Air Quality Assessment of the Pengrowth Lindbergh SAGD Project

Transcription

1 Air Quality Assessment of the Pengrowth Lindbergh SAGD Project Prepared for: Pengrowth Energy Corporation Prepared by: Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. Suite 217, th Street NW Calgary, Alberta T2N 2A4 December 2011 File Suite 217, Street N.W. Calgary, AB Canada T2N 2A4 Tel: Fax: /

2 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project Executive Summary Pengrowth Energy Corporation (Pengrowth) is proposing to develop a 12,500 barrel (1,987 m 3 ) per day (bpd) Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) Project on their Lindbergh lease (Oil Sands Leases , A033 and ). The Lindbergh SAGD Project is located approximately 22 km southeast of Bonnyville and approximately 19 km east along Highway 4 from the Town of Elk Point, in the County of St. Paul. Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. (MEMS) was retained to provide an air quality assessment of typical facility operations of NO x, SO 2, CO and PM 2.5 emissions. The modelling assessment was done in accordance with Alberta Environment and Water s (AEW) requirements for EPEA Amendment applications and follows the most recent AEW modelling guidance (AEW, 2009). 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), oxides of nitrogen (NO x ), and particulate matter less than 2.5 m in diameter (PM 2.5 ). These contaminants may be harmful to human health at sufficiently high ambient ground-level concentrations and as such, should not exceed Alberta ambient air quality objectives (AAAQO). The results of dispersion modelling showed there were no predicted exceedances for SO 2, NO x, PM 2.5 or CO for any averaging period. An upset flaring assessment was also performed and results showed no predicted exceedances of hourly SO 2 or NO 2 AAAQOs. Page i

3 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project Table of Contents Page Executive Summary... i Table of Contents... ii List of Tables... iii List of Figures... iii List of Appendices... iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION AIR QUALITY CRITERIA Ambient Air Quality Objectives Relationship Between NO x and NO EMISSION PARAMETERS Project Emissions Regional Emissions DISPERSION MODELLING APPROACH Model Parameters Meteorological Data Background Concentrations DISPERSION MODEL PREDICTIONS Sulphur Dioxide Model Predictions Nitrogen Dioxide Model Predictions PM 2.5 Model Predictions CO Model Predictions UPSET MODELLING SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS CLOSURE REFERENCES Page ii

4 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project List of Tables Page Table 2.1 Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Canada Wide Standards... 1 Table 2.2 Background Ozone (from Cold South Monitoring Station) used for NO 2 Conversion... 3 Table 3.1 Pengrowth Lindbergh Stack Emission Sources... 4 Table 3.2 CCME Emission and Performance Target Compliance for Boilers and Heaters... 5 Table 3.3 CPF Building Dimensions... Table 3.4 CPF Storage Tank Dimensions... 7 Table 3.5 Summary of Existing & Approved Regional Emissions Table 3. Summary of Planned Regional Emissions Table 4.1 Ambient Background Concentrations of Modelled Compounds... 1 Table 5.1 Summary of Predicted SO 2 Maximum Ground-Level Concentrations ( g/m 3 ) Table 5.2 Summary of NO 2 Maximum Predicted Ground-Level Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) Table 5.3 Summary of PM 2.5 Maximum Ground-Level Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) Table 5.4 Summary of CO Maximum Ground-Level Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) Table.1 Emergency Generator Parameters and Emissions Table.2 Flare Stack and Emission Parameters Table.3 Predicted 9 th Highest Hourly Concentration from Emergency Generator Operation Upset Case 1 (including Project and Regional Sources) ( g/m 3 ) Table.4 Predicted Hourly Concentration from Upset Flaring (including Project and Regional Sources) ( g/m 3 ) List of Figures Page Figure 3.1 Buildings, Structures and Tanks Considered for Downwash Effects... 8 Figure 3.2 Regional Facilities Included in Modelling Figure 4.1 Wind Rose from CALMET Model Output at the CPF, Figure 5.1 Predicted 99.9 th Percentile Hourly SO 2 Concentrations (µg/m 3 ) Figure 5.2 Predicted 2 nd Highest 24-hour SO 2 Concentrations (µg/m 3 ) Figure 5.3 Predicted Maximum Monthly SO 2 Concentrations (µg/m 3 ) Figure 5.4 Predicted Annual Average SO 2 Concentrations (µg/m 3 ) Figure 5.5 Predicted 99.9 th Percentile Hourly NO 2 Concentrations (µg/m 3 ) Figure 5. Predicted Annual Average NO 2 Concentrations (µg/m 3 ) Figure 5.7 Predicted 2 nd Highest 24-hour PM 2.5 Concentrations (µg/m 3 )... 2 Figure 5.8 Predicted 99.9 th Percentile Hourly CO Concentrations (µg/m 3 ) Figure 5.9 Predicted Maximum 8-Hour CO Concentrations (µg/m 3 ) Page iii

5 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project List of Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Modelling Parameters CCME Emission Rate Sample Calculation Page iv

