PART 2C – UPDATES TO ROUND 1 SIRS - alberta.ca · JACOS Hangingstone Expansion Project...

JACOS Hangingstone Expansion Project Description Update and Responses to Second Supplemental Information Request Part 2C – Updates to Round 1 SIRS September 2011

PART 2C – UPDATES TO ROUND 1 SIRS

JACOS Hangingstone Expansion Project Description Update and Responses to Second Supplemental Information Request Part 2C – Updates to Round 1 SIRs Table of Contents September 2011

i

Table of Contents

ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION BOARD ................................................................................... 1

A. General ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Question 2 ................................................................................................................................. 1

B. Geology .................................................................................................................................... 3 Question 5 ................................................................................................................................. 3 Question 7 ................................................................................................................................. 7

E. Community and Socio-Economic .......................................................................................... 9 Question 27 ............................................................................................................................... 9

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................................... 11

2. General ................................................................................................................................... 11

2.2. Waste Management ...................................................................................................... 11 Question 7 ............................................................................................................................... 11 Question 8 ............................................................................................................................... 12

3. Air ............................................................................................................................................ 12

3.1. Emissions Management ................................................................................................. 12 Question 17 ............................................................................................................................. 12

3.2. Dispersion Modeling ...................................................................................................... 16 Question 22 ............................................................................................................................. 16 Question 24 ............................................................................................................................. 18 Question 25 ............................................................................................................................. 22 Question 26 ............................................................................................................................. 24 Question 27 ............................................................................................................................. 35

3.3. Air Quality Assessment ................................................................................................... 36 Question 47 ............................................................................................................................. 36

4. Water ....................................................................................................................................... 37

4.1. Water Management ...................................................................................................... 37 Question 54 ............................................................................................................................. 37

4.5. Aquatics ........................................................................................................................ 38 Question 94 ............................................................................................................................. 38

5. Terrestrial ............................................................................................................................... 39

5.1. Land Use and Land Management ................................................................................... 39 Question 95 ............................................................................................................................. 39 Question 96 ............................................................................................................................. 40


ii

5.2. Conservation and Reclamation ....................................................................................... 40 Question 104 ........................................................................................................................... 40 Question 109 ........................................................................................................................... 42 Question 112 ........................................................................................................................... 44

5.3. Terrain and Soils ............................................................................................................ 45 Question 114 ........................................................................................................................... 45 Question 115 ........................................................................................................................... 46 Question 137 ........................................................................................................................... 48

5.4. Vegetation ..................................................................................................................... 49 Question 138 ........................................................................................................................... 49

6. Health ...................................................................................................................................... 51 Question 162 ........................................................................................................................... 51

7. Approvals ............................................................................................................................... 52

7.1. Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act............................................................. 52 Question 182 ........................................................................................................................... 52 Question 185 ........................................................................................................................... 52 Question 189 ........................................................................................................................... 55 Question 191 ........................................................................................................................... 59 Question 199 ........................................................................................................................... 60 Question 200 ........................................................................................................................... 61

List of Tables ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION BOARD

Table 2-1 Wellpad Composition .......................................................................................................... 2 Table 2-1 Wellpad Composition (Updated) ......................................................................................... 3 ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT

Table 17-1 Summary of Fugitive Emission Greenhouse Gas Sources (Updated Table 14-5) ........... 13 Table 17-3 Summary of Fugitive Emission Greenhouse Gas Sources (Updated Table 14-5) ........... 15 Table 22-1 Maximum Predicted NOX Concentrations for the Expansion Project Only

Scenario (CALPUFF Model) ............................................................................................. 17 Table 24-1 Summary of Demonstration Project Stacks (Replaces Table 5A-7) ................................. 19 Table 24-2 Maximum Predicted SO2 Concentrations for the Expansion Project Only Scenario

(CALPUFF Model) ............................................................................................................. 20 Table 25-1 Demonstration Project and Expansion Project Tanks ...................................................... 22 Table 26-1 Expansion Project Flare Stack Parameters and Emissions (Emergency

Operations, Stacks 25 and 26) (Updated Table 5A-16) .................................................... 26 Table 104-1 Distribution of Land Capability Classes in the LSA (Table 15-3, updated) ....................... 41 Table 114-1 Summary of Surficial Material by Type, Area and Percentage (Table 11A-8

revised) ............................................................................................................................. 46 Table 138-1 Number of Rare Plant Occurrences within the Expansion Project Footprint at

Application Case by Footprint Version .............................................................................. 50


iii

Table 138-1 Number of Rare Plant Occurrences within the Expansion Project Footprint at Application Case by Footprint Version (updated) ............................................................. 50

Table 185-1 Wellpad Area ..................................................................................................................... 53 Table 185-1 Wellpad Area (Updated) ................................................................................................... 54 Table 189-1 Soil Series Distribution in the Disturbance Footprint (Table15-2, updated) ...................... 55 Table 189-2 Ecosite Phases in the Disturbance Footprint1 (Table 15-4 revised) ................................. 57 Table 189-3 Soil Series, Terrain Unit, Ecosite Phase and Land Capability Relationships in the

Disturbance Footprint (Table 15-6, updated) .................................................................... 58 Table 191-1 Borrow Pit Development Schedule ................................................................................... 59 Table 191-1 Borrow Pit Development Schedule (Updated) .................................................................. 59

List of Figures ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION BOARD

Figure 5-2 Drainage Area Map (Updated) ............................................................................................ 5 ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT

Figure 26-1 Output from Directive 60 spreadsheet: HP Flare (Normal Operations) (Updated) ........... 29 Figure 26-2 Output from Directive 60 spreadsheet: LP Flare (Normal Operation) (Updated) ............. 30 Figure 26-3 Output from Directive 60 spreadsheet: LP Flare (Case 1, Emergency - VRU

Failure) (Updated) ............................................................................................................. 31 Figure 26-4 Output from Directive 60 spreadsheet: HP Flare (Case 1, Emergency - Full Flow

Fuel Gas) (Updated) ......................................................................................................... 32 Figure 26-5 Output from Directive 60 spreadsheet: HP Flare (Case 2, Emergency - Produced

Gas to Flare) (Updated) .................................................................................................... 33 Figure 26-6 Output from Directive 60 spreadsheet: HP Flare (Case 4, Emergency - ESD

