support of the
regulatory approval process. The full results of the NIA completed for the Project are included in
Appendix D of the main AUC application.
6.1
6.1.1
ASSESSMENT BOUNDARIES
Noise Study Area
The noise study area is defined as the area which may be affected by environmental noise
emission from the Project. The selected study area is a boundary limit 3 km from the Project
boundary. Achieving PSL compliance at a 1.5 km boundary limit means that the Project noise
effect beyond the 3 km study area will be below the assumed ambient sound level for remote
areas and have a negligible impact (Figure 6-1).
6.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Assessment of Potential Effects on Acoustic Environment
November 2018
Figure 6-1
6.2
Noise Impact Assessment Study Area
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Assessment of Potential Effects on Acoustic Environment
November 2018
6.1.2
Noise Receptors
Permanent or seasonal residential dwellings within the noise study area must be considered as
receptors for the NIA. The nearest dwelling to the Project is a cabin identified in the 2013 Carmon
Creek NIA (Shell 2013). The cabin is approximately 4.5 km from the Project and is not included in
the noise impact assessment. When there are no dwellings within 1.5 km of a facility, the
cumulative environmental sound level is assessed against the PSL at a 1.5 km5km criteria
boundary from the facility boundary.
Five receptor points have been identified within the noise study area for compliance assessment
based on application of the AUC 1.5 km criteria boundary. The receptor points are listed in
Table 6-1 and shown on Figure 6-1. Receptor points IM01 and IM02 are used in the intermediary
case assessment and represent the intersection of the 1.5 km criteria boundary for the Project
and the 1.5 km criteria boundary for the existing Peace River Complex. Receptor points R03-R05
are points along the 1.5 km criteria boundary for the Carmon Creek facility as defined in the
2013 Carmon Creek NIA (Shell 2013). The Project is within the facility property of the approved
but not yet constructed Carmon Creek facility, so receptors R03-R05 were used in the
application case assessment.
Table 6-1
Receptor Locations
Location
Receptor Point ID
IM01
IM02
R03
R04
R05
Description
UTM Zone 11
Intersection of 1.5 km
noise criteria
boundaries from Project
and Peace River
Complex
514840 m E
Intersection of 1.5 km
noise criteria
boundaries from Project
and Peace River
Complex
516444 m E
Point R03 on 1.5 km
noise criteria boundary
from Carmon Creek
Facility (Shell 2013)
517248 m E
Point R04 on 1.5 km
noise criteria boundary
from Carmon Creek
Facility (Shell 2013)
518094 m E
Point R05 on 1.5 km
noise criteria boundary
from Carmon Creek
Facility (Shell 2013)
518280 m E
Assessment Case
Intermediary
6249610 m N
Intermediary
6246465 m N
Application
6249696 m N
Application
6248785 m N
Application
6247384 m N
6.3
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Assessment of Potential Effects on Acoustic Environment
November 2018
6.2
ASSESSMENT APPROACH
The NIA was conducted using the following assessment approach:
1. Applicable noise receptor locations were identified and Permissible Sound Levels (PSLs)
established at the receptors.
2. The Baseline Case sound level was determined using the acoustic model at receptors IM01
and IM02. The baseline case is sound from the existing Peace River Complex and ambient
sound.
3. The Project Case sound level was determined using the acoustic model. The Project Case is
sound from the Project only.
4. The Intermediary Case sound level was calculated at receptors IM01 and IM02. The
intermediary case is sound from the existing Peace River Complex, the Project, and ambient
sound.
5. The Application Case sound level was calculated at receptors R03, R05, and R05. The
application case is sound from the Project, the approved but not yet constructed Carmon
Creek Facility, and ambient sound.
Noise emissions from the Project and nearby third-party facilities can be reasonably expected to
remain constant throughout normal daytime and nighttime operation, therefore compliance
with the more stringent nighttime PSL is assessed.
6.2.1
Acoustic Modelling
Noise prediction was conducted using Cadna/A acoustic modeling software (DataKustik 2017),
based on internationally accepted sound propagation algorithms (ISO 1993, 1996). These
standards are commonly used by noise practitioners and are accepted by the AUC.
To account for the level of uncertainty in the noise predictions, a conservative approach was
incorporated into the model. This included the assumption that meteorological conditions
enhancing noise propagation (e.g., downwind and temperature inversion conditions) existed
100% of the time. The meteorological conditions used in the acoustics model do not occur all
the time; therefore, model predictions are expected to be conservative. Further details on the
modelling parameters used in the assessment are provided in section 4.3 of the NIA (Appendix D
of the main AUC application).
6.4
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Assessment of Potential Effects on Acoustic Environment
November 2018
6.3
EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT
6.3.1
Ambient Sound Level
The ambient sound level used for the acoustic assessment is the 35 dBA average nighttime
sound level in Alberta as defined in AUC Rule 012.
6.3.2
Baseline Case
The baseline case is defined as the existing acoustic environment in the noise study area. This
includes potential noise from the existing Peace River Complex only. Noise Emission from the
Peace River complex was determined by modelling the Central Processing Facility (CPF) and
well pads close to the Project site. Sound power levels for the Peace River Complex were
obtained from the 2006 NIA (Shell, 2006), and are listed in Appendix A of the NIA report. Table 6-2
shows the baseline case sound level at receptors IM01 and IM02.
Table 6-2
Baseline Case Sound Level
Ambient Sound Level,
dBA1
Peace River Complex,
dBA2
Cumulative Baseline
Sound Level, dBA
IM01
35
15.6
35
IM02
35
10.0
35
Receptor
NOTES:
1
AUC Rule 012 assumed ambient sound level for rural areas
2
Modelling results using Information from Third Party Noise Impact Assessment
6.4
POTENTIAL PROJECT EFFECTS AND PATHWAYS
As the Project will have noise emissions, the Project may result in changes to the existing acoustic
environment within the noise study area.
6.5
PROJECT INTERACTIONS WITH ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT
Table 6-3 identifies which Project interactions have the potential to result in effects to the
acoustic environment.
6.5
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Assessment of Potential Effects on Acoustic Environment
November 2018
Table 6-3
Potential Project Interactions and Effects on the Acoustic Environment
Potential Effects
Project Activity
Change in existing Acoustic Environment
Construction

Operation

NOTES:
 = Potential interactions that might cause an effect.
- = Interactions between the Project and the VC are not expected.
6.6
PROJECT CASE
The Project Case represents the noise effect from the Project. Appendix D of the main AUC
application includes a detailed description of the predicted Project noise emissions during the
operation phase.
Project construction noise will occur during construction activities such as: levelling and grading,
pile driving, excavation, concrete pouring, and steel and component erection. Rule 012 does
not set noise limits for construction activities; however, measures will be implemented to minimize
noise effects from these activities (see Section 6.7 for mitigation).
6.6.1
Project Case Results
Table 6-4 summarizes predicted noise level due to the Project operation at all receptors. The
highest predicted sound level is 36.6 dBA IM02 during the nighttime. The nighttime noise contour
map results are presented in Figure 2 of the Noise Impact Assessment (Appendix D of the main
AUC application).
Table 6-4
Project Case Sound Level
Receptor
Project Sound Level,
dBA
IM01
36.3
IM02
36.6
R03
35.5
R04
34.2
R05
33.0
6.6
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Assessment of Potential Effects on Acoustic Environment
November 2018
6.7
MITIGATION
Standard industry practices and avoidance measures, along with specific mitigation, will be
implemented during construction of the Project to reduce or eliminate environmental effects on
the acoustic environment. Noise mitigation measures are included in the Project engineering
design. Table 6-5 identifies mitigation measures recommended to reduce potential adverse
effects of the Project on the acoustic environment as well as limit noise disturbance during
construction of the Project.
Table 6-5
Mitigation Measures for Acoustic Environment
Potential Effect
Change in existing Acoustic
Environment during
construction
Change in existing Acoustic
Environment during
operation
Effect Pathway
•
•
Change in
cumulative noise
levels
Change in
cumulative noise
levels
Proposed Mitigation Measures
•
Noisy construction activities will be
scheduled within the daytime hours of
07:00 to 22:00.
•
Noise mitigation measures installed on
construction equipment (e.g., mufflers)
will be kept in good working condition.
