TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES

Transcription

1 APPENDIX B NOISE

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.1 INTRODUCTION METHODS Study Area Boundaries Baseline Case Facility Noise Modelling Noise at 1.5 km From the Site Noise at Sensitive Receptors Compliance with EUB Permissible Sound Levels SUMMARY...19 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Baseline Sound Level Summary (dba L eq )...6 Table 2 Plant Equipment Project Update...7 Table 3 Plant Equipment Used in Noise Modelling...12 Table 4 Predicted Sound Levels for Plant Site Construction (dba L eq )...16 Table 5 Change in Cumulative Sound Levels with Plant Site Construction (dba L eq )...17 Table 6 Predicted Sound Levels for Project Operation (dba L eq )...17 Table 7 Change in Cumulative Sound Levels with Project Operation (dba L eq )...18 Table 8 Comparison of Combined Facility Sound Levels with the EUB Nighttime Permissible Sound Level...18 Table 9 Summary of Noise Assessment Update Issues...19 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Noise Assessment Study Area Project Update...3 Figure 2 Predicted Noise Contours: Plant Site Construction; Downwind Sound Propagation Project Update...10 Figure 3 Predicted Noise Contours: Plant Site Construction Downwind/Inversion Application...11 Figure 4 Predicted Noise Contours: Oil Sands Mining and Plant Site Operation; Downwind Sound Propagation Project Update...13 Figure 5 Predicted Noise Contours: Oil Sands Mining and Plant Site Operation; Downwind/Inversion Application i -

3 1.1 INTRODUCTION As a result of refinements to the Project and the publication of EUB Directive 038 Noise Control (February 2007), Synenco has provided an updated noise assessment including a comparison to the results of the Application. 1.2 METHODS Changes to the Project design that necessitated an updated noise assessment included revised locations for the Plant site and tailings facilities, as well as changes to the plant equipment list. The revised EUB noise control directive includes new requirements for preparing noise assessments, new requirements for remote facilities and a new method of determining compliance with EUB noise limits. The revised directive supersedes the previous noise control directive (ID 99-08) and was effective upon publication. Based on the changes to the Project and the EUB directive, a list was developed for those subjects which required review and inclusion in the Project Update. Details of each are discussed in the following sections. The list includes: Local Study Area (LSA) for the noise assessment; noise criteria; Baseline Case for the noise assessment; major noise sources at the Plant site; residual Project noise at 1.5 km from the site and at noise sensitive receptors; cumulative environmental noise, consideration of potential Low Frequency Noise (LFN) concerns; and compliance with EUB Permissible Sound Levels Study Area Boundaries Changes to the Project plot plan have resulted in modifications to the LSA for the noise assessment. The LSA is the area around the Project where facility noise is expected to be the dominant source of audible sound. As part of the Project Update, some facilities have been moved north to sites located on OSL 900 LEASE AREA. These facilities, which include the Fresh Water Reservoir, sand tailings dump and the External Thickened Tailings Cell (ETTC), are indicated in - 1 -

4 Figure 1. The relocation of these facilities alters the LSA such that the updated LSA extends 1.5 km from the combined lease and facility boundaries. The modifications to the LSA do not affect the extent of the RSA, which is the area beyond the LSA where noise from the Project may be audible. The closest noise sensitive receptors to the Project (i.e., Hunter-Trapper cabins 3 and 4) are located in the RSA, approximately 10 km south of the Project. The Project Update does not affect the temporal boundary for the Project. The administrative boundary has been changed to incorporate the EUB Directive 038 requirements