Blowdown Initial Max Rate) (Updated).............................................................................. 34

JACOS Hangingstone Expansion Project Description Update and Responses to Second Supplemental Information Request Part 2C – Updates to Round 1 SIRs Abbreviations September 2011

v

Abbreviations

AAAQG ............................................................................................... Alberta Ambient Air Quality Guidelines AAAQO ............................................................................................... Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives ACA ............................................................................................................ Alberta Conservation Association ACCS ............................................................................... Alberta Community Culture and Community Spirit AENV ............................................................................................................................... Alberta environment AER .................................................................................................................... asphaltene energy recovery AGP ............................................................................................................................ Above Ground Pipeline AOSC ........................................................................................................ Athabasca Oil Sands Corporation AOSERP .................................................................... Alberta Oil Sands Environmental Research Program ARG ......................................................................................................................... Aboriginal Review Group ASRD ........................................................................................ Alberta Sustainable Resource Development ATC .......................................................................................................................... Athabasca tribal Council BMP ..................................................................................................................... best management practices BOP .................................................................................................................................... blowout preventer CAPP ..................................................................................... Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers CBOG ............................................................................................................................... coke burner off-gas CCME ............................................................................... Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CCS .......................................................................................................................... Carbon Capture System CEMA .......................................................................... Cumulative Environmental Management Association CO ....................................................................................................................................... carbon monoxide COPC ............................................................................................................. Chemical of Potential Concern CPDFN .................................................................................................. Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation CPF ...................................................................................................................... Central Processing Facility CPZ .......................................................................................................................... Caribou Protection Zone CR ................................................................................................................................... Concentration Ratio CS2 ...................................................................................................................................... carbon disulphide DBIP ................................................................................................................. developable bitumen in place DCS ...................................................................................................................... Distributed Control System DDS .............................................................................................................................digital data submission DEM ............................................................................................................................ digital elevation model EC ................................................................................................................................. electrical conductivity ECM ........................................................................................................ Environmental Compliance Manual EIA ........................................................................................................... Environmental Impact Assessment EPEA .................................................................................. Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act ERCB .............................................................................................. Energy Resources Conservation Board ESI ................................................................................................................. Environmental Simulations Inc.


vi

FEFLOW ..................................................................................................... Finite Element Subsurface Flow FGD ......................................................................................................................... flue gas desulphurization FM#468FN .................................................................................................. Fort McMurray #468 First Nation FMFN ........................................................................................................................ Fort McKay First Nation GHG ................................................................................................................................. Greenhouse Gases GJ .................................................................................................................................................... gigajoules GMP ................................................................................................................. Groundwater Monitoring Plan GPS ......................................................................................................................... global positioning system H2S ..................................................................................................................................... hydrogen sulphide HHERA ................................................................................ Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment HHRA .......................................................................................................... Human Health Risk Assessment HHV .................................................................................................................................... high heating value HLS ...................................................................................................................................... hot lime softener HSI .............................................................................................................................. habitat suitability index IDF ..................................................................................................................... Intensity Duration Frequency IGF .......................................................................................................................... induced gas flotation unit IRC ................................................................................................................. Industry relations Corporations JACOS ....................................................................................................... Japan Canada Oil Sands Limited km ..................................................................................................................................................... kilometer LCC .............................................................................................................................. Land Capability Class LICA ...................................................................................... Lakeland Industry and Community Association LSA ....................................................................................................................................... Local Study Area LSAS ......................................................................................................... Land Standing Automated Search m ............................................................................................................................................................ metre MARP ..................................................................................... Measurement Accounting and Reporting Plan MBR ................................................................................................................................. Membrane Reactor MCFN ..................................................................................................................... Mikisew Cree First Nation MPOI ............................................................................................................ Maximum Point of Impingement MSDS ................................................................................................................. Material Safety Data Sheets MSES ........................................................................ Management and Solutions in Environmental Science MW ................................................................................................................................................. megawatts NA ............................................................................................................................................. not applicable NACE International .............................................. formerly the National Association of Corrosion Engineers NCG ............................................................................................................................... non-condensible gas NO2 ........................................................................................................................................ nitrogen dioxide NOX ........................................................................................................................................... nitrous oxides NS .................................................................................................................................................. no salvage NSD ................................................................................................................................... no soil disturbance


vii

NSMWG ............................................................................................ NOX SO2 Management Working Group OBIP ......................................................................................................................... original bitumen in place OTSG ................................................................................................. once-through steam generator (units) P&NG .................................................................................................................. Petroleum and Natural Gas PAH ............................................................................................................ Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon PAI .................................................................................................................................... Potential Acid Input PDA-C&R ........................................... pre-disturbance assessment and conservation and reclamation plan PM ....................................................................................................................................... particulate matter PM2.5 ............................................................................................................................. fine particulate matter PSV ............................................................................................................................... pressure safety valve RBC .................................................................................................................... rotating biological contractor RFMA ....................................................................................................... Registered Fur Management Area RMWB ................................................................................................ Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo ROW ............................................................................................................................................. right-of-way RSA ................................................................................................................................ Regional Study Area RSC ................................................................................................................... reduced sulphur compounds SAGD ......................................................................................................... Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage SAR ............................................................................................................................sodium absorption ratio SBR ............................................................................................................................ sequential bath reactor SGER ....................................................................................................... Specified Gas Emitters Regulation SIR ........................................................................................................ supplemental information responses SO2 .......................................................................................................................................... sulphur dioxide SOC .............................................................................................................................. Statement of Concern SRU ............................................................................................................................. Sulphur Recovery Unit TEF ......................................................................................................................... toxicity equivalency factor TEK ............................................................................................................ Traditional Ecological Knowledge TEQ ...................................................................................................................................... toxic equivalency THC ................................................................................................................................... total hydrocarbons TIA ........................................................................................................................ Traffic Impact Assessment TLU ................................................................................................................................. Traditional Land Use TOR ................................................................................................................................. Terms of Reference TPHCWG .............................................................................. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Working Group TRV ................................................................................................................... toxicological reference value UCLM ................................................................................................ upper confidence limit above the mean US EPA ............................................................................... United States Environmental Protection Agency VHF .................................................................................................................................. very high frequency VOC ..................................................................................................................... volatile organic compounds VRU ................................................................................................................................ vapour recovery unit


viii

WBEA ............................................................................................. Wood Buffalo Environmental Association WSC ........................................................................................................................ Water Survey of Canada

