Air Quality Assessment Of the Grizzly Oil Sands ULC Algar Lake SAGD Project

Transcription

1 Air Quality Assessment Of the Prepared for: Prepared by: Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. January 21 File #7-99 Suite Street Edmonton AB Canada T6E 5R7 Tel: Fax:

2 Table of Contents Page Executive Summary... iii Table of Contents... i List of Tables... i List of Figures... ii 1. INTRODUCTION Background Ambient Air Quality Objectives Relationship between NO x and NO Surrounding Terrain EMISSIONS DATA Emissions Regional Emissions Dispersion Modelling Approach Model Parameters Meteorological Data Background Concentration Acid Deposition Modelling DISPERSION MODEL PREDICTIONS SO NO PM CO Non-Routine and Upset Conditions Assessment CONCLUSION CLOSURE REFERENCES List of Tables Table Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives Table Grizzly Algar Lake Typical Stack and Emission Parameters... 4 Table Building Information Used to Evaluate Downwash... 4 Table JACOS Hangingstone Typical Stack and Emission Parameters... 5 Table Ambient Background Concentrations of Modelled Compounds... 7 Page i 9-15

3 Table Summary of Ground-Level Predicted SO 2 Concentrations at Property Line and at Under Typical Operations... 8 Table Summary of Ground-Level Predicted NO 2 Concentrations at Property Line and at Under Typical Operations (OLM Method)... 9 Table Summary of Ground-Level Predicted NO 2 Concentrations at Property Line and at Under Typical Operations (TCM Method)... 1 Table Summary of Ground-Level Predicted PM 2.5 Concentrations at Property Line and at Under Typical Operations... 1 Table Summary of Ground-Level Predicted CO Concentrations at Property Line and at Under Typical Operations Table 3.51 Stack and Emission Parameters for the Upset FlaringScenario List of Figures Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Predicted 99.9th Percentile Hourly Average SO2 Concentrations ( g/m3) Predicted 99.7th Percentile 24-Hour Average SO2 Concentrations ( g/m3) Predicted Annual Average SO2 Concentrations ( g/m3) Predicted 99.9th Percentile Hourly Average NO2 Concentrations ( g/m3) Predicted 99.7th Percentile 24-hour Average NO2 Concentrations ( g/m3) Predicted Annual Average NO2 Concentrations ( g/m3) Predicted 99.9th Percentile Hourly Average PM2.5 Concentrations ( g/m3) Predicted 99.7th Percentile 24-hour Average PM2.5 Concentrations ( g/m3) Predicted 99.9th Percentile Hourly Average CO Concentrations ( g/m3) Predicted 8-hour Average CO Concentrations ( g/m3) Page ii 9-15

4 Executive Summary (Grizzly) retained Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. (MEMS) to conduct air dispersion modelling in support of Grizzly s Application for its proposed Grizzly Algar Lake SAGD Project (the ). The will use steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) technology to recover bitumen, and it is expected that the will produce 18 m 3 /day (11,3 bpd) at peak capacity. During the operation of the, combustion products such as sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ), oxides of nitrogen (NO x ), fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) and carbon monoxide (CO) are vented to the atmosphere. These products are regarded as criteria air contaminants and have Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAAQO). During normal operating conditions, the will emit these combustion products continuously from four stacks (two serving the boilers, two serving the power turbines). Emissions of SO 2, NO x, PM 2.5, and CO from the stack on a typical day are approximately 1.9,.42,.5, and.75 tonnes, respectively. MEMS conducted dispersion modelling in accordance with Alberta Environment s Air Quality Model Guideline (AENV 29a). Dispersion modelling was conducted with the CALPUFF model. The meteorological data was processed using CALMET. Five years (22 to 26) of the MM5 regional meteorological dataset provided by AENV were used as the meteorological data source. Modelling of combustion products SO 2, NO 2, PM 2.5 and CO under typical operating conditions was undertaken as well as modelling under upset conditions. The Air Quality Model Guideline (AENV 29a) requires that all significant emission sources within 5 km of the be identified and included in the modelling. Although no industrial facilities are located within 5 km of the, the emissions from the nearest industrial facility, Japan Canada Oil Sands (JACOS) Hangingstone in-situ pilot SAGD facility, which is located 1.5 km from the, were included in the dispersion modelling. An ambient background concentration was also added to the prediction. The results of dispersion modelling for typical operations showed that ground-level predicted concentrations for SO 2, NO 2, CO and PM 2.5 were below AAAQOs. The predicted SO 2 and NO 2 concentrations for the upset scenario were also below the AAAQOs. The results conclude that the operation of the is not expected to compromise air quality. Page iii 9-15