5

6 Descriptors The revised noise control directive includes new requirements regarding LFN. To address this new requirement, supplemental noise descriptor information pertinent to LFN is provided in this section. All noise descriptor information provided in the Application still remains pertinent to the Project noise assessment. Criteria for environmental noise are commonly based on sound level limits that are A-weighted and expressed in units of A-weighted decibels (dba). The A-weighting accounts for the frequency content of the sound and assesses it with a frequency response similar to that of human hearing. The A-weighted frequency response is most sensitive to sound in the mid-frequency range; diminishing moderately at high frequencies and substantially at low frequencies of the audible frequency range. Some types of industrial noise sources can produce elevated LFN. The presence of LFN can potentially cause adverse effects if it occurs at high sound levels (e.g., perceptible vibration in building structures). Since the A-weighted frequency response filters out sound in the low frequency range, the A-weighted sound level is a poor descriptor for environmental noise containing LFN components. However, the C-weighted frequency response does provide a good measurement of LFN because it has a uniform sensitivity to sound over most of the audible frequency range, diminishing only slightly at the high and low ends. Although the C-weighting is not similar to the frequency response of human hearing at low to moderate sound levels, it is significantly more sensitive to LFN than the A-weighting and is a commonly used metric for LFN

7 Criteria The revised EUB noise control directive contains changes to environmental noise requirements that relate to Project operation noise, including the following: new facilities must meet a Permissible Sound Level (PSL) of 40 dba L eq (nighttime) at 1.5 km from the facility, if there are no closer dwellings; facility noise predictions must be calculated for downwind sound propagation conditions; potential LFN from the facility must be evaluated; and the ambient sound level (i.e., background noise exclusive of industrial noise contributions) must be combined with the facility sound level when determining compliance of facility noise with the PSL. The revised directive has a number of implications on the noise assessment for the Project. The most substantive is that the 40 dba L eq criterion for facility operation noise at 1.5 km from the Project site has changed from a guideline sound level to a mandatory noise limit that must be met for the Project to be in compliance with Directive 038. The revised directive also identifies specific requirements with respect to facility noise modelling. The facility noise modelling conducted for the Application is consistent with these requirements, including the requirement for calculating facility sound levels under downwind sound propagation conditions. Another new requirement in the revised directive is the evaluation of potential LFN effects. This component of the directive requires the calculation of both A-weighted and C-weighted facility sound levels at receptors; if the difference between the C-weighted and A-weighted values is greater than 20 db, a potential LFN concern may exist. The final new requirement in the revised directive pertinent to the Project is a new method for determining compliance with the PSL. The new method requires inclusion of the ambient sound level in the comparison of facility noise with the PSL. Typically, the ambient sound level is 5 dba L eq lower than the PSL (although it may be even lower in remote locations, such as the Project area). Inclusion of the ambient sound level in the compliance determination results in allowable facility noise contributions that are actually lower than the PSL by margins ranging from 0 to 1.6 dba L eq

8 The EUB criteria for Project operation noise in accordance with Directive 038 are as follows: Baseline Case PSL of 40 dba L eq (nighttime) at 1.5 km from the Project site; and PSL of 40 dba L eq (nighttime) at the hunter-trapper cabins for combined facility noise from the Project and the Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited (Imperial Oil) Kearl Project. For the Project Update, the Baseline Case is defined as the existing condition plus approved developments. The Kearl Project is the one approved project added to the Baseline Case that may affect noise within the study area. As such, the updated Baseline Case includes the combined sound level contributions of the existing ambient and the Kearl Project. The baseline sound levels at 1.5 km from the LSA boundary from approximately 29 to 33 dba L eq. These values are based on the assumption that existing ambient sound levels are approximately 29 dba L eq throughout the study area. The baseline sound level in the RSA midway between the Project and the Kearl Project site is approximately 36 dba L eq. The baseline sound level in the RSA at 1.5 km from the Kearl Project site is approximately 40 dba L eq. The baseline sound levels at the closest noise sensitive receptors in the RSA are presented in Table 1. This table shows a comparison of the baseline sound level values presented in the Application with the results for the Project Update. Table 1 Baseline Sound Level Summary (dba L eq ) Baseline Case Receptor Application Project Update Difference Day Night Day Night Day Night hunter-trapper cabin hunter-trapper cabin The increase in baseline sound levels for the Project Update is attributed to the predicted sound level contribution of the Kearl Project at the two hunter-trapper cabins. The predicted sound levels for the Kearl Project at these receptors are approximately equal to the existing ambient sound levels. Combining the Kearl Project sound levels with the ambient sound levels results in baseline sound levels that are 3 to 4 dba L eq higher than the ambient values