JACOS Hangingstone Expansion Project Description Update and Responses to Second Supplemental Information Request Part 2C – Updates to Round 1 SIRs Energy Resources Conservation Board September 2011

1

ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION BOARD

A. General

Question 2

Volume 1, Section 8.1.1 Wellpad Layout. JACOS states, “Initial development of the Expansion Project will be in depletion areas B1 and BE-North and will include 61 well pairs on 10 wellpads, each accommodating up to 9 well pairs with 12 to 15 m spacing between the wellheads. Over the Expansion Project’s life, about 175 well pairs in total are expected to be distributed over 26 wellpads. Further delineation will determine the precise number and location of future pads and well pairs.”

a) Clarify how many well pads and well pairs JACOS is requesting approval to construct and operate as part of the subject application (i.e. 61 well pairs on 10 well pads or 175 well pairs on 26 well pads?).

b) Provide a table to summarize the applied-for well pads, number of wells on each pad, and well length/ inter-well spacing for wells on each pad.

Original Response 2

a) JACOS is applying for approval to construct and ope rate 175 well pairs distributed over 26 wellpads, over the life of the Expansion Project as described in Volume 1, Section 4 o f the Application. Sixty-one well pairs will be drilled on ten well pads for the start of production in 2014. JACOS anticipates reaching full production in 2016. Additional pads and well pairs will be added thereafter to sustain full production. Please refer to Volume 1, Table 4-1 “Well Pad Development Sequence”, which outlines the anticipated wellpad and well pair construction and drilling schedule.

b) Table 2-1 below summarizes the applied-for well pads, number of wells on each pad, and well length/inter-well spacing for wells on each pad. Inter-well spacing is discussed in the responses to Questions 5 and 7.


2

Table 2-1 Wellpad Composition Depletion

Area Wellpad LSD # Well Pairs Average Length of Horizontal Section

B1 W01 08-21-84-11 W4M 4 430 m B1 W02 13-15-84-11 W4M 8 780 m B1 W03 06-15-84-11 W4M 6 690 m B1 W04 01-22-84-11 W4M 2 720 m B1 W05 14-14-84-11 W4M 5 670 m BE-North W06 10-14-84-11 W4M 7 750 m BE-North W07 04-24-84-11 W4M 7 590 m BE-North W08 12-13-84-11 W4M 6 710 m BE-North W09 14-13-84-11 W4M 7 530 m BE-North W10 11-13-84-11 W4M 9 600 m BE-South W11 16-12-84-11 W4M 16 750 m BE-South W12 10-07-84-10 W4M 11 750 m BE-South W13 07-12-84-11 W4M 5 480 m BE-South W14 04-07-84-10 W4M 8 520 m BE-South W15 03-07-84-10 W4M 8 540 m BE-South W16 07-01-84-11 W4M 5 470 m BE-South W17 11-01-84-11 W4M 9 580 m BE-South W18 04-06-84-10 W4M 10 590 m BE-South W19 06-06-84-10 W4M 6 570 m D W20 15-02-84-12 W4M 10 840 m D W21 10-01-84-12 W4M 5 960 m D W22 10-12-84-12 W4M 3 460 m D W23 16-11-84-12 W4M 3 540 m C W24 12-20-84-11 W4M 5 540 m C W25 10-19-84-11 W4M 4 860 m C W26 12-29-84-11 W4M 6 670 m

Updated Response 2

JACOS has revised the number of well pairs it is applying for approval to construct and operate to 170 well pairs over the life of the Expansion Project. Sixty well pairs will be drilled on ten wellpads for the start of production in 2014. JACOS anticipates reaching full production in 2018. Additional pads and well pairs will be added thereafter to sustain full production. Please refer to Section 2A, Table 2-1 “Wellpad Development Sequence”, which outlines the anticipated wellpad and well pair construction and drilling schedule.

Response to SIR 2, Table 2-1 has been updated to reflect current design information.


3

Table 2-1 Wellpad Composition (Updated) Depletion

Area Wellpad LSD # Well Pairs Average Length of Horizontal Section

B1 W01 14,15-15-84-11 W4M 5 780 m B1 W02 09, 10-15-84-11 W4M 8 750 m B1 W03 09,10-15-84-11 W4M 3 840 m B1 W04 01-22-84-11 W4M 5 590 m B1 W05 14-14-84-11 W4M 7 670 m BE-North W06 09-14-84-11 W4M 4 570 m BE-North W07 14-13-84-11 W4M 7 570 m BE-North W08 03-13-84-11 W4M 6 440 m BE-North W09 02-14-84-11 W4M 2 375 m BE-North W10 11-13-84-11 W4M 13 590 m BE-South W11 16-12-84-11 W4M 16 750 m BE-South W12 10-07-84-10 W4M 11 750 m BE-South W13 07-12-84-11 W4M 5 480 m BE-South W14 04-07-84-10 W4M 8 520 m BE-South W15 03-07-84-10 W4M 8 540 m BE-South W16 07-01-84-11 W4M 5 470 m BE-South W17 11-01-84-11 W4M 9 580 m BE-South W18 04-06-84-10 W4M 10 590 m BE-South W19 06-06-84-10 W4M 6 570 m D W20 15-02-84-12 W4M 10 840 m D W21 10-01-84-12 W4M 5 960 m D W22 10-12-84-12 W4M 3 460 m D W23 16-11-84-12 W4M 3 540 m C W24 12-20-84-11 W4M 5 540 m C W25 10-19-84-11 W4M 4 860 m C W26 12-29-84-11 W4M 6 670 m

B. Geology

Question 5

Provide a map showing the drainage areas of the proposed pads.

Original Response 5

A map showing the drainage areas of the proposed pads is shown in Figure 5-2.


4

A drainage area consisting of 50 m width on both sides along a wellbore and 50 m extension past the toe and heel sides is generally assumed for each well pair. In certain circumstances, the drainage area between wells may be assumed to be greater, as discussed in Question 7a, below.

JACOS wishes to note that the lengths of some well pairs on wellpads W03, W05 and W10 were incorrectly displayed on the original development map (Volume 1, Figure 4-1). They have been corrected for Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2. See also the response to Question 7b, below.

