Decision D The City of Calgary. Bonnybrook Cogeneration Expansion Project. May 17, 2018

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Decision D The City of Calgary. Bonnybrook Cogeneration Expansion Project. May 17, 2018"

Transcription

1 Decision D Bonnybrook Cogeneration Expansion Project May 17, 2018

2 Alberta Utilities Commission Decision D Bonnybrook Cogeneration Expansion Project Proceeding Application A001 May 17, 2018 Published by the: Alberta Utilities Commission Eau Claire Tower, 1400, 600 Third Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 0G5 Telephone: Fax: Website:

3 Alberta Utilities Commission Calgary, Alberta Decision D Proceeding Bonnybrook Cogeneration Expansion Project Application A001 1 Decision summary 1. In this decision, the Alberta Utilities Commission must decide whether to approve an application from the City of Calgary for a proposed alteration to its Bonnybrook Wastewater Treatment Plant power plant, and whether a Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment should be applied to the basic sound levels at two receptor locations in the study area, in accordance with Rule 012: Noise Control. After consideration of the record of the proceeding, and for the reasons outlined in this decision, the Commission finds that the approval of the application is in the public interest having regard to the social, economic, and other effects of the project, including its effect on the environment. The Commission also approves the requested Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment. 2 Introduction and background 2. Pursuant to Approval U , 1 the City of Calgary (the City), holds an approval to construct and operate a 4.8-megawatt (MW) power plant designated as the Bonnybrook Wastewater Treatment Plant power plant (the power plant). The power plant is operational and located in the city of Calgary in the southwest quarter of Section 1, Township 24, Range 1, west of the Fifth Meridian. 3. On June 7, 2017, the City filed an application, Application A001, with the Commission for an approval to alter the power plant pursuant to Section 11 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act. The proposed alteration would increase the capability of the power plant by 4.9 MW to a total of 9.7 MW (the project). The City also requested approval of a Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment for the two receptors located closest to the power plant. 4. The Commission issued four rounds of information requests to the City on July 25, 2017, September 8, 2017, October 31, 2017 and December 21, The City responded on August 18, 2017, September 27, 2017, November 13, 2017 and April 20, 2018, respectively. 5. The Commission issued a notice of application on July 10, The notice was sent directly to landowners, occupants, agencies, and other interested parties identified by the City. The notice was also published on the AUC s website and notification was automatically ed to efiling System users that had chosen to be notified of notices of application issued by the Commission. The deadline for filing submissions with the Commission was July 31, Power Plant Approval U , Proceeding 914, Application , March 4, Decision D (May 17, 2018) 1

4 6. The Commission received several pieces of returned mail. The returned mail was forwarded to the City for updated address information. Notice was reissued with an extended deadline. No submissions were received. 3 Power plant alteration discussion 7. As stated above, the proposed alteration to the power plant would include the addition of a 4.5-MW combustion turbine generator, a heat recovery steam generator, and a 0.4-MW steam turbine generator. The power plant would utilize both biogas produced on-site as well as natural gas. 8. The power plant is located within an existing industrial site in a Special Purpose City and Regional Infrastructure District Zone and in the south end of the Calgary International Airport Vicinity Protection Area. The area surrounding the power plant is industrial. 9. The City conducted a participant involvement program in accordance with Rule 007: Applications for Power Plants, Substations, Transmission Lines, Industrial System Designations and Hydro Developments. The City notified residents and owners of all known active residences located within the community of Bonnybrook, north of the project site boundary; occupants and landowners of all commercial and industrial properties in the first row of occupied properties surrounding the project; municipal leaders and provincial regulators; and the general public through the City s website and 311 information system. 10. The City stated that it relied on the Alberta Aboriginal Consultation Office (ACO) to determine if it was required to consult with Indigenous peoples. 2 The ACO found that no consultation with Indigenous groups was required for this project. 11. The City completed an environmental evaluation for the project. The environmental evaluation determined that the adverse effects could be mitigated with standard mitigation measures and best practices. 12. The City stated that while a nearby wildlife habitat is located along the Bow River, approximately 500 metres away from the power plant, wildlife would not be incrementally affected by the project because the equipment would be installed at an existing industrial site. The Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) wildlife biologist for the area considered the project to be very low risk to wildlife. 13. The City filed an air quality assessment for the project. The results of the assessment showed that the maximum predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, SO2, CO and PM2.5 associated with the emissions from the project, during both normal operation and during upset operating scenarios, were below the Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives. 14. In response to an information request, the City filed correspondence from AEP indicating that AEP had reviewed the application and had no outstanding concerns. 3 As such, the City stated that the project s potential adverse effects are not expected to be significant. 2 Exhibit X0029, City of Calgary Response to IR3, City-AUC-2017OCT31-006, PDF page Exhibit X0032, City of Calgary to AUC, April 20, Decision D (May 17, 2018)