5 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background. (Grizzly) is applying for a permit to develop a SAGD facility in the Athabasca Oil Sands region at Algar Lake. The proposed Algar Lake Project involves the drilling of SAGD production wells and the construction of a site consisting of two modular central processing facilities each with a design capacity of 5, bopd. The plant consists of two high pressure steam boilers and two 4.5 MW combustion turbine generators. The high pressure boilers are water-tube drum type boilers and will be fuelled by produced gas. The power turbines will be fuelled by natural gas. Further details about the project can be found in the application for the project development scheme (Grizzly, 21). Operations at the plant will result in emissions to the atmosphere. These emissions include combustion products such as sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) and oxides of nitrogen (NO x ). These contaminants may be harmful to human health at sufficiently high ambient ground-level concentrations which should not exceed Alberta ambient air quality objectives (AAAQO). Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. (MEMS) was retained by Grizzly to provide a dispersion modelling assessment of NO 2, SO 2, CO and PM 2.5 emissions associated with the expected operations of the facility. The modelling was executed following the Alberta Environment (AENV) dispersion modelling guidance document Air Quality Model Guideline (AENV 29a). The CALMET and CALPUFF models were used in the air quality assessment. This report outlines the assumptions, methodologies, dispersion modelling approach, model input data, and the dispersion modelling results. 1.2 Ambient Air Quality Objectives The AAAQO for the s compounds are presented in Table The objectives refer to averaging periods ranging from one hour to one year. Page

6 Table Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives 1 Substance Averaging Period Objective ( g/m 3 ) 2 (ppbv) 3 NO 2 Annual 24-Hour 1-Hour SO 2 Annual 24-Hour 1-Hour PM Hour 1-Hour 3 8 Not applicable Not applicable CO 8-Hour 1-Hour Notes: 1: From Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines (AENV, June 29b) 2: ug/m 3 is the weight in micrograms of the substance in one cubic meter of air 3: standard conditions of 25 o C and kpa are used as the basis for conversion and ug/m 3 to ppbv (parts per billion by volume) Relationship between NO x and NO 2 Oxides of nitrogen (NO x ) are comprised of nitric oxide (NO) and NO 2. High temperature combustion processes primarily produce NO that in turn can be converted to NO 2 in the atmosphere through reactions with tropospheric ozone: NO + O 3 NO 2 + O 2 Conversion of NO x to NO 2 is estimated using the AENV (29a) recommended Ozone Limiting Method (OLM). This method states that if the ambient ozone concentration ([O 3 ]) is greater than 9% of the predicted NO x, then it is assumed that all the NO x is converted to NO 2. Otherwise, the NO 2 concentration is equal to the sum of the ozone and 1% of the predicted NO x concentration. That is: If [O 3 ] >.9 [NO x ], then [NO 2 ] = [NO x ] Otherwise, [NO 2 ] = [O 3 ] +.1 [NO x ] These guidelines were established through the consideration of lowest observable effect level on a sensitive receptor. Page

7 The following default screening values for [O 3 ] for rural locations, as recommended by AENV (29a), can be used:.5 ppm (98.1 μg/m 3 ) for hourly average;.4 ppm (78.5 μg/m 3 ) for daily average; and.3 ppm (58.9 μg/m 3 ) for annual average. For the purpose of estimating ambient NO2 concentrations, emissions were first modeled as NOx and dispersed without chemical transformation using CALPUFF. Then, NOx concentrations were converted to NO 2 using the OLM. AENV modelling guidelines state that if the OLM is used for NO x conversion, the NO 2 assuming 1% NO x conversion (the Total Conversion Method) must also be presented. NO 2 concentrations using both methods are reported in Section Surrounding Terrain The is located at an elevation of approximately 534 m above sea level (ASL). The terrain within 1 km of the site is predominantly flat. Beyond 1 km, the terrain is undulating to the south with maximum elevation differences of approximately 4 m within 6 km. There is also a very gradual descent in terrain towards the Athabasca River valley north of the plant, with an elevation decrease of approximately 7 m per 1 m distance from the plant. A small valley runs north-northwest to southsoutheast approximately 2 km west of the proposed plant site. Most of the surrounding lands are wetlands with deep muskeg to the east. Page