6 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project 1.0 INTRODUCTION Pengrowth Energy Corporation (Pengrowth) is proposing to develop a 12,500 barrel (1,987 m 3 ) per day (bpd) Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) Project on their Lindbergh lease (Oil Sands Leases , A033 and ). The Lindbergh SAGD Project is located approximately 22 km southeast of Bonnyville and approximately 22 km east along Highway 4 from the Town of Elk Point, in the County of St. Paul. The Lindbergh leases are located within Townships 58-59, Ranges 4-5, west of the 4 th Meridian. The proposed Lindbergh SAGD Project will be located in Sections 13, 14, 23, 24, 25 and 2, Twp 58, Rge 5, west of the 4 th Meridian. Pengrowth is currently developing the 200 m 3 /d Lindbergh SAGD Pilot Project which is located in Section 13, Twp 58, Rge 5, west of the 4 th Meridian. Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. (MEMS) was retained to provide an air quality assessment of typical facility operations of NO x, SO 2, CO and PM 2.5 emissions. Building downwash effects were considered in the Lindbergh modelling. All buildings and structures within the areas of influence for downwash were included in the downwash model. All emissions from industrial facilities operating within a 40 x 40 km area centered on the Pengrowth Lindbergh facility were explicitly modelled. The modelling was executed following the latest AEW (2009) dispersion modelling guidance. The CALMET model, including 5 years ( ) of meteorological data, was used in this modelling. This report outlines the assumptions, the dispersion modelling approach, model input data, and the dispersion modelling results. 2.0 AIR QUALITY CRITERIA 2.1 Ambient Air Quality Objectives The Alberta Ambient Air Quality objectives (AAAQOs) for Project emissions are presented in Table 2.1. The objectives refer to averaging periods ranging from one hour to one year. Table 2.1 Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Canada Wide Standards Parameter SO 2 NO 2 Period Alberta Objectives (a) Canada Wide Standards (b) [µg/m 3 ] [µg/m 3 ] Annual day hour hour 450 Annual 45 1-hour 300 Page

7 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project Table 2.1 Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Canada Wide Standards Parameter CO PM 2.5 Period (a) Source: AEW (2011) (b) Source: CCME (2000) (c) 98 th percentile (d) Alberta Ambient Air Quality Guideline (AAAQG) - No air quality standard or guideline for this averaging period/parameter Alberta Objectives (a) Canada Wide Standards (b) [µg/m 3 ] [µg/m 3 ] 8-hour,000 1-hour 15, hour (c) 1-hour 80 (d) Relationship Between NO x and NO 2 Oxides of nitrogen (NO x ) are comprised of nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (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 AEW (2009) recommended Ozone Limiting Method (OLM), which has been established through the consideration of lowest observable effect level on a sensitive receptor. This method states that if the ambient ozone concentration is greater than 90% 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 10% of the predicted NO x concentration. That is: If [O 3 ] > 0.9 [NO x ], then [NO 2 ] = [NO x ] Otherwise, [NO 2 ] = [O 3 ] [NO x ] The 95 th percentile of the observed O 3 ambient concentrations from the Cold South air quality monitoring station were used in the NO 2 conversion calculations (Table 2.2). AEW requires that if the OLM method is used, NO 2 concentration results assuming total conversion of NO x to NO 2 also be presented. Page

8 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project Table 2.2 Background Ozone (from Cold South Monitoring Station) used for NO 2 Conversion Averaging Period Observed Concentration ( g/m 3 ) Data Type 1 hour 9 95 th Percentile Annual 50 Average Data Source: CASA Data Warehouse (2011) 3.0 EMISSION PARAMETERS 3.1 Project Emissions Under typical facility operation there will be emissions from four continuous sources and two intermittent sources. Continuous emissions are from three steam boilers and one co-generation unit. A utility boiler and a glycol heater are both run intermittently and/or seasonally, but are modeled conservatively as continuous sources. Modelled stack and emission parameters are presented in Table 3.1. All equipment duties were based on preliminary engineering and design. All emissions were provided by Pengrowth. SO 2 emissions were estimated from AP-42 emission factors (US EPA 1998) plus SO 2 produced through the combustion of H 2 S from the reservoir. NO x, CO and PM 2.5 emissions were estimated from AP-42 emission factors. NOx and CO emissions for the boilers and heaters were designed to meet the CCME guidelines for Commercial/Industrial Boilers and Heaters (CCME, 1998), as presented in Table 3.2. A sample emission intensity calculation is presented in Appendix B. A natural gas-fired emergency generator unit will provide back-up power, as required. In addition, two upset flaring scenarios were evaluated. Emissions and results from these three upset cases are presented in Section. The generation of downwash by buildings located within the facility compound was considered. Figure 3.1 shows the Pengrowth Lindbergh property line, buildings and structures considered for downwash generation, and all stack emission sources modelled. Downwash was considered for Project emissions only. Tables 3.3 and 3.4 list the buildings and tanks, respectively, considered in the model and their respective dimensions. Page

9 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project Table 3.1 Pengrowth Lindbergh Stack Emission Sources Source Description Input Power Rating (kw) UTM Coordinates Stack Stack Exit Exit Emissions (t/d) (m) Elevation Height Diameter Velocity Temp. (m ASL) Easting Northing (m) (m) (m/s) (K) SO 2 NO x CO PM 2.5 Steam Boiler Steam Boiler Steam Boiler Utility Boiler (a) Co-Generation Unit Glycol Heater (a) TOTAL (c) (a) Intermittent or seasonal source, modeled continuously for conservatism (b) Occasional source, modeled as an upset case. (c) Total is rounded for presentation. Page

10 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project Table 3.2 CCME Emission and Performance Target Compliance for Boilers and Heaters Source Energy Input Modelled NO x Emissions Modelled CO Emissions CCME NO x Emission Limit (b) CCME CO Emission Limit(b) kw t/d g/gj i t/d g/gj i g/gj i g/gj i Steam Boiler Steam Boiler Steam Boiler Utility Boiler (a) Glycol Heater (a) (a) These are intermittent sources; therefore, the total emissions will be lower (b) CCME (1998) Page

11 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project Table 3.3 CPF Building Dimensions Tag Building Name Width (m) Length (m) Peak Height (m) 001 Tank Building MCC Building A Cogen Building Steam Generator Building Fuel Gas Building Inlet Building FWKO Building Treater Building Evaporator Building Source Water Building Glycol Building Flare KO Building MCC Building B Office Building Warehouse Emergency Generator Page