5 15. Historical Resources Act approval was granted by Alberta Culture and Tourism on March 8, Noise impact assessment 16. The City retained Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) to conduct a noise impact assessment of the project, the purpose of which was to quantify the project s noise contribution within the study area. The results of the noise impact assessment were compared to the requirements of Rule 012: Noise Control. 17. In this assessment, Stantec identified two energy-related facilities, the power plant and the approved Bonnybrook Energy Centre, and seven receptor locations in the study area. Stantec modelled the cumulative noise levels of the existing energy-related facilities and the proposed project noise sources to predict the cumulative noise levels at each of the seven receptor locations in the noise impact assessment. 4 Specifically, it determined the existing sound level contribution from the existing power plant and the approved Bonnybrook Energy Centre, at each of the seven receptor locations from noise studies conducted for these facilities by Patching Associates Acoustical Engineering Ltd. 5 and by Golder Associates Ltd. 18. Receptors R1 and R2, located in the community of Bonnybrook approximately 390 metres and 740 metres from the project respectively, are the two closest receptors to the project. As explained in more detail below, the City requested approval for a Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment for determining the permissible sound level (PSL) at receptors R1 and R Receptors R3 and R4, located in the community of Bonnybrook, are 1,180 metres and 930 metres from the project, respectively. Stantec noted that receptors R3 and R4 were identified in the Bonnybrook Energy Centre application 6 with a Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment of +10 dba assigned to the nighttime period at both receptor locations. The nighttime PSL is 60 dba Leq for receptors R3 and R Receptor R5, located in the community of Lynnwood Ridge, is approximately 920 metres from the project. The PSLs are 56 dba Leq nighttime and 66 dba Leq daytime. 21. Receptor R6, located in the community of Valleyfield, is approximately 1,250 metres from the project. The PSLs are 55 dba Leq daytime and 45 dba Leq nighttime. 22. Receptor R7, located in the community of Dover Glen, is approximately 1,410 metres from the project. Receptor R7 has PSLs of 61 dba Leq daytime and 51 dba nighttime. 23. Stantec indicated that, with the exception of R1 and R2, the sound level with the addition of the project would be well under the PSLs. 4 Exhibit X0004, Appendix E - Noise Impact Assessment and Baseline Noise Monitoring Table 9-2 Sound Power Level for Outdoor Noise Sources, PDF pages Exhibit X0021, City of Calgary_Response to Round 1 IRs, City-AUC-2017JUL Patching 2010, PDF page 42 to Exhibit X0021, City of Calgary_Response to Round 1 IRs, City-AUC-2017JUL Golder (Golder Associates) Noise Impact Assessment Report for Bonnybrook Energy Centre by Golder Associates (February 2010), PDF pages 61 to 147, Appendix 7 Table 2: Summary of Ambient Sound Survey Measurements (February 2010). Decision D (May 17, 2018) 3