Updated Response 5

The Project Update provides a revised development map as shown in Part 2A – Project Update – Volume 1 – Project Description, Section 2, Figure 2-5. Figure 5-2 (Updated) shows the revised drainage areas of the proposed pads.


7

Question 7

Figure 4-1; Development Map. With respect to the proposed pad layout: describe how JACOS determined pad placement.

a) Pad W09 and W10 well pairs are oriented in a s play pattern. Why is there variable well pair orientation and well pair length? Is there a consequence of lowered resource recovery due to the proposed wellbore layout?

b) Provide justification for the short well pair W03 and W14 and explain how JACOS determined that the bitumen at the toe of these well pairs is unrecoverable.

c) Pads W08, W15 and W19 are at a tangent to neighboring pads. Provide an estimate of the unrecovered quantity of bitumen created by the proposed pad layout, using a 15 m cutoff, and alternative pad layouts considered to maximize bitumen recovery.

Original Response 7

a) Well pads are placed in areas that support the placement of horizontal wells that provide the best possible coverage of the resource in alignments that are consistent with the characteristics of the geological structure. These locations are then refined and adjusted to ensure a minimum 100 m buffer between equipment on t he pad and an y watercourses or waterbodies in the area. The ability to make adjustments is limited as a r esult of drilling geometry and drilling reach.

The resource targeted by wellpads W09 and W10 is located in an area with a great deal of existing infrastructure and facilities. The right of way reserved for the twinning of Highway 63 and the major underground pipelines adjacent to it form a c orridor that is approximately 500 m wide running down the middle of this area. Because the geology does not support a north-south well orientation the pads had to be placed to allow drilling from either the east or west side of this corridor. By selecting pads located to the west, the additional footprint and the associated cost of extending the production pipelines to cross the highway to the east is avoided.

In addition to the highway corridor, the region west of the corridor is banded by underground gathering system pipelines that limit pad location adjustment to the north, south, and further west. As a r esult of drilling limitations the only possible way to reach the extents of the resource is with a splay pattern. The spacing within that pattern shows a lateral heel-to-heel spacing of 100 m and a l ateral toe-to-toe spacing of 150 m . The variation of the length of theses well pairs is a function of the resource distribution.

There is no concern of lower recovery by the fan pattern as 150 m chamber width has been demonstrated as an ac ceptable width for SAGD based on t he experience from existing operations. The sweep of the bitumen by the communication of the steam chamber with


8

adjacent wells may also improve bitumen recovery near the toe portion that has a relatively wider drainage width.

b) W03

The length of the well pairs on w ellpad W03 well pairs originally shown on Volume 1, Figure 4-1 were incorrect. The lengths of all horizontal well pairs are planned to terminate 50 m southwest of the edge of wellpad W05 drainage area. The well lengths have been corrected on Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2.

W14

Some of the well pairs on wellpad W14 are restricted in length to between 370 and 470 m to avoid areas of thin reservoir development not exploitable by the SAGD method.

The three well pairs in the southeast part of the wellpad are planned to terminate short of an area where the reservoir is anticipated to be less than 10 m thick. The primary control on the reduction of reservoir thickness in this area is the variation in elevation of the reservoir top surface as illustrated in Figure 7-1. Cross-sectional view through well pattern of wellpad W14 extending southwest to wellpad W18 (Figure 7-2) illustrates the variability in reservoir thickness in this area. JACOS recognizes that there is a level of uncertainty with the interpretation at this area, and the information from a vertical well to finalize the lengths of the three horizontal well pairs will be necessary in the future.

The three well pairs in the northwest portion are planned to terminate short of a thin reservoir area of approximately 10 m in thickness as identified at the well location AA/15-01-84-11W4. Extension of this thin area is controlled by the structural variation of both the reservoir top and reservoir base surfaces (Volume 1, Figures 7-1 and 7-3). The cross-sectional view through the well pattern of wellpad W14 extending southwest to wellpad W16 (Figure 7-4) demonstrates the reduction in reservoir thickness due to the structural variation of the top and base reservoir surfaces.

c) The three southernmost wellpairs drilled from Pad W10 run tangent to neighboring wells rather than the wells drilled from W08. Therefore, the estimated amount of unrecoverable bitumen resulting from the proposed pad layout for Pads W10, W15 and W19, are as follows:

• W10 0.8MMbbl

• W15 1.3MMbbl

• W19 0.9MMbbl

• Total 3.0MMbbl

The estimate assumes a 50m steam chamber width, however the actual steam chamber may grow beyond this distance so the actual recovered bitumen may be higher than estimated.


9

When designing the pad layout and well trajectories for the Expansion Project, JACOS considered the proposed pad layout as shown in Figure 5-1, to be that which will maximize bitumen recovery. Therefore, JACOS does not have an alternative pad layout for consideration for Pads W10, W15, or W19.

Updated Response 7

The resource interpretation has been updated to incorporate new delineation well data from the 2010 and 2011 winter programs, resulting in changes to the orientation of the well pairs and wellpads W01 to W10. There have been no changes to the orientation of the remaining well pairs or wellpads. For details of the changes to well pair orientation and placement of wellpads W01 to W10, please see the Project Description Update (Part 2A, Section 2).

E. Community and Socio-Economic

Question 27

Volume 2, Part C, Section 20.5.5.4. JACOS states, “Approximately 100 additional daily vehicle movements are expected during peak construction, which represents a 1% increase over Baseline Case traffic volumes anticipated on Highway 63 near the project access road.” Provide additional information regarding the composition of the daily vehicle movements (e.g. over-dimensional sized loads, buses, private vehicles, etc.)

Original Response 27

The projected composition of daily vehicle movements generated from Expansion Project construction is 85% personal vehicles and 15% truck traffic. Of the truck traffic, over-dimensional loads are estimated to number between 5 and 2 0 per month (or less than 1% of daily vehicle movements associated with the Expansion Project) during the Expansion Project construction period. The current plan does not consider bussing, but this option may be considered by JACOS as construction plans are further developed.

Updated Response 27

JACOS plans to utilize buses to transport the majority of construction workers from the commercial camp to the work site.