9 1.2.3 Facility Noise Modelling The Project construction and operation noise models were updated as part of the noise assessment update, and re-run to calculate predicted sound levels for noise from the Project site. Apart from the aspects discussed below, no other changes were made with respect to the noise modelling software or calculation procedures. Updates to the noise model relating to changes in facility noise sources and changes to the facility plot plan are discussed in Section A detailed list of plant equipment noise sources and noise data used for the updated model is provided in Table 2. Specific meteorological and ground cover conditions for noise modelling calculations are required by EUB Directive 038. The pertinent modelling parameters must be consistent with conditions in the site vicinity during summertime weather. The meteorological parameters used in the Project Update noise model calculations are an ambient temperature of 10 o C, a relative humidity of 70% and a wind speed of 7.5 km/hr. All sound level predictions calculated by the noise model are for downwind sound propagation away from the Project. Sound level predictions for downwind (and/or inversion) conditions are representative of the worst case facility noise impact that may be attributed to meteorological factors. The topographical and ground cover parameters used in the updated models included digital ground elevation contours for the site and study area, ground attenuation in the LSA and RSA equivalent to bush and muskeg cover (i.e., ground absorption factor of 1.0), and foliage attenuation (beyond the Project disturbance footprint) for an average foliage height of 7.5 m. All the above meteorological and ground cover parameters are consistent with the requirements of Directive 038. Table 2 Plant Equipment Project Update Noise Source Description No. of Units Sound Power Level per Unit [dba] Slurry Preparation Roll Crusher Apron Feeder hp motor Stockpile Feed Conveyor hp motor Stockpile Apron Feeder hp motor BITMIN Feed Conveyor hp motor BITMIN Drum hp motor BITMIN Drum Inching Drive hp motor BITMIN Drum Froth Pump hp Belt Filter Vacuum Pump hp Belt Filter Recycle Water Pump hp Extraction and Froth Treatment Process Air Compressor Building 1 97 Deaerator Vent

10 Table 2 Plant Equipment Project Update (continued) Deaerated Froth Pump hp Thickener Feed Pump hp Warm Process Water Pump hp Froth Feed Pump hp Froth Feed Booster Pump hp Froth Recycle/Feed Pump hp st Stage IPS Overflow Pump hp SRU Column Bottoms Pump hp 4 99 SRU Solvent Pump hp TSRU 1st Stage Tailings Pump hp TSRU 1st Stage Solvent Pump hp TSRU 2nd Stage Tailings Pump hp Tailings Pump House 1 96 Solvent Rundown Pump hp Tank Farm Dilbit/Solvent Pipeline Pump House 1 96 Solvent/Slops Pump House 1 95 Utilities Cogen Gas Turbine/Generator Enclosure Cogen Gas Turbine Accessory Base Enclosure Cogen Gas Turbine Combustion Air Inlet 1 94 Cogen HRSG Inlet Duct Cogen HRSG Casing Cogen HRSG Exhaust Outlet Cogen Deaerator Vent Cogen Steam Turbine and BFP Building Cogen Generator Transformer Auxiliary Transformer 2 87 Auxiliary Boiler Casing 4 94 Auxiliary Boiler FD Fan Auxiliary Boiler Exhaust Outlet Cooling Tower Inlet (watersplash) Cooling Tower Fan Plenum Outlet Hot Process Water Pump hp Cold Process Water Building 1 92 Steam Assisted Flare Noise at 1.5 km From the Site The noise models for construction and operation activities were updated and rerun to determine predicted sound levels for residual noise in the LSA. The model results indicate that no changes to the plant construction noise sources are expected as a result of the Project Update, although the location of the sources will be focused around the new Plant site location (approximately 3 km west of the original plant location). As a result, the update to the plant construction noise model comprised only the change in location of the construction noise sources and predicted sound levels for residual construction noise were calculated based on the new plant site location. Figure 2 shows the updated construction noise contributions for downwind sound propagation from the plant site. The results in this noise contour map (and subsequent noise - 8 -