6 4 Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment request 4.1 Introduction to Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment 24. Rule 012 provides for adjustments to the PSL in the event that certain scenarios arise. Rule 012 sets presumed values for the ambient sound level based on, among other things, population density. A Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment is an adjustment to the PSL for locations for which the measured ambient sound level is different from the assumed ambient sound level referred to in Rule 012 Table 1 Basic sound levels (BSL) for nighttime (Table 1). For clarity, the ambient sound level is the actual sound level without any energy-related facilities or wind noise. 25. Section 2.1 of Rule 012 states: (10) Class A adjustments are described in Table 2. Table 2 Class A adjustments Class Reason for adjustment Value A2 Ambient monitoring adjustment is applicable if the measured ambient sound level is not representative of the assumed ambient sound environment. The ambient sound levels may be measured in areas considered to be pristine as defined in Appendix 1 or areas that have non-energy industrial activity that would impact the ambient sound levels. In the case where there are existing energy-related facilities located within an area and the assumed ambient sound level without the existing energy-related facilities as determined from Table 1 is considered not representative of the actual sound levels, the area may be eligible for an ambient adjustment. An ambient adjustment for one dwelling may be applied to other dwellings within the same project study area that have a similar acoustic environment. To be deemed similar, justification must be provided demonstrating that the difference in daytime or nighttime ambient sound level at the dwelling(s) is no greater than plus or minus three dba from the measured ambient sound level. Use Figure 1 to determine the applicable adjustment value. *Class A adjustment = Sum of A1 and A2 (as applicable), is not to exceed a maximum of +/-10 dba Leq. (dba Leq) -10 to +10 (11) Class A2 ambient adjustment: (a) (b) (c) The Commission will not make a decision on a Class A2 adjustment request before making a decision on the facility application to which it pertains. A Class A2 adjustment is an adjustment to the permissible sound level for locations where the measured ambient sound level is different from the assumed ambient sound level referred from Table 1. A Class A2 adjustment is based on the measured ambient sound level in an area measured in accordance with the ambient sound monitoring survey requirements in Section 4 of this rule. 4 Decision D (May 17, 2018)

7 26. In circumstances where the actual ambient sound level exceeds the basic sound level, Rule 012 contains a process for determining the adjusted PSL. 4.2 Views of the City- Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment 27. The City requested a Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment in light of the existing sound levels in the area, and explained that without the Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustments at receptors R1 and R2, the predicted cumulative sound levels are above the PSLs at these two receptors. The applied-for Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment was determined in accordance with the process described in Section 2.1 of Rule 012. The resultant sound levels with Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustments for the daytime and nighttime were determined to be 69 dba Leq daytime and 60 dba Leq nighttime for receptor R1 and 67 dba Leq daytime and 60 dba Leq nighttime for receptor R In support of its request for a Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment for receptors R1 and R2, the City submitted a multi-day noise measurement study entitled: Bonnybrook Cogeneration Expansion Project - Baseline Noise Monitoring Report (the baseline noise monitoring report). The baseline noise monitoring report contained actual measurements of the sound levels at R1 and R Receptor R1, located at A Street S.E. in Calgary, was monitored from July 18 to July 24, 2016 and Receptor R2, located at A Street S.E. in Calgary, was monitored from July 18 to July 25, Type 1 sound level meters were set up at receptors R1 and R2 with the microphones set at a height of more than 1.5 metres above ground level to reduce noise reflections from a dwelling wall and other objects (i.e., parked vehicles, storage bin). Stantec also stated that the microphone placement location was constrained due to space constraints within the property boundary and security concerns outside the property boundary. 7 The sound level meters were calibrated using a Type 1 calibrator. 31. Based on the results of the baseline sound level survey, Stantec concluded that a +10 dba Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment for the nighttime period should be granted at both receptors R1 and R2 given the test prescribed in Rule Stantec indicated that the applicable daytime Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment at receptor R1 to be +9 dba and at receptor R2 to be +7 dba. 32. Stantec explained that a Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment should be granted because the acoustic environment at R1 and R2 is influenced by non-energy producing related industrial activities, road traffic, rail shunt yards and frequent aircraft flyovers. 33. Stantec also indicated that approval of the project would have little if any impact on the nighttime noise experienced by residents. The predicted cumulative sound level at R1 is 0.4 db above the nighttime PSL without a Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment. The predicted cumulative sound level at R2 is 1.3 db above the nighttime PSL without a Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment. If the measured results are used in the Base Case (Scenario 3), a comparison of the Base Case and Application Case sound level results indicate that the project 7 Exhibit X0021, City of Calgary_Response to Round 1 IRs response, City-AUC-2017JUL (c), PDF page Exhibit X0030, City of Calgary Response to IR3, AUC-2017OCT (a), PDF page 5. Decision D (May 17, 2018) 5