JACOS Hangingstone Expansion Project Description Update and Responses to Second Supplemental Information Request Part 2C – Updates to Round 1 SIRs Alberta Environment September 2011

11

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT

2. General

2.2. Waste Management

Question 7

Volume 1, Section 9.19, Page 9-19

JACOS indicates that a proposed landfill for lime sludge and other non-hazardous wastes is being considered. JACOS states that suitability of the proposed landfill location will be considered as part of the 2010 geotechnical investigations in the Project Area.

a. Provide the 2010 geotechnical report for the proposed site together with the site suitability and hydrogeological evaluation for the site.

Original Response 7

The winter 2010 geotechnical investigation program for the Expansion Project is currently being executed. The proposed landfill will be the subject of a s eparate application, and JACOS will provide the geotechnical suitability report of the site conditions as well as a h ydrogeological evaluation for the site, as part of that application.

Updated Response 7

Please see Part 2A, Project Description Update, Section 5. Since the submission of the responses to Round 1 SIRs, JACOS has decided to use a commercial landfill for lime sludge and other non-hazardous solid wastes in the initial development of the Project. As discussed in the Expansion Project Application, Volume 1, Section 13.4, in the absence of an on-site landfill, the above wastes will be transported off-site to a third party Class II landfill.


12

Question 8


Volume 1, Section 15.7.1, Page 15-29

JACOS states that two bulk storage pads will be constructed at the CPF site. The two bulk storage pads’ sizing as described in Section 13.4 is different from that identified in Section 15.7.1.

a. Confirm the proposed bulk storage pad sizes.

Original Response 8

The sizing of the bulk storage pad is incorrectly described in Volume 1, Section 15.7.1. The sizes of the bulk storage pads are correctly described in Volume 1, Section 13.4.

The bulk storage pad for the temporary storage of lime sludge will be 160 m 3 which is sized to accommodate approximately three days of normal operations. The removal and di sposal of sludge will be part of normal daily operations leaving approximately two days of spare storage capacity at any given time.

The bulk storage pad for the temporary storage of produced sand will be 190 m3, which is sized to accommodate approximately 21 days of normal operation. Similarly, the removal and disposal of sand will be conducted approximately every two weeks leaving approximately one week of spare storage capacity at any given time.

Updated Response 8

The bulk storage pad for lime sludge has been deleted from the CPF. There has been no change to the size of the bulk storage pad for produced sand.

3. Air

3.1. Emissions Management

Question 17

Volume 1, Section 14.5.1, Table 14-5, Page 14-6

Volume 2, Part A, Table 5-39, Page 5-115

Table 14-5 refers to Volume 2, Part A, Section 5, Table 5-39 as the source of the information. However, Table 5-39 does not provide any information as to how the emissions were calculated. For example, Volume 2, Part A, Table 5-39 shows fugitive tank emissions of CO2 as 0.01 t/d. If this


13

is converted to kt/y (0.01 x 3 65 d/y x 0.001 kt/t), the result is 0.00365 kt/y which is an order of magnitude lower than that presented in Volume 1, Table 14-5.

a. Clarify how the calculations were completed for Table 14-5, based on the reference to Table 5-39, include an example calculation.

b. Update the assessment if required.


a. There is a discrepancy between the information in Table 14-5 (page 14-6, Volume 1) and Table 5-39 (page 5-115, Volume 2). The source data in Table 5-39 was confirmed to be correct and there are some errors with unit conversion in Table 14-5. Table 17-1, provided below, is an update of Table 14-5. An example calculation for the methane fugitive emissions from the tanks is:

CH4 (kt/y CO2E) = (1.09 t/d CH4) * (0.001 t/kt) * (365 d/y) * 21 = 8.35 kt/y CO2E

Where “21” is the global warming potential for methane.

Please note that the global warming potential for N2O of 210 was incorrectly indicated in the first paragraph of Section 5.7.8.2 (page 5-115, Volume 2). The correct value of 310 was used for all calculations.

Table 17-1 Summary of Fugitive Emission Greenhouse Gas Sources (Updated Table 14-5)

Description

Estimated Emission Rates1 (kt/y CO2E)

CO2 CH4 N2O Fugitive tank emissions 0.004 8.35 0.00 Fugitive area emissions 0.00 0.23 0.00 SOURCE: Volume 2, Part A, Section 5, Table 5-39.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATING TO THE CALCULATIONS

The greenhouse gas emissions from the fugitive tank emissions that are shown in Table 5-39, (page 5-115, Volume 2) are based on the speciation associated with the tank contents (i.e., the CO2 and methane mass fractions) and t he estimated fugitive tank emissions based on t he discussion in Section 5A2.1.2 (Appendix 5A, pages 5A-38 and 5A-39, Volume 2). The methane fugitive emissions from each tank are identified in Volume 2 of the Application, Tables 5A-22 to 5A-27 (pages 5A-44 to 5A-55). CO2 is a very small portion of the fugitive tank greenhouse gas emissions.

An example calculation for Expansion Project Tank 18 (Treated Bitumen) (Table 5A-26):

• Blanket gas CO2 mass fraction= 0.00709


14

• Tank fugitive gas CH4 mass fraction = 0.721

• Tank fugitive blanket gas emission = 36.2 t/y

• Tank fugitive emission = 47.7 t/y

• CO2 emission = 0.00709 * 36.2 t/y = 0.26 t/y

• CH4 emission = 0.721 * 47.7 t/y = 34.39 t/y

• CO2e emission = 0.26 + (21 * 34.39) = 722.47 t/y

= 722.47 / 365 = 1.98 t/d

The total tank emissions are equal to the sum of the emissions from each of the identified tanks.

The fugitive area greenhouse gas emissions shown in Table 5-39 are based on the speciation profile (i.e., the CO2 and methane mass fractions) specific to the nature of each process area (see Tables A-58 and A-59) and the estimation of fugitive emissions based on the discussion provided in Section 5A.2.1.3 (Appendix 5A, Volume 2, page 5A-56). The methane emissions from each process area are identified in Tables 5A-30 to 5A-35 (pages 5A-60 to 5A-71).