12 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project Table 3.4 CPF Storage Tank Dimensions Tag Tank Diameter (m) Height (m) 017 Skim Tank De-Oiled Water Tank IGF Feed Tank Desand Tank Desand Tank Oil Production Tank Sales Oil Tank Off Spec. Bitumen Tank Diluent Tank Slop Tank Floor Drain Tank Source Water Tank Boiler Feedwater Tank Page

13 Flare KO Building!! MCC B 031 Flare hg 030 Glycol Heater hg hg ! hg Warehouse! Evaporator Building!! Source Water Building Glycol Building! Aerial Coolers !! !!! hghg! ! Office Facility Fenceline = 20m Receptor Spacing! ! Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 2011\AP to \ Pengrowth EPEA\Final Docs\AQ\Fig 3.1 Buildings, Structures, Tanks.mxd) 11/15/ :48:5 PM hg!!! hg! hghghg!!! ! Enlarged Area Emergency Generator hg MCC! !! 025 hg Cogenerator & Co-Gen Building ! hg hg hg 018 Tank Building Steam Boilers Steam Generation Building PROJECT: TITLE: Fuel Gas!! Inlet Building Lindbergh SAGD Project Buildings, Structures and Tanks Considered for Downwash Effects! FWKO Building! Treater DRAWN: SL CHECKED: EL DATE: Nov 15/11 PROJECT: FIGURE:

14 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project 3.2 Regional Emissions All facilities within a 40 x 40 km area surrounding the Pengrowth Lindbergh facility were included in the cumulative effects assessment dispersion modelling. This included a total of nine existing or approved facilities with emissions mainly from compressor engines. One proposed facility was also considered for completeness of this assessment. Table 3.5 lists the total emission rates of SO 2, NO x, CO, and PM 2.5 from stack sources and Figure 3.2 shows the regional facilities included in dispersion modelling. Below is a summary of how regional emissions were calculated or obtained: Emissions for AltaGas Lindbergh, AltaGas Muriel, Bonavista Petroleum Reita and the Canadian Salt Company were obtained from the Osum Taiga EIA (Osum, 2009). Emissions for CNRL Frog for one compressor, the water heater and the dehydrator reboiler were obtained from the Osum EIA (Osum, 2009) based upon approval limits. The remaining compressor engine (Waukesha F18GL) was not included in the Osum EIA so emissions were based upon information obtained in the Frog EPEA approval ( ). NO x emissions were based upon the approval limit while CO emissions were obtained from the Waukesha data sheet based upon full load operation at 1800 rpm (Waukesha, 2008). PM 2.5 emissions were estimated from U.S. EPA AP 42 emission factors for 4 stroke lean-burn natural gas fired internal combustion engines (AP 42 Table 3.2-2) (U.S. EPA, 2011) and assuming a 35% engine efficiency. Emissions for CNRL Kehewin were obtained from Osum (2009) for the compressor engine. The Kehewin code of practice document lists a second source of emissions as a dehydrator reboiler. The NO x limit in the code of practice was used and the CO and PM 2.5 emissions were estimated from US EPA AP42 emission factors for small boilers (Tables and 1.4-2, US EPA 2011). NO x emissions and stack parameters for AltaGas Muriel South and AltaGas Moose Mountain were taken from the Stantec modelling report (Stantec, 2010). As CO and PM 2.5 emissions were not readily available elsewhere, these emissions were scaled to emissions from AltaGas Moonshine based upon respective NO x emissions. Emissions for the Pengrowth Lindbergh SAGD Pilot were obtained from the Project Update (Pengrowth 2010). Emissions for Koch Exploration Canada, Ltd. Gemini Oilsands Facility were obtained from Osum (2009). This facility occurs on the edge of the 40x40 km project domain and is included for completeness. Emissions for this planned project are presented in Table 3.. Page

15 Main Menu Search I Main TOC Beaverdam Koch Gemini Project (Proposed) Back Reita Bonavista Petroleum-Reita 7-2 Holyoke Altagas Muriel South Hoselaw Kehewin I.R CNRL Kehewin Muriel T59 U V St. Pierre Altagas Lindbergh Altagas Moose Mountain Jerome Michel Altagas Moonshine Cushing Lindbergh SAGD CPF Location U V Kehiwin Sinking T58 Pengrowth Lindbergh Pilot CNRL Frog k Gadois ree ac le Frog osw d id Mitchell T57 Mo Moo seh ills Cre ek Lac Dufresne Unipouheos I.R. 121 Canadian Salt Company Simmo r th No Lindbergh wan Rive Saskat c he r Borden R5 R Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 2011\AP to \ Pengrowth EPEA\Final Docs\AQ\Fig 3.2 Regional Facilities.mxd) 11/15/ :52:49 AM Moosehills Elk Point M k Whitney R3 W4M R ree gc Fro Whitney s Prov. Park k Legend Facility Location Study Area Fort McMurray! ( Topography (masl) High : Project Footprint Indian Reservation 4 8 Kilometres Low : 550 Provincial Park Study Area Edmonton PROJECT: Lindbergh SAGD Project Calgary TITLE: Regional Facilities Included in Modelling REF: Geobase, DRAWN: SL CHECKED: EL DATE: Nov 15/11 PROJECT: FIGURE: ³ ² 41 ee Cr Dion