•
Construction vehicles will follow posted
speed limits.
•
Construction equipment not in use will
be turned off where practical.
•
Gas turbine generator and steam
turbine generators will be located inside
insulated metal buildings
•
Turbine building doors and windows will
remain closed during normal operation
periods.
•
Gas turbine sound attenuation package
including combustion air inlet silencing,
inlet duct lagging, acoustic enclosures,
and enclosure ventilation silencing
•
Air cooled condenser noise attenuation
by supplier to meet NIA noise emission
specification
6.7
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Assessment of Potential Effects on Acoustic Environment
November 2018
6.8
ASSESSMENT OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS ON ACOUSTIC
ENVIRONMENT
6.8.1
Summary of Residual Effects on Acoustic Environment
The Intermediary Case and Application Case determine the cumulative sound level at the
receptors in two possible scenarios.
The intermediary case is the scenario where the Peace River Complex remains as it exists
currently, the Project is included, and the Carmon Creek Facility is not included. This case is
included in the assessment as the Carmon Creek Facility construction timeline is not known at
this time and this intermediary case may persist. In this scenario, compliance with the PSL is
evaluated at 1.5 km from the Project boundary at two points (IM01, IM02) which intersect with
the 1.5 km criterion boundary from the Peace River Complex. Compliance assessment for the
intermediary case is shown in Table 6-6.
The application case considers the Project with the approved Carmon Creek Facility. The
Carmon Creek Facility construction will involve decommissioning the Peace River Complex
therefore, it is removed. Three 1x1 combined cycle turbines and their ancillary equipment are no
longer part of Carmon Creek facility noise emission in this scenario; two of which are now part of
the Three Creeks Power Plant Project. The 1.5 km criteria boundary for the Project is entirely within
the 1.5 km criteria boundary for the Carmon Creek Project, therefore the cumulative sound level
from the two facilities is evaluated using the further of the two. Three receptor points (R03, R04,
R05) are used for compliance assessment in this scenario which correspond to points used in the
2013 Carmon Creek NIA (Shell 2013). Compliance assessment for the application case is shown
in Table 6-7.
For more details on the scenarios and results, refer to Appendix D of the main AUC application.
Table 6-6
Intermediary Case Noise Impact Assessment Results
Ambient
Sound Level1,
dBA
Peace River
Complex2,
dBA
Project
Noise Effect,
dBA
Cumulative
Sound Level,
dBA
PSL,
dBA
Rule 012
Compliance
IM01
35
15.6
36.3
38.7
40
Yes
IM02
35
10.0
36.6
38.9
40
Yes
Receptor
NOTES:
1
AUC Rule 012 assumed ambient sound level for rural areas
2
Calculated using Information from Third Party Noise Impact Assessment
6.8
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Assessment of Potential Effects on Acoustic Environment
November 2018
Table 6-7
Application Case Noise Impact Assessment Results
Ambient
Sound Level,
dBA
Carmon Creek
w/o Turbines1,
dBA
Project Noise
Effect,
dBA
Cumulative
Sound Level,
dBA
PSL,
dBA
Rule 012
Compliance
R03
35
35.1
35.5
40.0
40
Yes
R04
35
35.2
34.2
39.6
40
Yes
R05
35
36.8
33.0
40.0
40
Yes
Receptor
NOTES:
1
Calculated using Information from Third Party Noise Impact Assessment
6.8.2
Significance Determination
Residual environmental effects from the Project on the Acoustic Environment are significant
when the Project noise effect is not in compliance with AUC Rule 012 requirements.
The Project’s noise effect is predicted to be in compliance with Rule 012 at all receptors in both
the application case and the intermediary case.
Based on the results from the NIA, residual environmental effects from the Project on the
Acoustic Environment are predicted to be not significant.
6.9
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Assessment of Potential Effects on Acoustic Environment
November 2018
6.10
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Monitoring
November 2018
7.0
MONITORING
Monitoring during the Project’s construction and site preparation will be completed following the
development of a construction plan, to ensure recommended mitigation measures included in
this EE are completed.
Following anticipated approval from AEP for the Project’s EPEA application, the Project will have
set environmental monitoring conditions for the Project’s operation phase and will adhere to the
requirements and limits set.
7.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Monitoring
November 2018
7.2
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Summary & Conclusion
November 2018
8.0
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
Stantec has assessed the potential interactions between the Project’s construction and
operation activities and the relevant VCs. Two VCs were carried through an evaluation to
determine residual effects and their significance; Air Quality and Acoustic Environment.
The EE determined that the potential adverse effects associated with the Project can be
mitigated with standard mitigation measures and industry best practices, as detailed in each
individual VC section. Based on this evaluation, the residual adverse effects of the Project are
predicted to be not significant.
8.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Summary & Conclusion
November 2018
8.2
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
References
November 2018
9.0
REFERENCES
ACIMS. 2018. Element Occurrence Data. Available online at:
https://www.albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/management-land-use/albertaconservation-information-management-system-acims/download-data/. Accessed
November 2018.
AEP (Alberta Environment and Parks). 2013. Air Quality Modelling Guideline. Alberta Environment
and Parks Air Policy Section. Edmonton, AB. October 2013. Available at:
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460105993. Accessed: November 2018.
AEP. 2017. Alberta's Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines Summary. Alberta
Environment and Parks, Air Policy Branch. Edmonton AB. July 2017.
AEP. 2018. Access FWMIS Data: Fish & Wildlife Internet Mapping Tool (FWIMT). Available online at:
https://maps.alberta.ca/FWIMT_Pub/Viewer/?TermsOfUseRequired=true&Viewer=FWIMT_
Pub. Accessed November 2018.
AUC (Alberta Utilities Commission). 2013. Rule 012, Noise Control, version April 1, 2013 – present.
Alberta, Canada
DataKustik. 2017. Cadna/A Computer Aided Noise Abatement Model, Version 4.5.151. Munich,
Germany.
Government of Alberta. (2010). Environmental Assessment Program -- Glossary of Environmental
Assessment Terms and Acronyms Used in Alberta Updated February 2010.
Natural Regions Committee. (2006). Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. Available online
at https://www.albertaparks.ca/media/2942026/nrsrcomplete_may_06.pdf
Shell Canada Ltd. 2006.Peace River Oil Sands Carmon Creek Project Environmental Impact
Assessment Volume IIA: Noise. 2006
Shell Canada Ltd. 2013. Carmon Creek Project Design Update Report. Appendix A - Air Quality.
March 2013.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 1993. International Standard ISO 9613-1,
Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors. Part 1: Calculation of
Absorption of Sound by the Atmosphere. Geneva, Switzerland.
9.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
References
November 2018
ISO. 1996. International Standard ISO 9613-2, Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound During
Propagation Outdoors. Part 2: General Method of Calculation. Geneva, Switzerland
US EPA. 2018. User’s Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory model - AERMOD. United States
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA454/B-16-011. November 2018.
9.2
THREE CREEKS POWER PROJECT
AUC RULE 007 APPLICATION
Appendix D Noise Impact Assessment
November 2018
Appendix D
Three Creeks Power
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
D.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PROJECT
AUC RULE 007 APPLICATION
Appendix D Noise Impact Assessment
November 2018
D.2
Three Creeks Power
Three Creeks Power Plant
Noise Impact Assessment
November 2018
Prepared for:
Three Creeks Power GP Ltd.