An example calculation for the steam generation area (Area ID V) (Table 5A-32):


• Process area fugitive gas CH4 mass fraction = 0.9498

• Process area fugitive emission = 5.16 t/y

• CO2 emission = 0.00709 * 5.16 t/y = 0.037 t/y

• CH4 emission = 0.9498 * 5.16 t/y = 4.90 t/y

• CO2e emission = 0.037 + (21 * 4.90) = 102.96 t/y

= 102.96 / 365 = 0.28 t/d

The total fugitive emissions are equal to the sum of the emissions from each of the identified process areas.

b. An updated assessment is not required as the results in Table 5-39 were confirmed as being correct.

Updated Response 17

Table 5-39 (page 5-115, Volume 2) provided a summary of the Expansion Project greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions based on the original Expanion Project design. An updated version of Table 5-39 is presented as Table 17-2, which now includes updated combustion and fugitive emission estimates.


15

Table 17-3 is an updated version of Table 17-1 which was provided in the Round 1 SIR response.

Table 17-2 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the Expansion Project (Updated Table 5-39)

Expansion Project Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Normal CPF Operation (Combustion and Fugitive Sources) Combustion Sources (t/d) (includes Emergency Generator) 2,547 0.05 0.05 2,563 Fugitive Tank Emissions (t/d) 0.01 1.93 0.00 40.5 Fugitive Area Emissions (t/d) 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.73 Total CPF Emission Rate (t/d) 2,547 2.01 0.05 2,604 Total CPF Emission Rate (kt/y) 930 0.73 0.02 951 Construction Emissions (t/d) 22.1 0.00122 0.00162 22.5

Table 17-2, provided below, is an update of Table 14-5 and Table 17-1 in the original SIR 17.

Table 17-3 Summary of Fugitive Emission Greenhouse Gas Sources (Updated Table 14-5)

Description

Estimated Emission Rates1 (kt/y CO2E)

CO2 CH4 N2O Fugitive tank emissions 0.005 14.8 0.00 Fugitive area emissions 0.00 0.26 0.00

SIR 17 r equests sample calculations for greenhouse gas emissions. The approach used to calculate tank and fugitive area emissions for the Air Quality assessment update is consistent with that presented in SIR 17 r esponse. Fugitive area greenhouse gas emissions have not changed relative to the EIA. An updated example calculation for Expansion Project Tank C02-TK-250 (formerly Tank 18) (Treated Bitumen) is provided:


• Tank fugitive gas CH4 mass fraction = 0.721

• Tank fugitive blanket gas emission = 35.23 t/y

• Tank fugitive emission = 46.3 t/y

• Blanket gas CO2 emission = 0.00709 * 35.23 t/y = 0.25 t/y

• Tank fugitive gas CH4 emission = 0.721 * 46.3 t/y = 33.38 t/y

• CO2e emission = 0.25 + (21 * 33.38) = 701.23 t/y

= 701.23 / 365 = 1.92 t/d


16

3.2. Dispersion Modeling

Question 22

Volume 2, Part A, Section 5.6.1.1, Page 5-34

Volume 2, Part A, Appendix 5E, Section 5E.2.1, Page 5E-2

JACOS indicates that because emergency generators will be tested for about 1 hour per month and may operate for 10 days a y ear that they were not modelled. However, on Page 5E-2 and subsequent Table 5E-1, model results are presented for the emergency generators. Since NOX emissions from such generators are high and the units will supposedly operate for 10 days a year, there may be some short term NOX episodes when the generator are in operation.

a. Clarify the nature of NOX modeling that was completed for the emergency generators.

b. Provide a sensitivity analysis that shows the impact of the emergency diesel generator on 1-hour maximum NOX and SO2 concentrations.


a. The CPF emergency generator modeling results are presented in Table 5E-1 of Appendix 5E (Volume 2, page 5E-3) and are limited to the SCREEN3 model predictions.

The Expansion Project CPF emergency generator was not included in the CALPUFF modeling.

b. A sensitivity analysis was carried out on t he Expansion Project Only scenario, using CALPUFF, to include the 3.1 MW CPF emergency generator as a continuous source (i.e. overly conservative assessment). Table 22-1 (below) compares the CALPUFF predictions without and with the emergency generator. The values for the scenario without the emergency generator were obtained from Table 5E-5 (Volume 2, Appendix 5E, page 5E-15 of the Application).


17

Table 22-1 Maximum Predicted NOX Concentrations for the Expansion Project Only Scenario (CALPUFF Model)

Location Year

Maximum NOX Concentration (µg/m3)

Difference (%)

1-hour (1st highest

without emergency generator)

1-hour (9th highest

without emergency generator)

1-hour (1st highest

with emergency generator)

1-hour (9th highest

with emergency generator

1-hour (1st

highest)

1-hour (9th

highest) Along Expansion Project Fenceline

2002 191 165 196 166 2.62 0.61 2003 551 152 560 153 1.63 0.66 2004 262 165 262 166 0.00 0.61 2005 386 184 386 190 0.00 3.26 2006 374 166 383 168 2.41 1.20

Maximum 551 184 560 190 1.63 3.26 Outside Expansion Project Fenceline and within Expansion Project Lease Boundary

2002 238 163 239 165 0.42 1.23 2003 545 149 553 152 1.47 2.01 2004 257 167 257 169 0.00 1.20 2005 385 183 385 187 0.00 2.19 2006 420 157 430 159 2.38 1.27

Maximum 545 183 553 187 1.47 2.19 Outside Expansion Project Lease Boundary and within LSA

2002 83.9 51.4 86.0 51.4 2.50 0.00 2003 103 51.5 103 51.5 0.00 0.00 2004 84.0 36.8 84.2 37.5 0.24 1.90 2005 102 48.8 106 49.4 3.92 1.23 2006 88.0 55.7 88.2 58.1 0.23 4.31

Maximum 103 55.7 106 58.1 2.91 4.31 AAAQO - - - - - - NOTES: Predicted concentrations are based on Expansion Project NOX emission rates of 2.16 t/d (without emergency generator) and 2.68 t/d (with emergency generator) AAAQO = Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives. There are no AAAQO for NOX.

The results (with emergency generator as a continuous source) indicate that the CPF emergency generator increases the 1st highest 1-h predicted NOX concentration by up to 1.6% and the 9th highest 1-h predicted NOX concentration by up to 3.3%. The comparison was limited to 1-h predictions due to the infrequent nature of emergency generator usage.