8 2. EMISSIONS DATA 2.1 Emissions The stack and emission parameters for the two boilers and the two power turbines under typical operations are shown in Table The SO 2 emission rate is based on expected fuel gas sulphur content. NO x and PM 2.5 emission rates are based on equipment vendor estimates. The emission rates for CO are based on natural gas consumption data and U.S. EPA AP-42 emission factors. Table Grizzly Algar Lake Typical Stack and Emission Parameters Source Description UTM Coordinates Stack Stack Exit Exit Emissions (t/d) (m) Height Diameter Velocity Temp (m) (m) (m/s) (K) Easting Northing SO 2 NO x CO PM 2.5 Boiler ( 1) Boiler ( 2) Power Turbine ( 1) Power Turbine ( 2) Flare Stack N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Flare Stack N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Not applicable as emissions are from the flare pilot is negligible Emission Totals The generation of downwash by buildings located within the proposed facility compound was considered. Table presents the dimensions of the buildings and tanks that are within the stacks region of influence. Table Building Information Used to Evaluate Downwash Building Length (m) Width (m) Height (m) Central Processing Facility Central Processing Facility Storage Tanks (8 tanks included in modelling) Page

9 2.2 Regional Emissions The Air Quality Model Guideline (AENV 29a) requires that all significant emission sources within 5 km of the be identified and included in the modelling. There are no facilities located within this distance. The closest industrial facility to the is the Japan Canada Oil Sands (JACOS) Hangingstone in-situ pilot SAGD facility, which is located 1.5 km ESE of the. Tables presents the stack and emission parameters from the JACOS facility, which was included in the air dispersion modelling. This data was obtained from the Deer Creek Joslyn North Mine Project Supplemental Information submission (DCEL 27), and this data has been confirmed by JACOS. Table JACOS Hangingstone Typical Stack and Emission Parameters Source Description UTM Coordinates Stack Stack Exit Exit Emissions (t/d) (m) Height Diameter Velocity Temp (m) (m) (m/s) (K) Easting Northing SO 2 NO x CO PM 2.5 Phase 1 Glycol Heater HP Flare LP Flare Line Heater Steam Gen Steam Gen Phase 2 Steam Gen Phase 2+3 HP Flare LP Flare Glycol Heater Phase 3 Steam Gen Emission Totals Dispersion Modelling Approach Model Parameters Dispersion modelling was conducted with the CALPUFF model, which is one of the models recommended in the Air Quality Model Guideline (AENV 29a). The model origin (45769, ) Page

10 was centred on the s power turbine stack ( 1) and the following receptor grids were considered as per the latest AENV model guidelines: Grid A = 2 x 2 km, 1 m spacing centred on model origin; Grid B = 16 x 16 km, 5 m spacing; Grid C = 7.5 x 7.5 km, 25 m spacing; Grid D = 1.5 x 1.5 km, 5 m spacing; Grid E = 6 x 6 m, 2 m spacing; along boundary line with 2 m spacing between receptors and; if necessary, Grid F = 6 x 6 m with 2 m spacing, centred on the location of maximum predicted concentration (within immediate vicinity of the ) from previous runs Receptors located within the plant site boundary were removed since the AAAQO typically applies only to areas where public access is not restricted Meteorological Data The CALMET modeling domain is 295 km west to east and 4 km north to south, which is larger than the computation domain to reduce the potential for edge effects (AENV 29a). The UTM coordinates (NAD 83, Zone 12) for the modelling domain range from km to km easting, and 6,39 km to 6,439 km northing (latitude 54.5 to 58.1 and longitude 18.8 to ). Horizontal grid cells 5 km X 5 km were adopted for the CALMET modelling. This combination of grid size and number of cells was chosen to minimize modelling run time while still capturing major terrain features that will influence wind flow patterns. Five years (22 to 26) of the MM5 regional meteorological dataset provided by AENV were used as the meteorological data source. No surface stations are located within the modelling domain and as such no surface observations were added directly into the model. Terrain data were obtained from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM -3 Arc Second - 9 m) website. The terrain heights for meteorological grid points, receptors, and sources are processed through the TERREL CALMET pre-processor program. To determine meteorological parameters in the boundary layer, the CALMET model requires a physical description of the ground surface. The geophysical parameters used for this assessment include land use category, terrain elevation, roughness length, albedo, Bowen ratio, surface heat flux parameter, anthropogenic heat flux and leaf area index (LAI). They were obtained using CALMET pre-processors and USGS global (Lambert Azimuthal) land use categories file for North America. Page