16 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project Table 3.5 Summary of Existing & Approved Regional Emissions Facility Emission Source UTM E (m) UTM N (m) Elevation (m ASL) Stack Height (m) Stack Diameter (m) Exit Velocity (m/s) Exit Temp (K) SO 2 (t/d) NO X (t/d) CO (t/d) PM 2.5 (t/d) AltaGas Services Inc. Lindbergh Engine E-04 Moose Mountain E Moonshine Engine Muriel South Bonavista Petroleum Reita 07-2 Engine Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Frog Engine E E-03 Frog Engine E E E-04 Frog Heater E-04 2.E Frog Boiler E E Kehewin Compressor E E-3 Kehewin Dehydrator E E-3 The Canadian Salt Company Ltd. Lindbergh Facility Boiler E E E-03 Pengrowth Energy Corporation Lindbergh Pilot Facility Generator E-02.7E-02.0E-03 Lindbergh Pilot Facility Generator E-02.7E-02.0E-03 Lindbergh Pilot Facility Boiler E E E-03 Lindbergh Pilot Facility Boiler E E E-03 Lindbergh Pilot Facility Flare E Lindbergh Pilot Facility Genset (a) E E E-04 Total Emissions for Existing & Approved Regional Projects (b) (a) Intermittent source used for upset conditions; not modelled (b) Numbers are rounded for presentation purposes Page

17 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project Table 3. Summary of Planned Regional Emissions Facility Emission Source UTM E (m) UTM N (m) Elevatio n (m ASL) Stack Height (m) Stack Diameter (m) Exit Velocity (m/s) Exit Temp (K) SO 2 (t/d) NO X (t/d) CO (t/d) PM 2.5 (t/d) Koch Exploration Canada, L.P. (KFC LP) Gemini Oil Sands Projects Stage 1 Heater E Gemini Oil Sands Projects Stage 1 Generator E E E Gemini Oil Sands Projects Stage 1 Boiler E E E E-03 Gemini Oil Sands Projects Stage 1 Flare E E E Gemini Oil Sands Projects Stage 2 Boiler E E-01 5.E E-02 Gemini Oil Sands Projects Stage 2 Boiler E E-01 5.E E-02 Gemini Oil Sands Projects Stage 2 Heater E E-02.0E-04 Gemini Oil Sands Projects Stage 2 Boiler E E-02.0E-04 Gemini Oil Sands Projects Stage 2 Flare E-02 5.E Total Emissions for Planned Regional Projects (a) (a) Numbers are rounded for presentation purposes. Page

18 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project 4.0 DISPERSION MODELLING APPROACH 4.1 Model Parameters CALMET and CALPUFF models were used for the air quality assessment, as recommended by AEW for refined regulatory air quality assessments (AEW, 2009). CALPUFF is an advanced non-steady-state meteorological and air quality modelling system consisting of three components: CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST. CALMET is a diagnostic three-dimensional meteorological model, CALPUFF is an air quality dispersion model and CALPOST is a post-processing package. The latest CALPUFF/CALMET version was selected for modelling (Version ). The CALPUFF dispersion model was run to ensure that the receptor grids described below were considered in this assessment as per the latest AEW guidelines (AEW, 2009). The receptor grid origin (UTM Coordinate m east, UTM Coordinate m north) was near Steam Boiler 1. The receptor grid was set according to the following spacing: Grid A = 30 x 30 km, 1000 m spacing, centered on the grid origin; Grid B = 15 x 15 km, 500 m spacing, centered on the grid origin; Grid C = x km, 250 m spacing, centered on the grid origin; Grid D = 1.5 x 1.5 km, 50 m spacing, centered on the grid origin; Grid E = 1 x 1 km, 20 m spacing, centered on the grid origin; and Grid F = 20 m spacing along the property fence line. The southwestern corner of the computational domain (study area) was at UTM km E and km N. The northeastern corner was at km E, km N. The study area had a north-south extent of 30 km and an east-west extent of 30 km. 4.2 Meteorological Data The CALMET modelling domain was 40 km west to east and 40 km north to south, larger than the computation domain. The UTM coordinates (NAD 83, Zone 12) for the modelling domain ranged from km to km E, and 5,95 km to,005 km N. Horizontal grid cells 1 km X 1 km were adopted for the modelling. Five years (2002 to 200) of the MM5 regional meteorological dataset provided by AEW were used as the meteorological data source. No surface stations are located within the modelling domain and as such, no surface observations were included directly in the model. Terrain data were obtained from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM -3 Arc Second - 90 m) website. The terrain heights for meteorological grid points, receptors, and sources were processed through the TERREL CALMET pre-processor program. Page

19 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project Figure 4.1 shows a wind rose with the annual frequency of hourly-averaged wind speeds versus wind direction at the CPF. Winds originating from the west and west south-west directions were most frequently observed at this location. 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 included land use category, terrain elevation, roughness length, albedo, Bowen ratio, surface heat flux parameter, anthropogenic heat flux and leaf area index (LAI). Details of all CALMET modelling parameters are presented in Appendix A. Page

20 NORTH 15% 12% 9% % WEST 3% EAST Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 2011\AP to \ Pengrowth EPEA\Final Docs\AQ\Fig 4.1 Wind Rose.mxd) 11/15/ :09:11 AM PROJECT: TITLE: SOUTH Wind Rose from CALMET Model Output at CPF, Lindbergh SAGD Project DRAWN: SL CHECKED: EL DATE: WIND SPEED (m/s) Nov 15/11 PROJECT: >= Calms: 1.78% FIGURE: 4.1