11 contour maps) are not representative of predicted sound levels for any specific wind direction in the study area, but they are representative of the expected worst case noise contributions in all directions around the site that may be attributed to meteorological factors. For comparison purposes, Figure 3 shows the predicted construction noise contributions presented in the Application for downwind sound propagation from the site. The predicted sound levels provided in Figures 2 and 3 represent only residual noise contributions from the Project; they do not include baseline sound level contributions. The results of the model update indicate that residual construction noise at 1.5 km from the site is expected to cover a broad range: from approximately 12 dba L eq (i.e., inaudible) to approximately 38 dba L eq. Residual noise from construction activity will be well below 40 dba L eq around most of the LSA perimeter, although sound levels close to or moderately higher than 40 dba L eq may occur when construction activity is close to the boundary of the Project. Combining the sound levels for residual construction noise with the baseline sound levels provides the Application Case sound levels for Project construction. These values are predicted to range from approximately 29 to 39 dba L eq at 1.5 km from the site, although values moderately higher than 40 dba L eq may occur when construction activity is close to the boundary of the Project

12

13

14 Noise modelling for operation activities included the development of a model for oil sands mining and tailings management, and a model for plant operation. Although there are no changes in the Project Update with respect to the noise sources for mining and tailings management, there are changes with respect to noise sources for plant operation. A summary of the changes to noise sources used in the plant noise model is provided in Table 3. Table 3 Plant Equipment Used in Noise Modelling Noise Source Description Application Case Application Project Update Difference Slurry Preparation crushers conveyor motors pumps rotating drum equipment Extraction and Froth Treatment pumps deaerator vents process air compressor building pump houses Tank Farm pump houses Utilities cogeneration plant equipment auxiliary boiler equipment cooling tower pumps steam-assisted flare The Project Update has resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of noise sources in the Slurry Preparation unit, and the Extraction and Froth Treatment units. The updated plant noise model also takes into account the new location for the Plant site. Although there are no changes to noise sources in the updated noise model for mining and tailings management, adjustments to the locations of haul roads, mobile equipment and conveyor sources were made to reflect the new locations for the sand and overburden dumps. In addition, refinements to topography of the mine pit were made to more accurately model the acoustical effects of shovels and trucks operating close to the faces of 15 m high overburden and ore benches. A noise contour map showing the updated modelling results for oil sands mining, tailings management and plant operation is presented in Figure 4. For comparison, the corresponding noise contour map appearing in the Application is provided in Figure