Ambient SO2 predictions were not modeled for the emergency generators because they will be fired with low sulphur diesel (i.e., diesel with a sulphur content of less than 15 mg/kg) and therefore, do not have substantive SO2 emissions.


18

Updated Response 22

The EIA air quality assessment did not consider the overlap of the intermittent CPF emergency generator emissions with the continuous CPF emission sources. SIR 22 response conservatively assumed that the CPF emergency generator would be operating on a continuous basis with the other sources.

The emergency generator has been included as a continuous emissions source in the updated Air Quality assessment to be consistent with the Round 1 SIR 22 response. This is a conservative approach and in actual operation the emergency generator will only operate approximately one hour per month for testing and would not operate continuously with other emissions sources such as the OTSGs in a true emergency situation.

Question 24

Volume 2, Part A, Appendix 5A, Section 5A.2.1.1, Page 5A-9

Volume 2, Part A, Appendix 5A, Tables 5A-7, 5A-8 and 5A-10, Pages 5A-12, 5A-17 and 5A-18

It is indicated that one of two fuel gases will be used in the boilers and heaters, either a sweet gas or a sour gas containing some measure of sulphur. The combustion of the sour gas will result in emissions of SO2. Table 5A-7 and Table 5A-8 indicate that only three sources will use sour gas, namely unit B-540 in the Demonstration Project and units OTSG#1 and OTSG#2 in the Expansion Project. However, in Table 5A-10, units B-510 and B-520 are to combust sweet gas but are cited as having SO2 emissions.

a. Clarify which boilers and heaters will be combusting sweet gas or sour gas.

b. Confirm that sweet gas does not contain sulphur and confirm which boilers and heaters were modelled with SO2 emissions.

c. If it is determined there is a discrepancy in the boilers and heaters combusting sour gas, sweet gas and subsequent SO2 emissions, update the model and assessment results.


To clarify, OTSG#1 and #2 are part of the Expansion Project and will be combusting a mixture of produced gas and sweet gas. The other sources mentioned in the question (B-510, B-520 and B-540) are associated with the Demonstration Project and are not part of this Application.

a. The “sour” gas is a blend of natural gas and produced gas and will be burned in OTSG #1 and OTSG #2 i n the Expansion Project. The “sweet” gas is the natural gas that is supplied to JACOS via a pipeline from a commercial supplier, and will be burned in all other OTSGs in the Expansion Project.


19

For the Demonstration Project, there is the ability to burn all the produced gas with supplemental sweet gas in unit B-540, or to burn the produced gas with sweet gas in units B-510, B-520 and B -540 (i.e., in all three boilers). The dispersion modeling assumed the latter configuration (i.e., the produced gas was distributed to units B-510, B-520 and B-540). Table 24-1 (below) replaces Table 5A-7 in Volume 2, Appendix 5A, page 5A-12 of the Application) to show that units B-510 and B-520 can burn sour gas.

Table 24-1 Summary of Demonstration Project Stacks (Replaces Table 5A-7) Identification Number Identification Source Type Fuel Type

Steam Generators/Heater Stacks 1 14.6 MW steam generator (B-201A) Continuous Sweet Gas 2 14.6 MW steam generator (B201B) Continuous Sweet Gas 3 2.34 MW glycol heater (H-701) Continuous Sweet Gas 4 879 kW fuel gas line heater (H-702) Continuous Sweet Gas 5 52.7 MW steam generator (B-510) Continuous Sour Gas 6 14.6 MW steam generator (B-540) Continuous Sour Gas 7 2.93 MW glycol heater (H-755) Continuous Sweet Gas 8 52.7 MW steam generator (B-520) Continuous Sour Gas

Flare Stacks 9 Low-pressure flare (FS-702) Flare Sour Gas/Upset

10 High-pressure flare (FS-701N) Flare Sour Gas/Upset 11 Low-pressure flare (FL-804) Flare Sweet Gas/Upset 12 High-pressure flare (FL-801) Flare Sweet Gas/Upset

Electrical Generator Stacks 14 310 kW auxiliary power unit (G-701) Standby Diesel 15 520 kW auxiliary power unit (G-702) Standby Diesel 16 310 kW auxiliary power unit (EG-925) Standby Diesel 17 520 kW auxiliary power unit (EG-920) Standby Diesel

b. The natural gas that JACOS receives from TransCanada PipeLines (TCPL) has a s pecified maximum H2S content of 23 mg/m3 (16 ppm) and a maximum total sulphur content of 115 mg/m3 (85 ppm). SO2 emissions due t o the combustion of natural gas in boilers and heaters were not included in the air modeling. While the specification allows gas plants to deliver gas into TCPL’s system containing up to the quoted maximum amounts of H2S and total sulphur, the total blended gas in their system has much lower levels of H2S and total sulphur. On-site Tutwiler tests are required to determine the actual amount of these compounds in the fuel gas that JACOS will receive at the Expansion Project. Tutwiler tests have not been deemed necessary to date and consequently, no historical data are available.


20

c. To assess the potential effect of small levels of sulphur content in sweet natural gas, the CALPUFF model was applied to the Expansion Project Only scenario to determine the change in SO2 concentrations assuming 115 mg/m3 (85 ppm) total sulphur (S) in the natural gas. The SO2 emissions from each of the two OTSGs that burn a blend of produced gas and natural gas were reduced from 1.0 t/d such that the total SO2 emission associated with the Expansion Project Only remains unchanged at 2.0 t/d. Specifically, the SO2 emissions from each of the two OTSGs burning sour gas decreased from 1.0 t/d to 0.88 t/d. This adjustment was undertaken with the assumption that the maximum SO2 emission for Expansion Project Only scenario is 2.0 t/d.

Table 24-2 compares the maximum (1st and 9th highest) 1 hour SO2 concentrations assuming two scenarios:

• no S content in the natural gas (assuming 2.0 t/d originates from 2 OSTGs), and

• 85 ppm S content in the natural gas (assuming 1.76 t/d from the 2 O TSGs that burn produced gas and 0.24 t/d from the remaining combustion sources).

The model predictions indicate a nominal 11% decrease to the maximum 1-h SO2 concentrations. This decrease is very similar to the decreased SO2 emissions from the two OTSG units that burn a blend of produced gas and natural gas.