11 2.3.3 Background Concentration According to guidance from Alberta Environment (29a), appropriate contaminant concentrations due to natural sources, nearby sources, and unidentified, possibly distant sources are to be used as background to be added on top of predicted values. For this assessment, SO 2, NO 2 and PM 2.5 background concentrations were obtained from measurement data collected at the Anzac air quality monitoring station, which is the nearest air quality monitoring station to the. CO background concentrations were obtained from measurement data collected at the Fort McMurray air quality monitoring station. The Fort McMurray station was chosen because it was the closest station to the that collected ambient CO measurements. The Fort McMurray is located in a heavily industrialized area, which would result in higher background concentrations than would be reasonably expected in the vicinity of the, which is situated in a more rural setting. For each of these measured contaminants, the 9 th percentile value of all its hourly measurements was used as the background concentration for hourly, 8-hour, and daily predictions. For the annual averaging periods, the average of all hourly measurements was used as the background concentration. This method of determining background concentrations complies with the Air Quality Model Guideline (AENV 29a) for refined or advanced assessments. A summary of the background values used in this assessment is provided in Table Table Ambient Background Concentrations of Modelled Compounds Compounds Hourly (µg/m 3 ) 8-Hour (µg/m 3 ) 24-Hour (µg/m 3 ) Annual (µg/m 3 ) SO NO PM CO Data Source Anzac Station (Jan. 27 to Nov. 29) Anzac Station (Jan. 27 to Nov. 29) Anzac Station (Jan. 27 to Nov. 29) Fort McMurray Station (Jan. 27 to Nov. 29) Acid Deposition Modelling Acid deposition was not modelled in this submission as the s combined emissions of SO 2, NO x and NH 3 are below the H + equivalent threshold as specified by the Air Quality Model Guideline (29a). Page

12 3. DISPERSION MODEL PREDICTIONS Dispersion model predictions for SO 2, NO 2, PM 2.5 and CO are provided for each of the five years that was modelled. Also, for each chemical and for each year, the overall maximum prediction is provided, as well as the maximum concentration predicted along the s property boundary line. 3.1 SO 2 The CALPUFF modelling predictions for SO 2 from the operation of the are listed in Tables The results show that all SO 2 predictions at the property boundary line as well as at the overall maximum point of impingement () are below the AAAQO. All predictions presented in this section include both natural and industrial background concentrations. SO 2 modelling results are also presented in the form of SO 2 concentration contours (isopleths) in Figures to 3.1-3, which show for the 99.9 th percentile hourly, 99.7 th percentile 24-hour, and annual predicted concentrations. The isopleths in the figures represent predicted overall concentrations for the entire five year period; that is, the three sets of concentration contours (Figures to 3.1-3) are based on the maximum value of all 99.9 th hourly (9 th highest per year) predictions, the maximum value of all 99.7 th 24-hour (2 nd highest per year) predictions, and maximum value of the five annual predictions at each receptor, respectively. Table Summary of Ground-Level Predicted SO 2 Concentrations at Property Line and at Under Typical Operations Year / Averaging Period th 1h Predictions (includes industrial & natural background) AAAQO th 24h Prediction s (includes industrial & natural background) AAAQO Annual Predictions (includes industrial & natural background) AAAQO Page