15

16

17 The predicted sound levels appearing in these figures represent only residual noise contributions from the Project operation activities; they do not include baseline sound level contributions. The operation scenario shown in Figures 4 and 5 represents full production mining activity in Pit 1. This scenario corresponds to the worst case for residual noise from the site because of the close proximity of the mining and tailings management equipment to the site boundaries. Residual operation noise at 1.5 km from the site for the updated Project is predicted to range from approximately 13 dba L eq (i.e., inaudible) to approximately 39 dba L eq. Combining the sound levels for residual Project operation noise with the baseline sound levels provides the updated Application Case sound levels for Project operation. These values are predicted to range from 29 to 40 dba L eq at 1.5 km from the site. There are no residential dwellings within 1.5 km of the Project. Therefore the applicable EUB noise limit (i.e., PSL) for facility operation is 40 dba L eq (nighttime) at 1.5 km from the site. This limit applies to the combined residual operation noise from the Kearl Project and the Project; however, the new method for determining compliance also requires that the existing ambient noise contributions be taken into account. Consequently, determination of compliance with the EUB directive requires that the PSL be compared with the combined sound levels for ambient noise and overall residual operation noise from the Kearl Project and the Project. These values correspond to the updated Application Case sound levels for Project operation (i.e., Baseline Case plus Project). Since the updated Application Case sound levels for Project operation range from 29 to 40 dba L eq, facility noise is expected to be in compliance with the PSL at 1.5 km from the site. The updated noise models for operation activities were run to calculate A-weighted and C-weighted noise contour maps for the study area, and the noise modelling software was used to calculate a contour map of dbc minus dba values. The calculation results indicate that the difference between the C- weighted and A-weighted sound levels are predicted to be lower than 20 db throughout the entire study area and that LFN is not expected to be a issue. The Application considered the CEA Case to be the cumulative effect of the Kearl Project on the combined ambient noise and residual Project noise. For the Project Update noise assessment, the Kearl Project noise contributions are included in the Baseline Case and the cumulative noise of the ambient, the Kearl Project and the Project are considered to comprise the Application Case. There are not expected to be any changes in cumulative sound levels of the ambient, the Kearl Project and the Project as a result of the Project Update. As

18 such, the conclusions for the updated Application Case are the same as the conclusions for the CEA Case in the Application. As there are no planned developments that will affect noise in the study area, there is no CEA Case for the Project Update noise assessment Noise at Sensitive Receptors The updated noise models for construction and operation activities were used to calculate predicted sound levels for residual noise at the two noise-sensitive receptors in the RSA (i.e., Hunter-Trapper Cabins 3 and 4), and at the construction and permanent camps located within the study area. The environmental noise at these receptors associated with Plant site construction is summarized in Table 4, which provides a comparison of the predicted sound level values presented in the Application with the results for the Project Update. Table 4 Predicted Sound Levels for Plant Site Construction (dba L eq ) Receptor Application Case Application Project Update Difference Hunter-Trapper Cabin Hunter-Trapper Cabin Construction Camp There is an increase in the sound level values for the Project Update relative to the Application. This occurs because the values for the Project Update are the combined baseline sound levels and Project residual noise, whereas the Application values are only the Project residual noise contribution. The sound level values for the Project Update include the effects of a slight increase in residual construction noise contributions at the hunter-trapper cabins of 1 to 2 dba L eq. However, the updated construction noise contributions are well below the baseline sound levels and Project construction noise is not expected to be audible at these receptors. This conclusion is supported by the results in Table 5, which shows the change in cumulative sound levels when Project construction noise contributions are added to the baseline sound levels. The change in cumulative sound levels is negligible for both the Application and the Project Update

19 Table 5 Change in Cumulative Sound Levels with Plant Site Construction (dba L eq ) Receptor Application Case Application Project Update Difference hunter-trapper cabin hunter-trapper cabin The Project Update sound level for construction noise at the construction camp is higher than the Application value by about 11 dba Leq. This increase has predominately arisen because the distance between the main plant (i.e., the focus of construction activity) and the camp is reduced from 5 km (Application) to about 1.5 km (Project Update). The closer proximity of the construction site reduces the amount of natural sound attenuation between the construction sources and the camp. However, the higher sound level at the construction camp is still within the range of ambient sound levels for a typical suburban residential area during nighttime. The noise associated with mine and plant operation is summarized in Table 6. The table compares the predicted sound level values presented in the Application with the results for the Project Update. Table 6 Predicted Sound Levels for Project Operation (dba L eq ) Receptor hunter-trapper cabin 3 hunter-trapper cabin 4 permanent camp Application Case Mining Operations Plant Site Operations Project Operation Total Application Project Project Project Difference Application Difference Application Update Update Update Difference The table shows predicted sound level values for mining operations, Plant site operations and overall Project operation. There is an increase in predicted sound levels at the hunter-trapper cabins for the Project Update because the values for the Project Update are the combined baseline sound levels and Project residual noise, whereas the Application values are only the Project residual noise contribution. The change in Project residual noise contributions at the hunter-trapper cabins is negligible for the Project Update (within ±0.3 dba L eq ), and noise from mine and plant operation is expected to be well below baseline sound levels at these receptors. This conclusion is supported by the results in