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... I
ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................... III
GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................. V
1.0
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1.1
2.0
2.1
2.2
SETTING ........................................................................................................................ 2.1
PROJECT FACILITY ...................................................................................................... 2.1
THIRD-PARTY FACILITIES ........................................................................................... 2.1
2.2.1
Peace River Complex ................................................................................... 2.1
2.2.2
Carmon Creek Facility .................................................................................. 2.2
2.2.3
CCS Facility .................................................................................................. 2.2
3.0
3.1
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................... 3.1
AUC RULE 012 .............................................................................................................. 3.1
4.0
4.1
4.2
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 4.1
STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................ 4.1
ASSESSMENT APPROACH ......................................................................................... 4.3
4.2.1
Baseline Case .............................................................................................. 4.3
4.2.2
Project Case ................................................................................................. 4.3
4.2.3
Intermediary Case ........................................................................................ 4.3
4.2.4
Application Case........................................................................................... 4.3
NOISE MODELLING ...................................................................................................... 4.4
4.3.1
Project Sound Power Levels ........................................................................ 4.5
4.3
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESULTS .................................................................. 5.1
BASELINE CASE ........................................................................................................... 5.1
PROJECT CASE ............................................................................................................ 5.1
INTERMEDIARY CASE ................................................................................................. 5.4
APPLICATION CASE ..................................................................................................... 5.4
6.0
6.1
6.2
NOISE MITIGATION ...................................................................................................... 6.1
AIR COOLED CONDENSER ......................................................................................... 6.1
BUILDINGS .................................................................................................................... 6.1
7.0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 7.1
8.0
ACOUSTIC PRACTICIONERS INFORMATION ........................................................... 8.1
9.0
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 9.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Assessment Receptor Points ................................................................................... 4.1
Acoustic Modelling Parameters ................................................................................ 4.4
Three Creeks Power Plant Sound Power Levels, dB ............................................... 4.5
Baseline Noise Levels .............................................................................................. 5.1
Project Noise Effect .................................................................................................. 5.1
Source Contribution Ranking at IM02 ...................................................................... 5.2
Intermediary Case Compliance Assessment ........................................................... 5.4
Application Case Compliance Assessment .............................................................. 5.4
ACC Noise Mitigation - Far field Sound Level Limit ................................................. 6.1
Building Acoustic Performance ................................................................................ 6.1
Practitioners Information .......................................................................................... 8.1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Receptor Locations .................................................................................................. 4.2
Project Noise Effect Contour Plot ............................................................................. 5.3
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
PEACE RIVER COMPLEX SOUND POWER LEVELS .............................. A.1
APPENDIX B
CARMON CREEK FACILITY TURBINE SOUND POWER LEVELS ......... B.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Executive Summary
Stantec was retained by Three Creeks Power GP Ltd (TCP) to prepare a Noise Impact Assessment for
the proposed Three Creeks Power Plant Project. The Project will use two Siemens SGT6-5000F(4) 230
MW gas turbine generators originally intended for the approved but not constructed Shell Carmon Creek
Facility. The gas turbines will be configured in base load combined cycle operation with a Siemens SST65000 230MW steam turbine generator and air-cooled condenser. The Project site is within the Carmon
Creek Facility site at the same location they were originally intended for. Information about the
environmental noise contribution for the adjacent existing and approved facilities was obtained from two
published noise impact assessment reports prepared by Shell for those facilities. The adjacent facilities
are the existing CNRL Peace River Complex and the approved Carmon Creek Facility. The adjacent
facilities are spread over a large area which is surrounded by forest and is largely uninhabited. The most
significant finding in the NIA is that the air-cooled condenser will require some noise attenuation in order
to meet the permissible sound level at a criteria boundary 1.5 km from the facilities. With attention to the
noise emission of the air-cooled condenser and noise attenuation from the turbine buildings, the Project is
expected to comply with AUC Rule 012.
i
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
ii
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Abbreviations
AER
Alberta Energy Regulator
ASL
Ambient Sound Level
AUC
Alberta Utility Commission
BSL
Basic Sound Level
CSL
Comprehensive Sound Level
dB
Decibel
dBA
A-Weighted Decibel
dBC
C-Weighted Decibel
Directive 038
AER Directive 038, Noise Control
HRSG
Heat Recovery Steam Generators
Hz
Hertz
ISO
International Organization for Standardization
Leq
Energy Equivalent Sound Level
LFN
Low frequency noise
m
metre
NEF
Noise exposure forecast
iii
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
NIA
Noise Impact Assessment
PSL
Permissible Sound Level
PWL
Sound Power Level re 10-12 Watt
Rule 012
AUC Rule 012: Noise Control
SPL
Sound Pressure Level re 20 µPa
iv
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Glossary
Ambient Noise
All noises that exist in an area and are not related to a facility.
Ambient noise includes sound from other industrial noise not being
measured, transportation sources, animals, and nature. Ambient
noise is the same as background sound level
Ambient Sound Level (ASL)
The ASL consists of all noise in an area that is not related to
regulated facilities. This noise includes sound from other nonregulated industrial facilities, transportation sources, animals and
nature. The ASL does not include any energy-related industrial
component and must be measured without it. The ASL can be
measured when the sound level in an area is not felt to be
represented by the BSLs. The ASL must be measured under
representative conditions. As with comprehensive sound levels,
representative conditions do not constitute absolute worst-case
conditions (i.e., the quietest day in this case) but conditions that
portray typical conditions for the area
Background Sound Level (i.e.,
Baseline)
It includes noise from all sources other than the sound of interest (i.e.,
sound from other industrial noise not being measured, transportation
sources, animals, and nature)
Bands (octave, 1/3 octave)
A series of electronic filters separate sound into discrete frequency
bands, making it possible to know how sound energy is distributed as
a function of frequency. Each octave band has a centre frequency
that is double the centre frequency of the octave band preceding it
Basic Sound Level (BSL)
The A-weighted Leq sound level commonly observed to occur in the
designated land-use categories with industrial presence. The BSL is
assumed to be 5 dBA above the ASL and is set out in Table 1 of AUC
Rule 012.
Category
A classification of a dwelling unit in relation to transportation routes
used to arrive at a BSL
v
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Class A Adjustment
Consists of the sum of adjustments that account for the seasonal
nature of the noise source, absence of both tonal and impulse/impact
components, and the actual ASL in an area. It cannot exceed +10
dBA. The Class A adjustment is added to the BSL, the daytime
adjustment, and the Class B adjustment to arrive at a permissible
sound level
Class B Adjustment
An adjustment based on the duration of a noisy activity that
recognizes that additional noise can be tolerated if it is known that the
duration will be limited. An adjustment of B1, B2, B3, or B4 may be
selected as applicable
Comprehensive Sound Level
(CSL)
The sound level that is a composite of different airborne sounds from
many sources far away from and near the point of measurement. The
CSL does include industrial components and must be measured with
them, but it should exclude abnormal noise events
Daytime
The hours from 07:00 to 22:00
Daytime Adjustment
An adjustment that allows a 10 dBA increase because daytime sound
levels are generally about 10 dBA higher than nighttime values
dB - Decibel
A logarithmic unit associated with sound pressure levels and sound
power levels
dBA - Decibel, A-Weighted
A logarithmic unit where the recorded sound has been filtered using
the A frequency weighting scale. A-weighting somewhat mimics the
response of the human ear to sounds at different frequencies. Aweighted sound pressure levels are denoted by the suffix ‘A’ (i.e.,
dBA), and the term pressure is normally omitted from the description
(i.e., sound level or noise level)
dBC - Decibel, C-Weighted
The logarithmic units associated with a sound pressure level, where
the sound pressure signals has been filtered using a frequency
weighting. The C-weighting approximates the sensitivity of human
hearing at industrial noise levels (above about 85 dBA). C-weighted
sound pressure levels are denoted by the suffix ‘C’ (i.e., dBC). Cweighted levels are often used in low-frequency noise analysis, as
the filtering effect is nearly flat at lower frequencies
vi
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Decibel Addition
In acoustics, due to the logarithmic nature of the decibel scale, the
addition of two or more sound pressure levels (denoted as SPL1,
SPL2 … SPLn) is done as follows:
SPL1 + SPL2 + …SPLn = 10 log (10 (SPL1/10) + 10(SPL2/10) + …+
10(SPLn/10))
As an example:
50 dB + 50 dB = 53 dB
Dwelling Unit
Any permanently or seasonally occupied structure used for habitation
for the purpose of human rest; including a nursing home or hospital
with the exception of an employee or worker residence, dormitory, or
construction camp located within an energy-related industrial plant
boundary. Trailer parks and campgrounds may qualify as a dwelling if
it can be demonstrated that they are in regular and consistent use.
In the case of a condominium or apartment complex, each unit is
considered a dwelling.
Dwelling Unit (most affected)
The most impacted dwelling(s) are those subject to the highest
average weighted sound level relative to the permissible sound level.
The nearest dwelling unit may not necessarily be the one most
adversely affected because of factors such as topography or manmade features. For example, the nearest dwelling unit to a facility
may be located behind an intervening ridge, while a more distant
dwelling unit may be in direct line of sight with the facility. Care must
be taken in determining the most impacted dwelling unit
Energy Equivalent Sound Level
(Leq)
An energy-average sound level taken over a specified period of time.