13 3.2 NO 2 The CALPUFF modelling predictions for NO 2 from the operation of the are listed in Tables and The results show that all NO 2 predictions at the property boundary line as well as at the overall maximum point of impingement () are below the AAAQO. AENV (29a) specifies that if the ozone limiting method (OLM) is used to determine the relationship between NO 2 and NO x, then the results using the total conversion method (TCM), which assumes all the NO x is converted to NO 2, must also be reported. The NO 2 predictions using the OLM are shown in Table The results using the TCM are shown in Table Although the TCM is considered a conservative screening approach and it is expected to produce gross overestimations of NO 2 concentrations, especially near emission sources, the results from the TCM are still below the AAAQO for NO 2. All predictions presented in this section include both natural and industrial background concentrations. NO 2 modelling results are also presented in the form of NO 2 concentration contours (isopleths) in Figures to 3.2-3, which show for the 99.9 th percentile hourly, 99.7 th percentile 24-hour, and annual predicted concentrations. Table Summary of Ground-Level Predicted NO 2 Concentrations at Property Line and at Under Typical Operations (OLM Method) Year / Averaging Period th 1h Predictions (includes industrial & natural background) AAAQO th 24h Prediction s (includes industrial & natural background) AAAQO Annual Predictions (includes industrial & natural background) AAAQO Page

14 Table Summary of Ground-Level Predicted NO 2 Concentrations at Property Line and at Under Typical Operations (TCM Method) Year / Averaging Period th 1h Predictions (includes industrial & natural background) AAAQO th 24h Prediction s (includes industrial & natural background) AAAQO Annual Predictions (includes industrial & natural background) AAAQO PM 2.5 The CALPUFF modelling predictions for PM 2.5 from the operation of the are listed in Table The results show that all PM 2.5 predictions at the property boundary line as well as at the overall are below the AAAQO (or guideline in the case of 1-hour predictions). No predictions are provided for the annual averaging period as there is no annual AAAQO for PM 2.5. PM 2.5 modelling results are also presented in the form of PM 2.5 concentration contours (isopleths) in Figures and 3.3-2, which show for the 99.9 th percentile hourly and 99.7 th percentile 24-hour predicted concentrations. Table Summary of Ground-Level Predicted PM 2.5 Concentrations at Property Line and at Under Typical Operations Year / Averaging Period th 1h Predictions (includes industrial & natural background) AAAQG* th 24h Prediction s (includes industrial & natural background) AAAQO Notes: * It should be noted that the one hour objective for PM 2.5 (AENV 29b) is a guideline and not a compliance objective. Page

15 3.4 CO The CALPUFF modelling predictions for CO from the operation of the are listed in Table The results show that all CO predictions at the property boundary line as well as at the overall are well below the AAAQO. Only the 99.9 th percentile hourly and maximum 8-hour predictions are presented here as there are no AAAQOs for any other averaging periods. CO modelling results are also presented in the form of CO concentration contours (isopleths) in Figures and 3.4-2, which show for the 99.9 th percentile hourly, and maximum 8-hour predicted concentrations. Table Summary of Ground-Level Predicted CO Concentrations at Property Line and at Under Typical Operations Year / Averaging Period th 1h Predictions (includes industrial & natural background) AAAQO 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, Maximum 8h Predictions (includes industrial & natural background) AAAQO 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 3.5 Non-Routine and Upset Conditions Assessment It is the design intent that the flare stacks be used as an emergency system, with any normal process vents processed through the boilers. Thus, under normal conditions at the, there will be negligible emissions from the use of natural gas by the pilot flame. In case of a plant upset, emergency flaring will take place resulting in SO 2 and NO x emissions to the atmosphere. The following summarizes the air quality predictions from a worst-case upset flaring scenario at the. The worst-case scenario was identified as a boiler trip which would re-route the fuel gas to the flares. The total duration of this potential flaring event is conservatively estimated to be no more than 6 minutes, as that duration is more than sufficient for operators to respond and shut down equipment during this scenario. Dispersion modelling of SO 2 and NO x emissions from the resulting from this upset scenario was performed with the stack and emission parameters shown in Table The SO 2 emission rate shown in the table is based on the expected sulphur content of the fuel and the NO x emission rate was calculated using the emission factor from the U.S. EPA AP-42 document for industrial flares. In order to be conservative in this assessment, it was assumed that both the 1 and 2 boilers trip concurrently, thus bringing about simultaneous flaring at both flare stacks. It was also assumed Page