20 Table 7, which indicates negligible changes in cumulative sound levels when the residual noise from Project operation is added to the baseline sound levels. Table 7 Change in Cumulative Sound Levels with Project Operation (dba L eq ) Receptor Application Case Application Project Update Difference hunter-trapper cabin hunter-trapper cabin The Project Update sound levels at the permanent camp (Table 6) are about 1 dba L eq lower for mining operations and about 6 dba L eq higher for plant site operations (as compared to the Application values). The change in overall Project sound level (i.e., the Project operation total) is an increase of approximately 2 dba L eq. The results for Project Update indicate that overall operation noise at the permanent camp is expected to be similar to construction noise at the construction camp. There will be some variation in operation noise at the permanent camp as a result of the movement of mining activity around the lease; operation noise will be highest when the west part of Pit 1 is active and lowest when mining activity is in the east lease area. The predicted range in overall environmental noise at the permanent camp during Project operation is approximately 37 to 42 dba L eq. These sound level values are within range of ambient sound levels for a typical suburban residential area during nighttime Compliance with EUB Permissible Sound Levels The EUB nighttime PSL for the hunter-trapper cabins is 40 dba L eq. This limit applies to the combined sound levels for ambient noise and overall residual operation noise from the Kearl Project and the Project. These combined sound level values, which correspond to the updated Project sound levels for the Application Case (i.e., Baseline Case plus Project), are compared with the PSL for the hunter-trapper cabins in Table 8. Table 8 Comparison of Combined Facility Sound Levels with the EUB Nighttime Permissible Sound Level Receptor Predicted Sound Level for Project Operation Application Case [dba L eq ] Nighttime PSL [dba L eq ] Margin of Compliance [dba L eq ] hunter-trapper cabin hunter-trapper cabin

21 1.3 SUMMARY The last column in the table shows the margin of compliance. This is the magnitude in dba by which the Project sound levels for the updated Application Case are lower than the nighttime PSL. The margins of compliance for the hunter-trapper cabins range are 7 to 8 dba L eq, indicating that facility operation noise is expected to be in compliance with the PSLs at both receptors. Changes to the Project and a revised the EUB noise control directive have resulted in an update to the noise impact assessment for the Project. Table 9 provides a summary of issues arising from the Project Update and new requirements in the directive that have been reviewed in this noise assessment update. Table 9 Summary of Noise Assessment Update Issues Issue Application Project Update LSA 1.5 km from boundary of lease 1.5 km from boundary of lease and off-lease facilities guideline facility sound level: 40 dba L eq at permissible sound level: 40 dba L eq at 1.5 km 1.5 km EUB noise criteria permissible sound level: 40 dba L eq at no change hunter-trapper cabins baseline case existing ambient noise existing ambient noise plus Kearl Project noise major noise sources at the plant site 194 sources in noise model 121 sources in noise model residual project noise at 1.5 km inaudible to moderately above 40 dba L eq inaudible to approximately 39 dba L eq residual project noise at huntertrapper cabins lower than ambient sound level no change residual project noise at project camps 28 to 45 dba L eq 36 to 42 dba L eq approximately 36 to 40 dba L eq in RSA cumulative environmental noise between Project and Kearl Project no change 32 to 33 dba L eq at hunter-trapper cabins no change low frequency noise (LFN) not assessed LFN expected to be acceptable facility in compliance with EUB compliance with EUB noise facility in compliance with EUB Interim Directive 028 Noise Control (issued controls directive Directive ID 99-08, Noise Control February 2007)