8 Receptor has a no net increase noise effect at receptors R1 and R2. A no net increase noise effect at receptors R1 and R2 is considered a condition that meets compliance under Rule The following table, provided by the City in information response AUC-2017OCT (a), 9 includes the summary of PSL results and predicted sound levels at each receptor: 10 Table 1a-1. Permissible Sound Level (PSL) Class A2 Adjustment and predicted sound levels for Receptors PSL (prescribed in Rule 012) Daytime Nighttime Measured Ambient Sound Level Daytime Nighttime Class A2 Adjustment Daytime Nighttime PSL (with Class A2 Adjustment) Daytime Nighttime Scenario 2 Application Case Sound Levels Daytime R R R a 57.1 a na b R a 56.8 a na b R N/A N/A na na na na R N/A N/A na na na na R N/A N/A na na na na SOURCE: a Golder Noise Impact Assessment Report for Bonnybrook Energy Centre by Golder Associates, Appendix 7 Table 2: Summary of Ambient Sound Survey Measurements (February 2010) b Decision : ENMAX Bonnybrook Inc. Construct and Operate 165-MW Bonnybrook Energy Centre. Application No ; Proceeding ID No (August 26, 2011), Published by The Alberta Utilities Commission 35. Stantec concluded that the project s noise effect is predicted to be in compliance with Rule 012 at all receptors when the +10 db nighttime Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment is applied to both receptors R1 and R2. Without the Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustments at receptors R1 and R2, the predicted cumulative sound levels are above the prescribed PSLs established in Table 1. Nighttime 5 Findings 36. The Commission has determined that the technical, siting, emissions, environmental and noise requirements of Rule 007 for the power plant alteration application have been met. 37. The Commission is also satisfied that the City s participant involvement program was conducted in accordance with Rule 007, and that there are no outstanding public or industry objections or concerns. 9 Exhibit X0030, City of Calgary Response to IR3, AUC-2017OCT (a), PDF page Exhibit X0004, Appendix E - Noise Impact Assessment and Baseline Noise Monitoring, PDF page Decision D (May 17, 2018)

9 38. Alberta Environment and Parks correspondence to the City indicated that it had completed a review of the application and had no concerns. The Commission finds that the environmental impacts of the project will be minor given that the project is located on developed lands in an industrial area. 39. Based on the foregoing and subject to the requirements discussed below, the Commission considers the project to be in the public interest in accordance with Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act. 5.1 Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment 40. The Commission has reviewed the application for the Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment and finds it to be in the public interest for the reasons that follow. 41. First, the Commission finds that the City has provided sufficient information to comply with Rule 012 and that the results warrant the granting of the Class A2 ambient monitoring adjustment for receptors R1 and R2. Specifically, the results of the baseline noise survey at receptor locations R1 and R2 meet the requirements of Section 2.1, item 11(c) of Rule Second, the Commission considered the noise impacts on residents in the nearby communities taking into account the attributes of the study area. The study area encompasses mostly industrial and commercial lands, heavily travelled roads in close proximity, is under a descending flight path for the Calgary International Airport, and includes approved energyrelated facilities that contribute to the existing overall noise level in the area. 43. Third, the Commission finds that the approval of the project will only marginally increase nighttime noise for R1 and R2. The addition of any further noise sources would require a new application to the Commission. 44. Based on the above, the Commission places the following condition on the project s approval. The permissible sound level is modified as follows: Residence Daytime PSL Nighttime PSL R A Street S.E. Calgary AB R A Street S.E. Calgary AB Decision D (May 17, 2018) 7

10 6 Decision 45. Pursuant to sections 11 and 19 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission approves the application and grants the City of Calgary the approval set out in Appendix 1 Power Plant Approval D May 17, 2018, to alter and operate the power plant (Appendix 1 will be distributed separately). Dated on May 17, Alberta Utilities Commission (original signed by) Anne Michaud Commission Member 8 Decision D (May 17, 2018)