It represents the average sound pressure encountered for the period.
The time period is often added as a suffix to the label (e.g., Leq(24) for
the 24-hour equivalent sound level). Leq is usually A-weighted. An
Leq value expressed in dBA is a good, single value descriptor of the
annoyance of noise
Frequency
Number of cycles per unit of time. In acoustics, frequency is
expressed in hertz (Hz), i.e. cycles per second
vii
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Frequent Aircraft Flyovers
Used in the assessment of categories as part of a site specific
analysis for dwellings that lie within a contour area with a noise
exposure forecast (NEF) 25 or greater, as designated by Transport
Canada. In the absence of any NEF contours for local airport,
Transport Canada is to be contacted for current air traffic statistics. In
this case, to qualify for the BSL adjustment, a dwelling must be within
5 km of an airport that has a minimum of nine aircraft takeoffs or
landings over the nighttime period
Heavily Travelled Road
Generally includes highways and any other road where the average
traffic count is at least 10 vehicles per hour over the nighttime period.
It is acknowledged that highways are sometimes lightly travelled
during the nighttime period, which is usually the period of greatest
concern
Hertz (Hz)
Unit of measurement of frequency, numerically equal to cycles per
second
Low Frequency Noise (LFN)
Noise in the low frequency range (AUC definition), 20 Hz up to 250
Hz, where a clear tone is present below and including 250 HZ and the
difference between the overall C-weighted sound level and the overall
A-weighted sound level exceeds 20 dB
Nighttime
the hours from 22:00 to 07:00
Noise
Unwanted sound
Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF)
The NEF contours are site specific to each airport and take into
account such factors as traffic levels, proximity to runways, flight
paths, and aircraft type and size
Noise Impact Assessment (NIA)
An NIA identifies the expected sound level emanating from a facility
as measured 15 m from the nearest or most impacted permanently or
seasonally occupied dwelling. It also identifies what the permissible
sound level is and how it was calculated
Noise Level
Same as Sound Level, except applied to unwanted sounds
viii
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
No net increase
The logarithmic addition of sound pressure levels when predicting
noise where the sum does not exceed the permissible sound level by
more than 0.4 dB
Permanent Facility
Any existing or proposed facility that will be at a location longer than
two months
Permanently Occupied Dwelling
A fixed dwelling occupied on a full-time basis
Permissible Sound Level (PSL)
The maximum sound level that a facility should not exceed at a point
15 m from the nearest or most impacted dwelling unit. The PSL is the
sum of the BSL, daytime adjustment, Class A adjustment, and Class
B adjustment
Seasonally Occupied Dwelling
A fixed dwelling that, while not being occupied on a full-time basis, is
occupied on a regular basis. A regular basis does not imply a
scheduled occupancy but implies use of six weeks per year or more.
The dwelling must not be mobile and should have some sort of
foundation or features of permanence (e.g., electrical power,
domestic water supply, septic system) associated with it. Summer
cottages or mobile homes are examples of seasonally occupied
dwellings, while a holiday trailer simply pulled onto a site is not
Sound
A dynamic (fluctuating) pressure
Sound Pressure Level (SPL)
The logarithmic ratio of the root mean square sound pressure to the
sound pressure at the threshold of hearing. The sound pressure level is
defined by equation below where P is the RMS pressure due to a sound
and P0 is the reference pressure. P0 is usually taken as 2.0 × 10-5
Pascals.
SPL (dB) = 20 log(PRMS/P0)
Sound Power Level (PWL)
The logarithmic ratio of the instantaneous sound power of a noise
source to that of the reference power. The sound power level is
defined by equation below where W is the sound power of the source
in watts, and Wo is the reference power of 10-12 watts
PWL (dB) = 10 log(W/W0)
ix
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Spectrum
The description of a sound wave's resolution into its components of
frequency and amplitude
Tonal Components
Often industrial facilities exhibit tonal components. Examples of tonal
components are transformer hum, sirens, and piping noise. The test
for the presence of tonal components consists of two parts (as per
tonality prescribed in AUC Rule 012). The first part must
demonstrate that the sound pressure level of any one of the slowresponse, A-weighted, 1/3-octave bands between 20 and 16 kHz is
10 dBA or more than the sound pressure level of at least one of the
adjacent bands within two 1/3-octave bandwidths. In addition, there
must be a minimum of a 5 dBA drop from the band containing the
tone within 2 bandwidths on the opposite side. The second part is
that the tonal component must be a pronounced peak clearly obvious
within the spectrum
x
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Introduction
November 2018
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Three Creeks Power GP Ltd (TCP) is proposing the Three Creeks Power Plant (the Project). The Project
will use two gas turbine generators originally intended for the approved Carmon Creek Facility and
acquired from Shell. The gas turbine generators will be converted to base load combined cycle operation
through the addition of a steam turbine generator and air-cooled condenser. Stantec was retained by TCP
to complete a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) for the Project to demonstrate compliance with Alberta
Utilities Commission (AUC) Rule 012: Noise Control. The assessment methodology and technical details
of the assessment are included in this report. The NIA uses manufacturer noise emission data,
engineering estimates, noise propagation modelling calculations, and information published in third party
facility noise impact assessments to predict the cumulative noise level in the surrounding environment
under different scenarios. Noise mitigation is recommended for the Project in order to comply with the
AUC Rule 012 Permissible Sound Level (PSL).
1.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Introduction
November 2018
1.2
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Setting
November 2018
2.0
SETTING
2.1
PROJECT FACILITY
The Project is located within the northeast quarter section of 15-085-18 W5M, approximately 40 km
northeast of the town of Peace River, within the northwest portion of the approved Peace River in-situ
expansion Carmon Creek Project Area (Carmon Creek Facility). The Project site is within an area cleared
for development, surrounded by lowland forest. The terrain is predominantly flat, gently sloping upwards
from west to east. There are no dwellings within 1.5 km of the Project boundary.
The Project consists of a 2x1 combined cycle gas turbine power generating plant with air cooled
condenser. The Project will be comprised of the following major pieces of equipment and their associated
ancillary systems:



(Qty 2) Siemens SGT6-5000F(4) 230 MW Gas turbine generators, installed in separate buildings with
outdoor Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG)
(Qty 1) Siemens SST6-5000 230MW Steam Turbine Generator, installed in a separate building
(Qty 1) Air Cooled Condenser and Steam Header
Ownership of the Project was transferred from Shell to TCP in February 2017. Originally three gas
turbines were intended for the site, however the current plan is to develop the site in the combined cycle
configuration described here.
2.2
THIRD-PARTY FACILITIES
2.2.1
Peace River Complex
The Peace River Complex is an in-situ heavy oil facility in operation since 1986. The Peace River
Complex uses steam injection to fluidize bitumen so that it can be pumped to the surface. The Peace
river complex consists of a central processing facility surrounded by numerous well pads. The central
processing facility of the Peace River Complex is approximately 2.5 km east of the Project. The
development plan of the Carmon Creek Facility involves decommissioning the existing Peace River
Complex central processing facility. Ownership of the Peace River Complex was transferred from Shell to
CNRL in March 2017. Information about noise emission from the Peace River Complex was obtained
from the 2006 Shell Canada Ltd. Peace River Oil Sands Carmon Creek Project Environmental Impact
Assessment Volume IIA: Noise. (Shell, 2006)
2.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Setting
November 2018
2.2.2
Carmon Creek Facility
The Carmon Creek Facility is an approved but not yet constructed expansion of the Peace River complex
in-situ heavy oil facility. The Carmon Creek facility approval included three gas turbine generators
equipped with HRSGs. Two of these gas turbines will be part of the Three Creeks Power Plant, which is
now an independent project. The third gas turbine will not be installed. Ownership of the Carmon Creek
Facility (except cogeneration) was transferred from Shell to CNRL in March 2017. Information about noise
emission from the Carmon Creek Facility was obtained from the 2013 Shell Canada Ltd. Carmon Creek
Project Environmental Impact Assessment Appendix B: Noise Report. (Shell, 2013)
2.2.3
CCS Facility
The CCS facility is a regulated facility that was included in previous noise assessments related to the
Carmon Creek Facility. It is more than 5 km away from the Three Creeks Power Plant and will not
contribute to the cumulative noise levels related to the Project, therefore it is excluded from this
assessment.