16 all the other sources at 1 and 2 continue to operate normally during this flaring scenario, which is also a conservative assumption. Table 3.51 Stack and Emission Parameters for the Upset FlaringScenario (a) (b) (c) Parameter Flaring Parameters Stack Locations (UTM E, UTM N) Flare 1: 45683, ; Flare 2: 45715, Stack Height (m) 28. Exit Diameter (m).2 Exit Velocity (m/s) 89. Release Height (a) (m) 43.3 Pseudo Diameter (b) (m) 1.97 Max. Flaring Duration (min.) 6. NO x Emission Rate (g/s) 2.91 Net Heating Value (c) (MJ/m 3 ) 34.3 Flow Rate (c) (1 3 m 3 /d) 25 Mole Fraction: H 2. N 2.12 CO H 2 S.38 H 2 O.57 C C 2.9 C 3.4 ic 4.18 nc 4.17 ic 5.2 nc 5.24 C 6+.3 C Total 1. Effective release height of plume for CALPUFF modelling. Used in modelling to correspond to exit velocity and actual flow rate. At 15 C and 11.3 kpa. The predicted 99.9 th percentile hourly average ground-level concentration for SO 2 and NO 2 at the for the upset scenario is 239 g/m 3 and 132 g/m 3, respectively, which are below their AAAQOs. Under normal operating conditions, the 99.9 th percentile hourly prediction for SO 2 and NO 2 at the are also 239 g/m 3 and 132 g/m 3. This means that the operation of the flare under this upset scenario will have negligible impact on air quality. Page

17 4. CONCLUSION Based on the predictions for SO 2, NO 2, PM 2.5 and CO, it can be concluded that the operation of the is not expected to compromise air quality. The results of dispersion modelling showed that all predicted concentrations along the s boundary line and beyond are below the AAAQO. Page

18 5. CLOSURE This report is based on and limited by the interpretation of data, circumstances, and conditions available at the time of completion of the work as referenced throughout the report. Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. has performed its services in a manner consistent with the standard of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession practicing under similar conditions. Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. believes that this information is accurate but cannot guarantee or warrant its accuracy or completeness including information provided by third parties. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of and authorized users for specific application to this project site. The work was conducted in accordance with the scope of work prepared for this project, verbal and written requests from. The report has been prepared for specific application to this site and is based on the interpretation of emissions data provided by. MEMS expresses no warranty with respect to the accuracy of the emissions data. Ground-level concentration predictions of the substances assessed in this report may vary according to updates to the emissions data based on actual stack sampling results. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. does not accept any responsibility for the use of this report, in whole or in part, for any purpose other than that intended or to any third party for any use whatsoever. Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. accepts no responsibility for damages if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. We disclaim any undertaking or obligation to advise you or modify this report to reflect changes in any environmental practice or fact after the date hereof which may come or be brought to our attention. We thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance to. If you have any questions about this report, please contact the undersigned at ext Yours truly, Reviewed by Yan Wong, P.Eng, Ph.D. Senior Air Quality Engineer Randy Rudolph Principal Page

19 6. REFERENCES AENV (Alberta Environment). 29a. Air Quality Model Guideline. Prepared by A. Idriss and F. Spurrel, Climate Change, Air and Land Policy Branch, Alberta Environment. Revised May 29. Edmonton, AB. 51 pp. ISBN: (On-line); (Printed). Alberta Environment (AENV). 29b. Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines. Issued in June 29. Alberta Environment (AENV). 23. Emergency / Process Upset Flaring Management: Modelling Guidance (Revised). Clean Air Strategic Alliance (CASA) Data Warehouse [Online]. Available from internet: <URL: Deer Creek Energy Limited (DCEL), 27. Joslyn North Mine Project Supplemental Information, Vol. 1, Project Update. Air Quality Section Prepared by AMEC. (Grizzly), 21. Grizzly Oil Sads ULC. Project Application Submitted to the Alberta Energy and Resources Conservation Board and Alberta Environment, February 21. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors AP-42, Chapter 3.1, Fifth Edition. Page