21 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project 4.3 Background Concentrations According to guidance (AEW, 2009), appropriate contaminant concentrations due to natural sources, and unidentified, possibly distant sources are to be used as background, and added to predicted values from the facility and nearby sources. For this project, background concentrations of SO 2, NO x, and PM 2.5 were obtained from the Cold South monitoring station, while the CO background concentration was obtained from the AEW MAML monitoring program in the land area for the period of 2003/2004 (AEW, 2005). According to AEW (2009), for refined assessments, the 90 th percentile from the cumulative frequency distribution should be added as background concentration to the hourly and 24-h predictions and the 50 th percentile or mean should be added to the annual average. Five years of monitoring data were used for SO 2 and NO x background ( inclusive) while the CO background concentration is based upon a single measurement by the mobile monitoring truck. Continuous PM 2.5 monitoring data were obtained for the period of January 200 April 2010 (a full five years of monitoring data was unavailable since measurements only started in 200 at this station). Background concentrations that were added to predictions are listed in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Ambient Background Concentrations of Modelled Compounds Compounds Hourly (µg/m 3 ) 8-Hour (µg/m 3 ) 24-Hour (µg/m 3 ) Monthly (µg/m 3 ) Annual (µg/m 3 ) Data Source SO NO x PM CO Cold South monitoring station Cold South monitoring station Cold South monitoring station AEW MAML Report Petrovera Frog - Background concentrations not reported as there are no AAAQO for the averaging period, and therefore data was not assessed for the period. Data Source: CASA Data Warehouse (2011) 5.0 DISPERSION MODEL PREDICTIONS Dispersion model predictions for NO 2, SO 2, PM 2.5, and CO are reported below. For each compound, two predicted ground-level concentrations are reported: 1. Project Only: The maximum concentration predicted with the Pengrowth Lindbergh facility operating alone, including the ambient background concentration. 2. Project + Regional: The maximum concentration predicted when existing regional sources are considered in addition to the Project and ambient background concentration. Both existing Page

22 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project and planned regional sources are included. The planned regional source is located at the edge of the project-inclusion area and is not a large source of emissions. 5.1 Sulphur Dioxide Model Predictions The CALPUFF modelling predictions for SO 2 from the normal operation of the Project are listed in Table 5.1. The results show that all SO 2 predictions at the Project property boundary line, as well as at the maximum points of impingement (MPOI), are below the AAAQO. All predictions presented in this section include background concentrations, as presented in Table 4.1. SO 2 modelling results are also presented in the form of SO 2 concentration contours (isopleths) in Figures 5.1 to 5.4, which show for the 9 th highest hourly, 2 nd highest daily, maximum monthly and annual predicted concentrations. The MPOI for the hourly, daily and monthly averaging periods is located northwest of the CPF. The annual MPOI occurs southeast of the CPF. As the steam boilers are the primary emitters of SO 2 regionally, both scenarios yield the same results. Table 5.1 Summary of Predicted SO 2 Maximum Ground-Level Concentrations ( g/m 3 ) Averaging Period Scenario MPOI CPF Boundary AAAQO (a) 99.9 th Percentile 1-hour 2 nd Highest 24-hour average Maximum 30-day Average Maximum Annual Average (a) AEW 2011 Project Only Project + Regional Project Only Project + Regional Project Only Project + Regional Project Only Project + Regional Page

23 Back Main Menu Search Main TOC I T Muriel Reita 4 Holyoke Kehewin I.R T59 U V Sinking 10 U V Dion 5 ee k Gadois e dl id ee k Puskiakiwenin I.R. 122 os wa Cr M Cr T57 Mo Moosehills Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 2011\AP to \ Pengrowth EPEA\Final Docs\AQ\Fig 5.1 Hourly SO2.mxd) 11/15/ :27:53 PM 15 Maximum = 33 µg/m3 T58 20 Unipouheos I.R. 121 Moo seh ills C R R5 R4 R3 W4M Mitchell ree k Legend Facility Location High : 800 CPF Fenceline Fort McMurray! ( Low : 550 Indian Reservation Concentration Isopleth 0 Study Area Label Topography (masl) Study Area Facility Altagas Lindbergh Altagas Moose Mountain Altagas Muriel South Bonavista Petroleum-Reita 7-2 CNRL Frog Pengrowth Lindbergh Pilot Kilometres Edmonton PROJECT: Lindbergh SAGD Project Calgary TITLE: REF: Geobase, Cushing Michel Jerome St. Pierre DRAWN: Predicted 9th Highest Hourly SO2 Concentrations (µg/m3) SL CHECKED: EL DATE: Nov 15/11 PROJECT: FIGURE: 5.1

24 Back Main Menu Search Main TOC I T Muriel Reita 4 Holyoke Kehewin I.R T59 U V 57 5 Jerome St. Pierre Maximum = 15 µg/m Sinking Cushing Michel U V T ee k Gadois e dl id ee k Puskiakiwenin I.R. 122 os wa Cr M Cr T57 Mo Moosehills Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 2011\AP to \ Pengrowth EPEA\Final Docs\AQ\Fig 5.2 Daily SO2.mxd) 11/15/ :14:58 PM Dion Unipouheos I.R. 121 Moo seh ills C R R5 R4 R3 W4M Mitchell ree k Legend Facility Location Label Topography (masl) Study Area High : 800 CPF Fenceline Fort McMurray! ( Low : 550 Indian Reservation Concentration Isopleth 0 Study Area Facility Altagas Lindbergh Altagas Moose Mountain Altagas Muriel South Bonavista Petroleum-Reita 7-2 CNRL Frog Pengrowth Lindbergh Pilot Kilometres Edmonton PROJECT: Lindbergh SAGD Project Calgary TITLE: REF: Geobase, DRAWN: Predicted 2nd Highest Daily SO2 Concentrations (µg/m3) SL CHECKED: EL DATE: Nov 15/11 PROJECT: FIGURE: 5.2