2.2
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Regulatory Framework
November 2018
3.0
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
3.1
AUC RULE 012
The cumulative sound level including the Project and third-party regulated facilities, and ambient
background sound must be at or below the Permissible Sound Level (PSL) established in AER Directive
038: Noise Control and AUC Rule 012: Noise Control. The PSL is the same under both AUC and AER
noise assessment criteria. The cumulative noise level of both the proposed facilities and existing and
approved third party regulated facilities in the Noise Study Area must be included under either regulation.
For simplicity, this report will reference AUC Rule 012 noise assessment criteria only.
All regulated facilities must meet a daytime (07:00 to 22:00) and nighttime (22:00 to 07:00) PSL at a
distance of 1.5 km (AUC criteria boundary) from the Project boundary or at the nearest receptor,
whichever is closer. Only dwellings that are permanently or seasonally occupied are defined as receptors.
Exceptions to this definition include any employee or worker residence, dormitory, or construction camp
located within an industrial plant boundary. As there are no receptors identified within the 1.5 km
boundary, the nighttime PSL of 40 dBA Leq would be applicable at the 1.5km criteria boundary. In
situations where the 1.5 km boundaries of a proposed facility intersect with the 1.5 km boundary of an
existing facility, the PSL may be exceeded in the overlapping area provided there are no receptors
present.
As part of the NIA requirements in Rule 012, potential for Low Frequency Noise (LFN) effects from a
project should be considered. A LFN condition may exist when there is a clear tone present at or below
250 Hz and the difference between the overall C-weighted sound level and the overall A-weighted sound
level exceeds 20 dB. The presence of both conditions at a receptor indicates the potential for LFN
concerns.
3.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Regulatory Framework
November 2018
3.2
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Methodology
November 2018
4.0
METHODOLOGY
4.1
STUDY AREA
The study area is defined as the area which may be affected by environmental noise emission from the
Project. The selected study area is a boundary limit 3 km from the Project boundary. Achieving PSL
compliance at a 1.5 km boundary limit means that the Project noise effect beyond the 3 km study area will
be below the assumed ambient sound level for remote areas and have a negligible impact. The nearest
dwelling to the project is a cabin identified in the 2013 Carmon Creek NIA (Shell, 2013). The cabin is
approximately 4.5 km from the Project facility and is not included in this assessment.
Five receptor points have been identified within the study area for compliance assessment based on
application of the AUC 1.5 km criteria boundary. The receptor points are listed in Table 1 and plotted on
Figure 1.
Table 1
Assessment Receptor Points
Receptor Point ID
Description
Location
UTM 11V
Assessment Case
IM01
Intersection of 1.5 km noise criteria
boundaries from Project and Peace
River Complex
514840 m E
6249610 m N
Intermediary
IM02
Intersection of 1.5 km noise criteria
boundaries from Project and Peace
River Complex
516444 m E
6246465 m N
Intermediary
R03
Point R03 on 1.5 km noise criteria
boundary from Carmon Creek Facility
(Shell, 2013)
517248 m E
6249696 m N
Application
R04
Point R04 on 1.5 km noise criteria
boundary from Carmon Creek Facility
(Shell, 2013)
518094 m E
6248785 m N
Application
R05
Point R05 on 1.5 km noise criteria
boundary from Carmon Creek Facility
(Shell, 2013)
518280 m E
6247384 m N
Application
4.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Methodology
November 2018
Figure 1
4.2
Receptor Locations
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Methodology
November 2018
4.2
4.2.1
ASSESSMENT APPROACH
Baseline Case
The baseline case is defined as the existing acoustic environment in the study area. This includes noise
from the existing Peace River Complex only. Noise Emission from the Peace River complex was
determined by modeling the Central Processing Facility (CPF) and well pads close to the Project site.
Sound power levels for the Peace River Complex were obtained from the 2006 NIA (Shell, 2006), and are
listed in Appendix A.
4.2.2
Project Case
The project case is defined as the scenario considering noise from the proposed Three Creeks Power
Plant only. Noise emission for major equipment and facility data used to model the Project Case was
obtained from the equipment manufacturer and project specification drawings. Sound Power Levels for
some ancillary sources were determined using estimating algorithms from published acoustic engineering
texts.
4.2.3
Intermediary Case
The intermediary case is the scenario where the Peace River Complex remains as it exists currently, the
Project is included, and the Carmon Creek Facility is not included. This case is included in the
assessment as the Carmon Creek Facility construction timeline is not known at this time and this
intermediary case may persist. In this scenario, compliance with the PSL is evaluated at 1.5 km from the
Project boundary at two points (IM01, IM02) which intersect with the 1.5 km criterion boundary from the
Peace River Complex.
4.2.4
Application Case
The application case considers the Project with the approved Carmon Creek Facility. The Carmon Creek
Facility construction will involve decommissioning the Peace River Complex therefore, it is removed.
Three 1x1 combined cycle turbines and their ancillary equipment are no longer part of Carmon Creek
facility noise emission in this scenario; two of which are now part of the Three Creeks Power Plant
Project. The 1.5 km criteria boundary for the Project is entirely within the 1.5 km criteria boundary for the
Carmon Creek Project, therefore the cumulative sound level from the two facilities is evaluated using the
further of the two. Three receptor points (R03, R04, R05) are used for compliance assessment in this
scenario which correspond to points used in the 2013 Carmon Creek NIA (Shell, 2013). In order to
determine the contribution of the Carmon Creek Facility without the three 1x1 gas turbine/HRSG systems,
the turbine sources were modelled using CadnaA and the result was logarithmically subtracted from the
facility sound level stated in the 2013 NIA. The turbine sound power levels, far-field model results and
logarithmic subtraction are shown in Appendix B.
4.3
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Methodology
November 2018
4.3
NOISE MODELLING
Noise prediction was conducted using CadnaA acoustic modeling software (DataKustik 2016), based on
the internationally accepted sound propagation algorithms (ISO 1993, 1996). The modelling parameters
used in the assessment are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
Acoustic Modelling Parameters
Item
Model Parameters
Model Setting
1
Temperature
10 °C
2
Relative humidity
70 %
3
Wind speed
Downwind condition, wind speed of 1 to 5 m/s
4
Noise propagation model
CadnaA (DataKustik 2016)
5
Standard
ISO 9613
6
Ground conditions and attenuation factor
Ground absorption (G) of 0.7 (surrounding area) and
0.1 (Project area)
7
Terrain Parameters (terrain resolution)
Ground terrain incorporated at 10 m by 10 m
resolution.
8
Foliage
Dense areas beyond facility limits are included
based on aerial imagery
9
Reflection parameters
1 order of reflection
Meteorological factors such as temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction affect sound propagation.
Effects of wind and atmospheric stability on outdoor sound propagation during various weather conditions
can cause large variations in project-related sound levels when measured at a receptor location. Upwind
sound propagation, or propagation during unstable atmospheric conditions, typically results in lower
receptor levels, while downwind conditions and stable atmosphere tends to increase receptor levels. ISO
9613 algorithms used in this assessment simulate downwind propagation under a mildly developed
temperature inversion (both of which enhance sound propagation) and provide a reasonably conservative
assessment of potential effects.
The existing plant is set in a forest area with thick vegetation and loose soil. Correspondingly, the ground
absorption constant G was set to 0.7 (soft, absorptive ground) outside the Project boundary and 0.1
(hard, gravel) within the Project boundary.
Building structures were included in the model to account for the directivity effect of the noise sources and
barrier effects of buildings. One order of reflection is also incorporated in the model.