20 Main TOC Main Menu R 11 W4M e R 13 Ho r s I Cre e k L it tl e T 86 se H or Cree k 5 1 Maximum = 239 µg/m T Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 27\Projects 7-51 to 7-1\7-99 Grizzly SAGD\Final Docs\Air Quality\Fig Hourly SO2 Concentrations.mxd) 27/1/ :15:51 PM Legend Fort McMurray Study Area Fencline High : 575 Existing Pipeline Project Footprint Road (Unimproved) Study Area Topography (masl) Cutline Existing Powerline Edmonton Low : 475 Concentration Isopleth Calgary Kilometres PROJECT: Grizzly Oil Sands TITLE: Predicted 99.9th Percentile Hourly Average SO2 Concentrations (µg/m3) DRAWN: SL CHECKED: YW DATE: Jan 27/1 PROJECT: 7-99 FIGURE: 3.1-1

21 Main TOC Main Menu R 11 W4M e R 13 Ho r s I Cre e k L it tl e T 86 se H or Cree k T Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 27\Projects 7-51 to 7-1\7-99 Grizzly SAGD\Final Docs\Air Quality\Fig Hour SO2 Concentrations.mxd) 27/1/ :2:43 PM 6245 Maximum = 145 µg/m Legend Fort McMurray Study Area Fencline High : 575 Existing Pipeline Project Footprint Road (Unimproved) Study Area Topography (masl) Cutline Existing Powerline Edmonton Low : 475 Concentration Isopleth Calgary Kilometres PROJECT: Grizzly Oil Sands TITLE: Predicted 99.7th Percentile 24-Hour Average SO2 Concentrations (µg/m3) DRAWN: SL CHECKED: YW DATE: Jan 27/1 PROJECT: 7-99 FIGURE: 3.1-2

22 Main TOC Main Menu R 11 W4M e R 13 Ho r s I Cre e k L it tl e H or 3. Cree k se 2. T T Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 27\Projects 7-51 to 7-1\7-99 Grizzly SAGD\Final Docs\Air Quality\Fig Annual SO2 Concentrations.mxd) 27/1/ :25:2 PM 6245 Maximum = 6.6 µg/m Legend Fort McMurray Study Area Fencline High : 575 Existing Pipeline Project Footprint Road (Unimproved) Study Area Topography (masl) Cutline Existing Powerline Edmonton Low : 475 Concentration Isopleth Calgary Kilometres PROJECT: Grizzly Oil Sands TITLE: Predicted Annual Average SO2 Concentrations (µg/m3) DRAWN: SL CHECKED: YW DATE: Jan 27/1 PROJECT: 7-99 FIGURE: 3.1-3

23 Main TOC Main Menu R 11 W4M e R 13 Ho r s I Cre e k L it tl e T 86 se H or 25 Cree k 3 5 Maximum = 132 µg/m T Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 27\Projects 7-51 to 7-1\7-99 Grizzly SAGD\Final Docs\Air Quality\Fig Hourly NO2 Concentrations.mxd) 27/1/ :21: PM Legend Fort McMurray Study Area Fencline High : 575 Existing Pipeline Project Footprint Road (Unimproved) Study Area Topography (masl) Cutline Existing Powerline Edmonton Low : 475 Concentration Isopleth Calgary Kilometres PROJECT: Grizzly Oil Sands TITLE: Predicted 99.9th Percentile Hourly Average NO2 Concentrations (µg/m3) DRAWN: SL CHECKED: YW DATE: Jan 27/1 PROJECT: 7-99 FIGURE: 3.2-1

24 Main TOC Main Menu R 11 W4M e R 13 Ho r s I Cre e k L it tl e H or se T 86 3 Cree k Maximum = 95 µg/m T Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 27\Projects 7-51 to 7-1\7-99 Grizzly SAGD\Final Docs\Air Quality\Fig Hour NO2 Concentrations.mxd) 27/1/ :3:43 PM Legend Fort McMurray Study Area Fencline High : 575 Existing Pipeline Project Footprint Road (Unimproved) Study Area Topography (masl) Cutline Existing Powerline Edmonton Low : 475 Concentration Isopleth Calgary Kilometres PROJECT: Grizzly Oil Sands TITLE: Predicted 99.7th Percentile 24-Hour Average NO2 Concentrations (µg/m3) DRAWN: SL CHECKED: YW DATE: Jan 27/1 PROJECT: 7-99 FIGURE: 3.2-2