25 Back Main Menu Search Main TOC I T Muriel Reita 4 Holyoke Kehewin I.R T59 U V Sinking Maximum = 3.8 µg/m Jerome St. Pierre Cushing Michel U V T os wa e dl id ee k Puskiakiwenin I.R. 122 T57 Mo Moosehills M Cr Cr ee k Gadois 1.5 Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 2011\AP to \ Pengrowth EPEA\Final Docs\AQ\Fig 5.3 Monthly SO2.mxd) 11/15/ :22:50 PM Dion Unipouheos I.R. 121 Moo seh ills C R R5 R4 R3 W4M Mitchell ree k Legend Facility Location Label Topography (masl) Study Area High : 800 CPF Fenceline Fort McMurray! ( Low : 550 Indian Reservation Concentration Isopleth 0 Study Area Facility Altagas Lindbergh Altagas Moose Mountain Altagas Muriel South Bonavista Petroleum-Reita 7-2 CNRL Frog Pengrowth Lindbergh Pilot Kilometres Edmonton PROJECT: Lindbergh SAGD Project Calgary TITLE: REF: Geobase, DRAWN: Predicted Maximum Monthly SO2 Concentrations (µg/m3) SL CHECKED: EL DATE: Nov 15/11 PROJECT: FIGURE: 5.3

26 Back Main Menu Search Main TOC I T Muriel Reita 4 Holyoke Kehewin I.R T59 U V Cushing 0.8 Michel Maximum = 1.2 µg/m3 Jerome St. Pierre Sinking T Dion 5 ee k Gadois e dl id ee k Puskiakiwenin I.R. 122 os wa Cr M Cr T57 Mo Moosehills Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 2011\AP to \ Pengrowth EPEA\Final Docs\AQ\Fig 5.4 Annual SO2.mxd) 11/15/ :30:39 PM U V Unipouheos I.R. 121 Moo seh ills C R R5 R4 R3 W4M Mitchell ree k Legend Facility Location High : 800 CPF Fenceline Low : 550 Indian Reservation Concentration Isopleth 0 Study Area Label Topography (masl) Study Area Fort McMurray! ( Facility Altagas Lindbergh Altagas Moose Mountain Altagas Muriel South Bonavista Petroleum-Reita 7-2 CNRL Frog Pengrowth Lindbergh Pilot Kilometres Edmonton PROJECT: Lindbergh SAGD Project Calgary TITLE: REF: Geobase, DRAWN: Predicted Annual SO2 Concentrations (µg/m3) SL CHECKED: EL DATE: Nov 15/11 PROJECT: FIGURE: 5.4

27 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project 5.2 Nitrogen Dioxide Model Predictions The CALPUFF modelling predictions for NO 2 are listed in Table 5.2 and can also be seen in Figures 5.5 to 5., which show the contours of maximum NO 2 concentration for the Project + Regional scenario for the hourly 99.9 th percentile, 2 nd highest 24-hour average, and maximum annual average concentrations, respectively. All predictions presented in this section include background concentrations, as presented in Table 4.1. NO 2 concentration predictions using both the OLM and the Total Conversion Method are presented. There are no exceedances of the AQ objectives for any averaging period when the OLM is used. The hourly MPOI occurs to the NE of the AltaGas Lindbergh facility. The annual maximum occurs near CNRL Frog Facility. Table 5.2 Summary of NO 2 Maximum Predicted Ground-Level Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) Averaging Period Scenario MPOI CPF Boundary AAAQO (a) Total Conversion Method 99.9 th Percentile 1-hour Maximum Annual Average Project Only Project + Regional Project Only.5.0 Project + Regional Ozone Limiting Method 99.9 th Percentile 1-hour Maximum Annual Average (a) AEW 2011 Project Only Project + Regional Project Only.5.0 Project + Regional Page

28 Back Main Menu Search Main TOC I T Muriel Reita 4 Holyoke 80 U V Jerome St. Pierre Cushing Michel U V T Dion Maximum = 158 µg/m3 5 ee k Gadois e dl id ee k Puskiakiwenin I.R. 122 os wa Cr M Cr T57 Mo Moosehills Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 2011\AP to \ Pengrowth EPEA\Final Docs\AQ\Fig 5.5 Hourly NO2.mxd) 11/15/ :13:53 PM T59 80 Unipouheos I.R. 121 Moo seh ills C R R5 R4 R3 W4M Mitchell ree k Legend Facility Location High : 800 CPF Fenceline Low : 550 Indian Reservation Concentration Isopleth 0 Study Area Label Topography (masl) Study Area Fort McMurray! ( Facility Altagas Lindbergh Altagas Moose Mountain Altagas Muriel South Bonavista Petroleum-Reita 7-2 CNRL Frog Pengrowth Lindbergh Pilot Kilometres Edmonton PROJECT: Lindbergh SAGD Project Calgary TITLE: REF: Geobase, Kehewin I.R Sinking DRAWN: Predicted 9th Highest Hourly NO2 Concentrations (µg/m3) SL CHECKED: EL DATE: Nov 15/11 PROJECT: FIGURE: 5.5

29 Back Main Menu Search Main TOC I T Muriel Reita Kehewin I.R Holyoke 3 T U V Sinking Jerome Michel Cushing St. Pierre U V T ee k Gadois os wa Cr M e dl id Cr ee k Puskiakiwenin I.R. 122 T Maximum = 17 µg/m3 Mo Moosehills Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 2011\AP to \ Pengrowth EPEA\Final Docs\AQ\Fig 5. Annual NO2.mxd) 11/15/ :15:22 PM Dion Unipouheos I.R. 121 Moo seh ills C R R5 R4 R3 W4M Mitchell ree k Legend Facility Location Label Topography (masl) Study Area High : 800 CPF Fenceline Fort McMurray! ( Low : 550 Indian Reservation Concentration Isopleth 0 Study Area Facility Altagas Lindbergh Altagas Moose Mountain Altagas Muriel South Bonavista Petroleum-Reita 7-2 CNRL Frog Pengrowth Lindbergh Pilot Kilometres Edmonton PROJECT: Lindbergh SAGD Project Calgary TITLE: REF: Geobase, DRAWN: Predicted Annual NO2 Concentrations (µg/m3) SL CHECKED: EL DATE: Nov 15/11 PROJECT: FIGURE: 5.