4.4
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Methodology
November 2018
4.3.1
Project Sound Power Levels
Project sound power levels are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
Three Creeks Power Plant Sound Power Levels, dB
Octave Band frequency, Hz
Source Name
31.5
63
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
dBA
GT Intake (Pad Filters)
116
114
108
99
83
84
76
91
102
102
Lagged Inlet Duct Wall
105
104
102
93
85
92
80
82
87
95
GT Enclosure Walls
94
99
91
87
82
86
90
84
75
94
GT Enclosure Air Inlet Vents
89
98
93
93
90
93
98
91
87
101
GT Enclosure Air Discharge Vents
89
98
93
92
89
94
99
91
86
102
Unenclosed Gas Turbine Lube Oil
Package
99
102
100
100
100
100
101
98
91
106
Rotor Air Cooler Fin-Fan
107
105
100
96
94
89
85
83
79
96
Fuel Gas Piping
104
100
89
81
80
86
88
91
89
96
GT Exhaust Diffuser & Expansion
Joint
130
120
109
108
108
101
98
98
79
109
HRSG Duct Burner Gas Piping
107
113
115
107
97
99
103
104
101
110
HRSG Transition
126
124
111
107
104
99
98
98
93
107
HRSG Body
123
122
107
103
99
94
90
90
73
102
HRSG Stack
122
118
102
95
93
99
77
75
50
100
Stack Exit (w/o directivity)
132
127
123
116
114
110
98
101
79
116
Steam Turbine
110
115
116
111
110
105
106
106
100
113
ST Lube Oil Supply Skid
105
110
102
105
12
101
98
98
94
106
ACC Steam Duct
101
98
91
86
82
79
95
76
65
96
ACC Inlet (per cell, w/o directivity)
112
104
101
97
94
92
89
94
90
99
ACC Outlet (per cell, w/o
directivity)
110
99
96
91
88
85
82
85
80
92
Vacuum Pump Set
105
107
103
100
100
98
97
96
89
104
Boiler Feed Water Pump (ea)
104
110
108
102
103
112
110
106
96
116
Condensate Pump (ea)
92
106
101
99
99
98
98
93
91
104
Generator Step-Up Transformer
(ea)
99
105
107
102
102
96
91
86
79
103
Glycol Cooler (per fan)
102
105
105
102
99
95
92
89
81
107
ST Lube Oil Cooler (per fan)
102
105
105
102
99
95
92
89
81
107
GT Building Ventilation Exhaust &
Fan (ea)
89
88
83
85
79
79
78
77
75
85
GT Building Ventilation Inlet (ea)
86
88
84
82
79
79
80
78
73
86
ST Building Ventilation Exhaust &
Fan (ea)
84
98
95
91
84
80
81
82
79
90
ST Building Ventilation Inlet (ea)
78
102
100
94
90
87
87
87
84
95
4.5
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Methodology
November 2018
4.6
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Noise Impact Assessment Results
November 2018
5.0
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESULTS
5.1
BASELINE CASE
The baseline case results shown in Table 4 show the calculated sound level at two points where the
1.5 km PSL criteria boundaries for the Project and the Peace River Complex intersect. The noise effect
from the Peace River Complex is below the assumed ambient sound level and has no effect on the
cumulative sound level. This is because the closest Peace River Complex sources are well pads which
are not high noise emitters.
Table 4
Baseline Noise Levels
Ambient Sound Level,
dBA1
Peace River Complex,
dBA2
Cumulative Baseline Sound Level,
dBA
IM01
35
15.6
35
IM02
35
10.0
35
Receptor
NOTES:
1 AUC Rule 012 assumed ambient sound level for rural areas
2 Calculated using Information from Third Party Noise Impact Assessment See Appendix A
5.2
PROJECT CASE
The calculated Project noise effect is shown in Table 5 and on Figure 2. A ranking of Project noise
sources is shown in Table 6. The project noise effect includes noise mitigation measures discussed in
Section 6.0.
Table 5
Project Noise Effect
Project Sound Level,
dBA
Project Sound Level,
dBC
dBC-dBA
IM01
36.3
56.2
19.9
IM02
36.6
60.7
24.1
R03
35.5
60.5
25
R04
34.2
59.6
25.4
R05
33.0
58.2
25.2
Receptor
The dBC – dBA value is calculated for the Project Case and exceeds 20dB in some cases, however no
low frequency noise problems are expected for the following reasons:



Gas turbine power plant noise does not generally contain tonal components at low-frequencies
There are no dwellings in the study area, therefore no complaints are expected
The overall dBA and dBC are generally low and close to the natural ambient background level
5.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Noise Impact Assessment Results
November 2018
Table 6
Source Contribution Ranking at IM02
Source Name
Unit
dBA
ACC_Outlet
ACC
30.9
GT_HRSG_Stack_Exit
CTG1
29
GT_HRSG_Stack_Exit
CTG2
28.6
ACC_Inlet
ACC
25.9
GT Exhaust Diffuser and Expansion Joint
CTG1
23.4
GT HRSG Transition
CTG1
23.2
GT HRSG Body
CTG1
22.9
GT HRSG Body
CTG2
20.6
GT HRSG Transition
CTG2
20.2
GT_HRSG_Stack
CTG1
20.1
GT Exhaust Diffuser and Expansion Joint
CTG2
19.6
GT_HRSG_Stack
CTG2
19
GT Intake
CTG1
17.1
GT Intake
CTG2
16.3
STG Building Walls
STG
15.8
STG Building Roof
STG
14.8
GT HRSG Transition
CTG1
11.7
Total
NOTE:
sources calculated contributions less than 10dBA have been omitted from the ranking table
5.2
36.6
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Noise Impact Assessment Results
November 2018
Figure 2
Project Noise Effect Contour Plot
5.3
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Noise Impact Assessment Results
November 2018
5.3
INTERMEDIARY CASE
The cumulative sound level results for the intermediary case are summarized in Table 7 below. Receptor
location IM02 is the most affected point along a 1.5km criteria boundary from the Project site. The
cumulative sound level is below the PSL at each receptor point.
Table 7
Intermediary Case Compliance Assessment
Ambient
Sound Level1,
dBA
Peace River
Complex2,
dBA
Project Noise
Effect,
dBA
Cumulative
Sound Level,
dBA
PSL,
dBA
Rule 012
Compliance
IM01
35
15.6
36.3
38.7
40
Yes
IM02
35
10.0
36.6
38.9
40
Yes
Receptor
NOTES:
1 AUC Rule 012 assumed ambient sound level for rural areas
2 Calculated using Information from Third Party Noise Impact Assessment See Appendix A
5.4
APPLICATION CASE
The cumulative sound level results for the application case are summarized in Table 8 below. Receptor
location R03 and R05 are the most affected receptors along a 1.5 km criteria boundary from the Carmon
Creek Facility. The cumulative sound level is at or below the PSL at each receptor point.
Table 8
Application Case Compliance Assessment
Ambient
Sound Level,
dBA
Carmon Creek
w/o Turbines1,
dBA
Project Noise
Effect,
dBA
Cumulative
Sound Level,
dBA
PSL,
dBA
Rule 012
Compliance
R03
35
35.1
35.5
40.0
40
Yes
R04
35
35.2
34.2
39.6
40
Yes
R05
35
36.8
33.0
40.0
40
Yes
Receptor
NOTES:
1 Calculated using Information from Third Party Noise Impact Assessment See Appendix B.
5.4
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Noise Mitigation
November 2018
6.0
NOISE MITIGATION
6.1
AIR COOLED CONDENSER
Noise mitigation is needed for the ACC in order to achieve compliance with the AUC Rule 012 nighttime
PSL. Table 9 shows the maximum noise level for the ACC at 400 feet (’). Noise attenuation for air cooled
condensers can be achieved by reducing fan speed, using low-noise fan blades, adding acoustic
materials to the discharge plenum/fan housing, or by adding acoustic louvers to the inlet or discharge. In
some circumstances it may be possible to equip the fan motors with variable frequency drives and reduce
the fan speed at night when less cooling capacity is required which can achieve a greater noise reduction
than running fewer fans at full speed.
Table 9
ACC Noise Mitigation - Far field Sound Level Limit
Octave Band Center Frequency,
Hz
Source
31.5
63
125
250
500
1k
2k
4k
8k
dBA
Maximum ACC Sound Pressure Level,
as measured 400’ from the side at 1.5m
above grade1
34
42
49
49
52
55
51
46
35
59
NOTE:
1 Includes air absorption and ground attenuation per site conditions (see Table 2)
6.2
BUILDINGS
The two gas turbine buildings and steam turbine building will provide some inherent noise attenuation to
the Project, although noise from buildings sources are not high ranking, the modelling assumption is that
all doors will be normally closed and that each building will have 8 exhaust fans and 8 air intake openings
in addition to the turbine compartment ventilation which is ducted outdoors. The sound power levels of
modelled building ventilation sources are included in Table 3. Table 10 shows the modelled acoustic
performance of the gas turbine and steam turbine buildings. This performance can be achieved with a
4 inch (”) thick envelope with 24ga exterior cladding, high density mineral wool insulation, and a
perforated inside liner.