25 Main TOC Main Menu R 11 W4M e R 13 Ho r s I Cre e k L it tl e H or Cree k se T Maximum =16 µg/m T Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 27\Projects 7-51 to 7-1\7-99 Grizzly SAGD\Final Docs\Air Quality\Fig Annual NO2 Concentrations.mxd) 27/1/ :36:45 PM Legend Fort McMurray Study Area Fencline High : 575 Existing Pipeline Project Footprint Road (Unimproved) Study Area Topography (masl) Cutline Existing Powerline Edmonton Low : 475 Concentration Isopleth Calgary Kilometres PROJECT: Grizzly Oil Sands TITLE: Predicted Annual Average NO2 Concentrations (µg/m3) DRAWN: SL CHECKED: YW DATE: Jan 27/1 PROJECT: 7-99 FIGURE: 3.2-3

26 Main TOC Main Menu R 11 W4M e R 13 Ho r s I Cre e k L it tl e T 86 se H or Cree k T Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 27\Projects 7-51 to 7-1\7-99 Grizzly SAGD\Final Docs\Air Quality\Fig Hourly PM25 Concentrations.mxd) 27/1/ :41:24 PM Maximum =33 µg/m 3 Legend Fort McMurray Study Area Fencline High : 575 Existing Pipeline Project Footprint Road (Unimproved) Study Area Topography (masl) Cutline Existing Powerline Edmonton Low : 475 Concentration Isopleth Calgary Kilometres PROJECT: Grizzly Oil Sands TITLE: Predicted 99.9th Percentile Hourly Average PM2.5 Concentrations (µg/m3) DRAWN: SL CHECKED: YW DATE: Jan 27/1 PROJECT: 7-99 FIGURE: 3.3-1

27 Main TOC Main Menu R 11 W4M e R 13 Ho r s I Cre e k L it tl e H or T Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 27\Projects 7-51 to 7-1\7-99 Grizzly SAGD\Final Docs\Air Quality\Fig Hour PM25 Concentrations.mxd) 27/1/ :48:2 PM Maximum = 21 µg/m Cree k se T 86 Legend Fort McMurray Study Area Fencline High : 575 Existing Pipeline Project Footprint Road (Unimproved) Study Area Topography (masl) Cutline Existing Powerline Edmonton Low : 475 Concentration Isopleth Calgary Kilometres PROJECT: Grizzly Oil Sands TITLE: Predicted 99.7th Percentile 24-Hour Average PM2.5 Concentrations (µg/m3) DRAWN: SL CHECKED: YW DATE: Jan 27/1 PROJECT: 7-99 FIGURE: 3.3-2

28 Main TOC Main Menu R 11 W4M R 13 Ho r s e I Cre e k L it tl e H or 36 Cree k se T Maximum = 454 µg/m T Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 27\Projects 7-51 to 7-1\7-99 Grizzly SAGD\Final Docs\Air Quality\Fig Hourly CO Concentrations.mxd) 27/1/ :54:34 PM 36 Legend Fort McMurray Study Area Fencline High : 575 Existing Pipeline Project Footprint Road (Unimproved) Study Area Topography (masl) Cutline Existing Powerline Edmonton Low : 475 Concentration Isopleth Calgary Kilometres PROJECT: Grizzly Oil Sands TITLE: Predicted 99.9th Percentile Hourly Average CO Concentrations (µg/m3) DRAWN: SL CHECKED: YW DATE: Jan 27/1 PROJECT: 7-99 FIGURE: 3.4-1

29 Main TOC Main Menu R 11 W4M e R 13 Ho r s I Cre e k L it H or Cree k se 35 tl e 35 T T Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 27\Projects 7-51 to 7-1\7-99 Grizzly SAGD\Final Docs\Air Quality\Fig Hour CO Concentrations.mxd) 27/1/ :59:26 PM Maximum = 447 µg/m 3 Legend Fort McMurray Study Area Fencline High : 575 Existing Pipeline Project Footprint Road (Unimproved) Study Area Topography (masl) Cutline Existing Powerline Edmonton Low : 475 Concentration Isopleth Calgary Kilometres PROJECT: Grizzly Oil Sands TITLE: Predicted Maximum 8-hour Average CO Concentrations (µg/m3) DRAWN: SL CHECKED: YW DATE: Jan 27/1 PROJECT: 7-99 FIGURE: 3.4-2