30 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project 5.3 PM 2.5 Model Predictions The CALPUFF modelling predictions for PM 2.5 are listed in Table 5.3, and the contours for the predicted 2 nd highest daily concentrations are shown in Figure 5.7. The contours represent the Project + Regional scenario. All predictions presented in this section include background concentrations, as presented in Table 4.1. PM 2.5 MPOIs are expected to occur of the west of the Lindbergh Pilot Facility. Table 5.3 Summary of PM 2.5 Maximum Ground-Level Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) Averaging Period Scenario MPOI CPF Boundary AAAQO (a) 99.9 th Percentile 1h Average 2 nd Highest 24-hour Average Project Only Project + Regional 55 2 Project Only Project + Regional (b) 30 (a) AEW 2011 (b) Guideline not an objective; not to be used to assess compliance. Page

31 Back Main Menu Search Main TOC I T Muriel Reita 4 Holyoke Kehewin I.R T59 U V Sinking Jerome St. Pierre Cushing Michel 10 U V T ee k Gadois e dl id ee k 9 Puskiakiwenin I.R. 122 os wa Cr M Cr T57 Mo Moosehills Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 2011\AP to \ Pengrowth EPEA\Final Docs\AQ\Fig 5.7 Daily PM25.mxd) 11/15/ :25:10 PM 10 Dion Maximum = 23 µg/m3 Unipouheos I.R. 121 Moo seh ills C R R5 R4 R3 W4M Mitchell ree k Legend Facility Location Label Topography (masl) Study Area High : 800 CPF Fenceline Fort McMurray! ( Low : 550 Indian Reservation Concentration Isopleth 0 Study Area Facility Altagas Lindbergh Altagas Moose Mountain Altagas Muriel South Bonavista Petroleum-Reita 7-2 CNRL Frog Pengrowth Lindbergh Pilot Kilometres Edmonton PROJECT: Lindbergh SAGD Project Calgary TITLE: REF: Geobase, DRAWN: Predicted 2nd Highest Daily PM2.5 Concentrations (µg/m3) SL CHECKED: EL DATE: Nov 15/11 PROJECT: FIGURE: 5.7

32 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project 5.4 CO Model Predictions The CALPUFF modelling predictions for CO are listed in Table 5.4. All predictions presented in this section include background concentrations, as presented in Table 4.1. No exceedances of the AAAQO are predicted. Figures 5.8 and 5.9 show the contours of predicted ground-level CO concentrations for hourly 99.9 th percentile and maximum 8-hour averaging period, respectively. The MPOI occurs east of the Altagas Lindbergh facility, NW of the Pengrowth SAGD pilot and south of the Project, for both the 8-hour and hourly averaging periods. Table 5.4 Summary of CO Maximum Ground-Level Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) Averaging Period Scenario MPOI CPF Boundary AAAQO (a) 99.9 th Percentile 1h-Average Maximum 8-hour Average (a) AEW 2011 Project Only Project + Regional Project Only Project + Regional ,000,000 Page

33 Back Main Menu Search Main TOC I T0 Sinking Muriel Reita 4 Holyoke Kehewin I.R T U V Jerome St. Pierre 105 U V 11 0 T Cushing Michel k Puskiakiwenin I.R. 122 T57 Mo Moosehills e dl id ee os wa Cr M Cr Gadois ee k Maximum = 1187 µg/m Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 2011\AP to \ Pengrowth EPEA\Final Docs\AQ\Fig 5.8 Hourly CO.mxd) 11/15/ :30:58 PM 0 Dion Unipouheos I.R. 121 Moo seh ills C R R5 R4 R3 W4M Mitchell ree k Legend Facility Location Label Topography (masl) Study Area High : 800 CPF Fenceline Fort McMurray! ( Low : 550 Indian Reservation Concentration Isopleth 0 Study Area Facility Altagas Lindbergh Altagas Moose Mountain Altagas Muriel South Bonavista Petroleum-Reita 7-2 CNRL Frog Pengrowth Lindbergh Pilot Kilometres Edmonton PROJECT: Lindbergh SAGD Project Calgary TITLE: REF: Geobase, DRAWN: Predicted 9th Highest Hourly CO Concentrations (µg/m3) SL CHECKED: EL DATE: Nov 15/11 PROJECT: FIGURE: 5.8

34 Back Main Menu Search Main TOC I T Sinking Muriel Reita Holyoke T59 U V Jerome Cushing Michel T58 ee k Gadois e dl id 10 ee k Puskiakiwenin I.R. 122 os wa Cr M Cr T57 Mo Moosehills Dion 0 Maximum = 113 µg/m3 Map Document: (K:\Active Projects 2011\AP to \ Pengrowth EPEA\Final Docs\AQ\Fig Hour CO.mxd) 11/15/ :40:29 PM U V Unipouheos I.R. 121 Moo seh ills C R R5 R4 R3 W4M Mitchell ree k Legend Facility Location High : 800 CPF Fenceline Low : 550 Indian Reservation Concentration Isopleth 0 Study Area Label Topography (masl) Study Area Fort McMurray! ( Facility Altagas Lindbergh Altagas Moose Mountain Altagas Muriel South Bonavista Petroleum-Reita 7-2 CNRL Frog Pengrowth Lindbergh Pilot Kilometres Edmonton PROJECT: Lindbergh SAGD Project Calgary TITLE: REF: Geobase, St. Pierre Kehewin I.R. 123 DRAWN: Predicted Maximum 8-Hour Average CO Concentrations (µg/m3) SL CHECKED: EL DATE: Nov 15/11 PROJECT: FIGURE: 5.9