Table 10
Building Acoustic Performance
Octave Band Center Frequency,
Hz
Source
Gas Turbine and Steam Turbine Building
Transmission Loss (TL), dB
31.5
63
125
250
500
1k
2k
4k
8k
9
16
19
27
32
24
34
43
50
6.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Noise Mitigation
November 2018
6.2
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Summary and Conclusion
November 2018
7.0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Noise Emission from the Three Creeks Power Plant Project was modelled using the current combined
cycle co-generation facility configuration. Cumulative noise levels were assessed for two scenarios based
on the development status of existing and approved third-party facilities in the area. In both the
intermediary and application cases, the cumulative sound level was predicted to be below the 40 dBA
PSL at receptor locations at the collective 1.5 km noise criteria boundaries from the regulated facilities.
Noise mitigation for the new ACC is necessary in order to comply with the PSL. The ACC noise emission
performance is described in Section 6.0 along with the inherent noise mitigation performance provided by
the turbine buildings and HVAC sources. The dBC – dBA value is calculated for the Project Case and
exceeds 20dB in some cases, however no low frequency noise problems are expected for the following
reasons:



Gas turbine power plant noise does not generally contain tonal components at low-frequencies
There are no dwellings in the study area, therefore no complaints are expected
The overall dBA and dBC are generally low and close to the natural ambient background level
This assessment concludes that the Three Creeks Power Plant Project will comply with AUC Rule 012 by
applying noise mitigation measures as described in Section 6.0. A contour plot showing noise emission
from the Project is shown in Figure 2.
7.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Summary and Conclusion
November 2018
7.2
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Acoustic Practicioners Information
November 2018
8.0
ACOUSTIC PRACTICIONERS INFORMATION
Table 11
Practitioners Information
Name
Chris Giesbrecht
Jonathan Chui, P.Eng, INCE
Title
Senior Noise and Vibration Specialist
Role



Discipline lead
Noise emission and modelling
NIA report author
Senior Noise Specialist

Quality Review
Training and
experience

Over 14 years of experience in
acoustic consulting
Member of the Association of
Professional Engineers and
Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) and
a member of the Institute of Noise
Control Engineers of the USA (INCE)



Over 15 years of experience in acoustic
consulting
Member of the Association of Professional
Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta
(APEGA) and a member of the Institute of
Noise Control Engineers of the USA (INCE)
8.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Acoustic Practicioners Information
November 2018
8.2
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
References
November 2018
9.0
REFERENCES
AER (Alberta Energy Regulator). 2007. Directive 038, Noise Control, version February 2007 – present
AUC (Alberta Utilities Commission). 2013. Rule 012, Noise Control, version April 1, 2013 – present.
Alberta, Canada.
DataKustik. 2016. Cadna/A Computer Aided Noise Abatement Model, Version 4.5.155. Munich,
Germany.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 1993. International Standard ISO 9613-1, Acoustics
– Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors. Part 1: Calculation of Absorption of Sound
by the Atmosphere. Geneva, Switzerland.
Shell Canada Ltd. 2006. Peace River Oil Sands Carmon Creek Project Environmental Impact
Assessment (Vol. IIA, Noise, Rep.).
Shell Canada Ltd. 2013. Carmon Creek Project Environmental Impact Assessment (Appendix B: Noise
Report, Rep.).
9.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
References
November 2018
9.2
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Appendix A Peace River Complex Sound Power Levels
November 2018
Appendix A PEACE RIVER COMPLEX SOUND POWER LEVELS
Table A-1 is an excerpt of Table 4.3-3 of the 2006 Shell Canada Ltd. Peace River Oil Sands Carmon
Creek Project Environmental Impact Assessment Volume IIA: Noise. (Shell, 2006). The sound power
levels of the existing Peace River Complex Facility were used with modeling information in the 2006 NIA
report to estimate the facility contribution at receptor points IM01 and IM02 where the 1.5 km noise
criteria boundary of the two facilities intersect. Figure A-1 shows a noise propagation contour of the
Peace River Complex within the Project study area.
Table A-1
Peace River Complex Sound Power Levels
Existing Peace River
Complex Equipment
Octave Band Center Frequency,
Hz
31.5
63
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
dBA
PV-17-XX HP Steam
Separator
90.4
94.3
90.1
94.9
100.5
99.9
98.8
96.1
94.5
105.2
HT 7.02 Cooler Outlet
116.4
109.1
104.1
103.8
106.4
97.8
87.2
78.4
66.8
105
HT 16.07 Cooler Outlet
94.3
92.7
83.5
84.6
82.6
88.6
94.9
101.9
98.2
104.8
HT 4.06 Cooler Outlet
109.3
111.6
104.7
101.7
96.9
100
91.1
86.7
80.7
102.5
HT 16.07 Reflux Cooler
Inlet
109.4
112.1
105.1
101.6
96.7
99.7
92
86.1
80.3
102.4
HT 4.06 Cooler Inlet
110
109.7
98.9
96.4
94
88
97.4
89.3
81.6
100.5
HT 16.11 Cooler Inlet
98.2
92.5
89.2
91.3
98.8
96.7
92.6
84.6
71.4
100.5
East and West Steam
Vents
106.7
109.1
102.2
99.1
94.3
97.4
88.5
84.1
78.1
99.9
Prep Building open equip
door south
89.2
87.6
78.4
79.6
77.6
83.5
89.9
96.8
93.2
99.8
LCV24501 Valve
87.2
83.6
81.4
83
85.6
92.5
95.2
92.5
86
99.5
PM 7.01A Motor Air
outlet
98
90.2
87.2
93.7
93.1
92.6
88.4
85
80.2
96.6
Prep Building upper wall
vents
100.6
92.6
87.2
88.4
91
91.3
86.4
79.1
71.1
94.4
Prep building open equip
door north
95.8
88.8
84.2
91.2
90.7
86.3
78.8
67
94.1
prep building lower wall
vents
99.1
91.2
85.7
87
89.6
89.9
85
77.6
69.6
93
prep building open equip
door northeast
94.6
87.6
82.9
84
90
89.5
85.1
77.6
65.8
92.8
prep building open man
doors south
86.5
79.3
84.6
86
91.3
89
83.6
77.4
66.2
92.7
HR 15.01 Furnace air
inlet
101.7
99.4
98
94.9
90.1
84.6
76.4
71.3
65.4
91.7
A.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Appendix A Peace River Complex Sound Power Levels
November 2018
Table A-1
Peace River Complex Sound Power Levels
Octave Band Center Frequency,
Hz
Existing Peace River
Complex Equipment
31.5
63
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
dBA
PM 18.12 VGO Pumps
(Qty 2)
100.6
100.3
89.5
87
84.6
78.5
87.9
79.9
72.2
91.1
Prep boiler side NG
Valve
97.9
100.5
93.6
90.1
85.1
88.1
80.5
74.5
69.1
90.9
HT 16.11 Cooler Outlet