35 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project.0 UPSET MODELLING According to AEW (2009), the impact due to emergency and upset conditions must be considered in environmental assessments for air quality. Three upset scenarios were considered: 1. Loss of power requiring the use of an emergency generator. The estimated run time for the emergency generator is 4 outages per year, for 3 hours in duration, plus a monthly test of approximately 5 hours duration. Emission parameters are listed in Table Loss of boilers of boilers and all produced gas going to flare. This event is estimated to occur 8 times per year, with a maximum duration of 4 hours each. 3. Regulator failure on let-down station for pipeline fuel gas to boilers. This is estimated to occur once per year, with an anticipated duration of 15 minutes. The emission details and modelling parameters for the two flaring upsets (Upset Case 2 and Upset Case 3) are presented in Table.2. The flare stack and emission parameters are derived from engineering estimates with pseudo stack parameters calculated using the ERCB Flare Spreadsheet (ERCB, 2010). Table.1 Emergency Generator Parameters and Emissions Parameter Upset Case 1 UTM Coordinates Easting (m) UTM Coordinates Northing (m) Elevation (m ASL) 98 Stack Height (m) 4.0 Stack Diameter (m) Exit Velocity (m/s) 3.1 Exit Temperature (K) 779 SO 2 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.19 NO x Emission Rate (g/s) 2.9 CO Emission Rate (g/s) 0.1 PM 2.5 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.20 Page

36 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project Table.2 Flare Stack and Emission Parameters Parameter Upset Case 2 Upset Case 3 UTM Coordinates Easting (m) UTM Coordinates Northing (m) Elevation (m ASL) Flare Height (m) Exit Diameter (m) Pseudo Release Height (m) Pseudo Exit Velocity (m/s) Pseudo Diameter (m) Exit Temperature (K) SO 2 Emission Rate (g/s) NO x Emission Rate (g/s) Max. Flaring Duration (min) Lower Heating Value (MJ/m 3 ) Flow Rate (10 3 m 3 15 o C and kpa) Mole Fraction: H 2 O 3.38E E-05 H He N E E-03 CO 2 2.2E E-03 H 2 S 7.11E E+00 CH E E-01 C 2 H 2.20E E-04 C 3 H E E-04 i-c 4 H E E-04 n-c 4 H E E-04 i-c 5 H E n-c 5 H E n-c H E C E CO NH Total The results of Upset Case 1 are presented in Table.3 and indicate that no exceedances of SO 2, NO 2, CO or PM 2.5 are introduced by the operation of the emergency generator. The presented Page

37 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project predictions include all Project sources, regional sources and background concentrations, as well upset emissions. Results from upset flaring scenarios are presented in Table.4. The predicted SO 2 hourly concentration for Upset Case 2 is 29 g/m 3. This value is lower than the predicted concentration for normal operations, as presented in Section 5.1. The Project steam boilers are the primary source of SO 2 emissions in the region. This flaring scenario occurs when there is a loss of the boilers, and the gas is diverted to the flare. The higher combustion temperature results in a more complete destruction of the H 2 S and the higher stack provides better dispersion. The predicted hourly NO 2 concentration for Upset Case 3 is 158 g/m 3, which is below the AAAQO of 300 g/m 3. Table.3 Predicted 9 th Highest Hourly Concentration from Emergency Generator Operation Upset Case 1 (including Project and Regional Sources) ( g/m 3 ) Species Predicted Concentration AAAQO (a) SO NO CO ,000 PM (b) (a) AEW 2011 (b) Guideline, not objective. Table.4 Predicted Hourly Concentration from Upset Flaring (including Project and Regional Sources) ( g/m 3 ) Species Case 2 Boiler Loss Case 3 Regulator Let-Down AAAQO (a) SO (b) 450 NO 2 - (b) (a) AEW 2011 (b) Emission rate low (see Table.3) so modelling results are not presented. Flaring contribution to regional predictions not-detectable. Page

38 Air Quality Assessment of the Lindbergh SAGD Project 7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The CALMET meteorological model and the CALPUFF dispersion models were used to assess the dispersion of SO 2, NO x, PM 2.5, and CO emissions associated with the expected operation of the Lindbergh SAGD facility using maximum emission rates. Sources of these emissions from all industrial facilities within a 40 x 40 km area centered on the Lindbergh site were included in the modelling. The facility has a total of six stacks with continuous emissions. The results of dispersion modelling showed there were no predicted exceedances for SO 2, NO 2, PM 2.5 or CO for any averaging period. The use of an emergency upset generator is not expected to introduce any exceedances of hourly AAAQOs for (SO 2, NO 2, CO or PM 2.5 ). Upset flaring will not introduce any exceedances of hourly SO 2 or NO 2 AAAQOs. Thus, the air quality during operation of the Lindbergh SAGD facility in normal and upset conditions is expected to be acceptable. 8.0 CLOSURE This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Pengrowth Energy Corporation, its affiliates and authorized users for specific application to this Project. The environmental investigation was conducted in accordance with the proposed work scope prepared for this site, and generally accepted assessment practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Respectfully submitted, Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. Prepared by: Reviewed by: Elizabeth Logan, M.A.Sc., E.I.T. Air Quality Engineer Randy Rudolph, M.Sc. Principal Page