97.1
94.3
87.9
92.7
86
80.5
79.3
76.7
69.4
88.8
Prep boiler air inlets
96.3
93.5
87.1
91.9
85.2
79.7
78.5
75.9
68.6
88
PM 18.11 Bottoms
PUMP
99.6
101.1
90.9
84.4
85
80.5
81
77
68.4
87.8
Prep building open man
doors north
88.2
81.3
76.6
77.7
83.7
83.2
78.8
71.2
59.5
86.5
Prep boiler building wall
vent
88.9
90.2
84.2
77.4
76.7
72.2
68.8
63.2
53.9
78.3
HT-16-XXR Prisp inlet
preheaters
88.2
89.4
83.4
76.6
75.9
71.4
68
62.4
53.1
77.5
119.3
118.0
111.1
109.2
109.5
107.6
104.8
104.7
101.0
113.1
92.4
90.1
89.7
93.8
97.8
95.8
91
84.2
101.5
Total
Existing Typical Well Pads
16-Well Pumping Unit
Pad
A.2
85.6
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Appendix A Peace River Complex Sound Power Levels
November 2018
Figure A-1
Peace River Complex Facility Noise Emission
A.3
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Appendix A Peace River Complex Sound Power Levels
November 2018
A.4
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Appendix B Carmon Creek Facility Turbine Sound Power Levels
November 2018
Appendix B
CARMON CREEK FACILITY TURBINE SOUND
POWER LEVELS
Table B-1 is an excerpt from Tables 2 and 3 of the 2013 Shell Canada Ltd. Carmon Creek Project
Environmental Impact Assessment Appendix B: Noise Report. (Shell 2013). is an excerpt from
Attachment A: Noise Modelling Parameters of the same report. The sound power levels listed in
Table B-2 were used with modeling information in the 2013 NIA report to estimate the turbine noise
contribution at receptor points R03, R04, and R05. Figure B-1 shows noise contours for the Carmon
Creek Facility co-generation sources. The contribution of the Carmon Creek Facility without co-generation
sources was determined by subtracting the modelled co-generation sources from the values in Table B-1
logarithmically using the formula:
10log 10
10
Where:
Ln is the Carmon Creek facility without co-generation
L1 is the Carmon Creek facility sound level from the 2013 NIA
L2 is the modelled turbine contribution from Carmon Creek facility sources
Table B-1
Carmon Creek Facility Sound Levels (Shell 2013)
Carmon Creek Facility Nighttime Sound
Level,
dBA
Carmon Creek Facility Nighttime Sound
Level,
dBC
35.6
50.3
R04
35.5
51.2
R05
37
52.7
Receptor
R03
B.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Appendix B Carmon Creek Facility Turbine Sound Power Levels
November 2018
Table B-2
Carmon Creek Facility – Co-Generation Turbine Sound Power Levels
Octave Band Center Frequency,
Hz
Tag
Description
Type
Qty
31.5
63
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
Building
Attn
(dBA)
P-12271
GT GLYCOL
PUMP
Centrifugal
1
96.0
97.0
98.0
99.0
98.0
100.0
97.0
93.0
87.0
18.8
E-12300
GT GLYCOL
AERIAL COOLER
Aerial Cooler
4
107.2
110.2
110.2
107.2
104.2
100.2
97.2
94.2
86.2
0.0
E-12310
GT GLYCOL
AERIAL COOLER
Aerial Cooler
4
107.2
110.2
110.2
107.2
104.2
100.2
97.2
94.2
86.2
0.0
E-12320
GT GLYCOL
AERIAL COOLER
Aerial Cooler
4
107.2
110.2
110.2
107.2
104.2
100.2
97.2
94.2
86.2
0.0
E-12330
GT GLYCOL
AERIAL COOLER
Aerial Cooler
4
107.2
110.2
110.2
107.2
104.2
100.2
97.2
94.2
86.2
0.0
GAS TURBINE
CASING
RADIATION
Turbine
1
100.4
101.4
102.4
103.4
102.4
104.4
101.4
97.4
91.4
20.8
POWER
GENERATOR
Generator
1
113.1
116.1
117.1
117.1
117.1
115.1
113.1
110.1
105.1
17.7
B-12840
HEAT RECOVERY
STEAM
GENERATOR
STACK
HRSG
1
96.3
97.3
98.3
99.3
98.3
100.3
97.3
93.3
87.3
0.0
B-12850
ONCE THROUGH
STEAM
GENERATOR #1
Heater
1
110.0
109.0
104.0
98.0
97.0
95.0
93.0
93.0
93.0
0.0
C-12870
OTSG #1 FORCE
DRAFT FAN
Draft Fan
1
106.5
109.5
109.5
106.5
103.5
99.5
96.5
93.5
85.5
0.0
B-12880
ONCE THROUGH
STEAM
GENERATOR #2
Heater
1
110.0
109.0
104.0
98.0
97.0
95.0
93.0
93.0
93.0
0.0
B.2
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Appendix B Carmon Creek Facility Turbine Sound Power Levels
November 2018
Table B-2
Carmon Creek Facility – Co-Generation Turbine Sound Power Levels
Octave Band Center Frequency,
Hz
Type
Qty
31.5
63
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
Building
Attn
(dBA)
OTSG #2 FORCE
DRAFT FAN
Draft Fan
1
106.5
109.5
109.5
106.5
103.5
99.5
96.5
93.5
85.5
0.0
P-12272
GT GLYCOL
PUMP
Centrifugal
1
96.0
97.0
98.0
99.0
98.0
100.0
97.0
93.0
87.0
18.8
E-22300
GT GLYCOL
AERIAL COOLER
Aerial Cooler
4
107.2
110.2
110.2
107.2
104.2
100.2
97.2
94.2
86.2
0.0
E-22310
GT GLYCOL
AERIAL COOLER
Aerial Cooler
4
107.2
110.2
110.2
107.2
104.2
100.2
97.2
94.2
86.2
0.0
E-22320
GT GLYCOL
AERIAL COOLER
Aerial Cooler
4
107.2
110.2
110.2
107.2
104.2
100.2
97.2
94.2
86.2
0.0
E-22330
GT GLYCOL
AERIAL COOLER
Aerial Cooler
4
107.2
110.2
110.2
107.2
104.2
100.2
97.2
94.2
86.2
0.0
GAS TURBINE
CASING
RADIATION
Turbine
1
101.3
102.3
103.3
104.3
103.3
105.3
102.3
98.3
92.3
20.8
POWER
GENERATOR
Generator
1
113.1
116.1
117.1
117.1
117.1
115.1
113.1
110.1
105.1
17.7
B-22840
HEAT RECOVERY
STEAM
GENERATOR
STACK
HRSG
1
92.0
93.0
94.0
95.0
94.0
96.0
93.0
89.0
83.0
0.0
P-12273
GT GLYCOL
PUMP
Centrifugal
1
96.0
97.0
98.0
99.0
98.0
100.0
97.0
93.0
87.0
18.8
E-32300
GT GLYCOL
AERIAL COOLER
Aerial Cooler
4
107.2
110.2
110.2
107.2
104.2
100.2
97.2
94.2
86.2
0.0
E-32310
GT GLYCOL
AERIAL COOLER
Aerial Cooler
4
107.2
110.2
110.2
107.2
104.2
100.2
97.2
94.2
86.2
0.0
Tag
Description
C-12900
B.3
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Appendix B Carmon Creek Facility Turbine Sound Power Levels
November 2018
Table B-2
Carmon Creek Facility – Co-Generation Turbine Sound Power Levels
Octave Band Center Frequency,
Hz
Tag
Description
Type
Qty
31.5
63
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
Building
Attn
(dBA)
E-32320
GT GLYCOL
AERIAL COOLER
Aerial Cooler
4
107.2
110.2
110.2
107.2
104.2
100.2
97.2
94.2
86.2
0.0
E-32330
GT GLYCOL
AERIAL COOLER
Aerial Cooler
4
107.2
110.2
110.2
107.2
104.2
100.2
97.2
94.2
86.2
0.0
GAS TURBINE
CASING
RADIATION
Turbine
1
100.4
101.4
102.4
103.4
102.4
104.4
101.4
97.4
91.4
20.8
POWER
GENERATOR
Generator
1
113.1
116.1
117.1
117.1
117.1
115.1
113.1
110.1
105.1
17.7
HEAT RECOVERY
STEAM
GENERATOR
STACK
HRSG
1
96.2
97.2
98.2
99.2
98.2
100.2
97.2
93.2
87.2
0.0
B-32840
B.4
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Appendix B Carmon Creek Facility Turbine Sound Power Levels
November 2018
Figure B-1
Carmon Creek Co-generation Source Noise Contours
B.5
THREE CREEKS POWER PLANT
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Appendix B Carmon Creek Facility Turbine Sound Power Levels
November 2018
B.6
THREE CREEKS POWER PROJECT
AUC RULE 007 APPLICATION
Appendix E Plot Plan
November 2018
Appendix E
Three Creeks Power
PLOT PLAN
E.1
THREE CREEKS POWER PROJECT
AUC RULE 007 APPLICATION
Appendix E Plot Plan
November 2018
E.2
Three Creeks Power
EL
PR
AR
IN
IM
Y