Table 24-2 Maximum Predicted SO2 Concentrations for the Expansion Project Only Scenario (CALPUFF Model)

Location Year

Maximum SO2 Concentration (µg/m3)

Difference (%)

1-hour (1st highest without S in

fuel gas)

1-hour (9th highest without S in

fuel gas)

1-hour (1st highest

with S in fuel gas)

1-hour (9th highest

with S in fuel gas)

1-hour (1st

highest)

1-hour (9th

highest) Along Expansion Project Fenceline

2002 191 160 169 142 -11.5 -11.3 2003 491 154 437 137 -11.0 -11.0 2004 252 164 225 146 -10.7 -11.0 2005 361 171 321 152 -11.1 -11.1 2006 344 160 306 142 -11.0 -11.3 Maximum 491 171 437 152 -11.0 -11.1

Outside Expansion Project Fenceline and within Expansion Project Lease Boundary

2002 213 162 190 143 -10.8 -11.7 2003 482 149 429 132 -11.0 -11.4 2004 249 161 222 143 -10.8 -11.2 2005 362 172 321 153 -11.3 -11.0 2006 382 151 340 134 -11.0 -11.3 Maximum 482 172 429 153 -11.0 -11.0


21

Table 24-2 Maximum Predicted SO2 Concentrations for the Expansion Project Only Scenario (CALPUFF Model) (cont'd)

Location Year

Maximum SO2 Concentration (µg/m3)

Difference (%)

1-hour (1st highest without S in

fuel gas)

1-hour (9th highest without S in

fuel gas)

1-hour (1st highest

with S in fuel gas)

1-hour (9th highest

with S in fuel gas)

1-hour (1st

highest)

1-hour (9th

highest) Outside Expansion Project Lease Boundary and within LSA

2002 81.5 51.4 72.3 45.5 -11.3 -11.5 2003 94.8 50.6 84.4 45.1 -11.0 -10.9 2004 74.9 33.6 66.3 29.9 -11.5 -11.0 2005 92.0 45.0 81.9 39.9 -11.0 -11.3 2006 85.9 53.7 76.2 47.6 -11.3 -11.4 Maximum 94.8 53.7 84.4 47.6 -11.0 -11.4

AAAQO - 450 - 450 NOTES: Predicted concentrations are based on Expansion Project SO2 emission rates of 2.00 t/d (with and without sulphur in fuel gas) AAAQO = Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives. AAAQO are not applicable within an industrial fenceline.

Updated Response 24

The original EIA only assumed SO2 emissions from the two OTSG unilts that burn a mixture of natural gas and produced gas and S O2 emission were not assumed to result from the boilers burning natural gas. SIR response 24 re-evaluated SO2 considerations for the Expansion Project by assuming natural gas could contain up to 85 ppm sulphur equivalent.

The updated Air Quality assessment provides revised maximum SO2 concentrations for the Expansion Project Only Scenario. The updated Air Quality assessment is consistent with the Round 1 SIR 24 response and assumes 115 mg/m3 (85 ppm) total sulphur (S) in the natural gas. The SO2 emissions from each of the two OTSGs that burn a blend of produced gas and natural gas were reduced from 1.0 t/d such that the total SO2 emission associated with the Expansion Project Only remains unchanged at 2.0 t/d (SO2 emissions from each of the two OTSGs burning sour gas decreased from 1.0 t/d to 0.90 t/d). This adjustment was undertaken with the assumption that the maximum SO2 emission for Expansion Project Only scenario is 2.0 t/d. There have been no changes to the Demonstration Project sources identified in Table 24-1.


22

Question 25


Volume 2, Part A, Appendix 5A, Table 5A-19, Page 5A-37

Volume 2, Part A, Appendix 5A, Section 5A.2.1.2, Tables 5A-22 to 5A-27, Pages 5A-44 to 5A-55

JACOS states that Buildings may have an impact on the dispersion of emissions from stacks therefore they were included in the assessment. A summary of the buildings associated with both the Demonstration Project and the Expansion Project is provided in Table 5A-19. A review of the structures in Tables 5A-19 indicates that storage tanks were not included in the assessment. Tables 5A-22 to 5A-27 show that numerous tanks are larger than the majority of the buildings included in the assessment and as such should be included to accurately determine their impact on the dispersion of emissions.

a. Provide a sensitivity analysis of adding the storage tanks to the building assessment and the effects they will have on the predicted nearfield concentrations."


Although not explicitly stated in Table 5A-19 (page 5A-37, Volume 2), the Expansion Project and the Demonstration Project tanks were included as buildings in the assessment. The tank dimensions (heights and diameters) applied in the assessment are provided in Tables 5A-22 to 5A-27 (pages 5A-44 to 5A-55). The tanks were conservatively assumed to be square with the length of one side being equal to the diameters of the tank. Table 25-1 (below) provides the tank identification and dimensions used to perform the assessment calculations.

Table 25-1 Demonstration Project and Expansion Project Tanks Location

Tank ID

Tank Description

Tank Diameter

(m) Tank Height

(m) Plant 1 (Demonstration Project)

TK-203N Boiler Feed Water Tank 9.1 7.38 TK-208N Raw Water Tank 4.7 6.92 TK-205N Boiler Blowdown Tank 7.5 7.25 TK-204N Disposal Water Tank 4.7 6.92 TK-404N Bitumen Sales Tank 9.7 9.75 TK-405N Bitumen Sales Tank 9.7 9.75 TK-406N Slop Oil Tank 4.7 6.92 TK-514N Skim Tank 9.1 7.38 TK-515N Desand Tank 4.7 6.92 TK-516N Induced Gas Flotation Cell 7.9 0.51 TK-513N Oily Water Backwash Tank 4.7 6.92 TK-512 Deoiled Produced Water Tank 9.1 6.15


23

Table 25-1 Demonstration Project and Expansion Project Tanks (cont’d) Location

Tank ID

Tank Description

Tank Diameter

(m) Tank Height

(m) Plant 1 (Demonstration Project) (cont’d)

TK-605N Warm Caustic Reactor 7.6 6.18 TK-606N Reactor Overflow Tank 4.7 6.17 TK-130N Regen. Waste Tank 4.7 6.86 TK-109N Acid Storage Tank 3.1 3.84 TK-602N Lime Tank 5.4 5.15 TK-603 Caustic Tank 3.1 2.65 TK-701 Glycol Storage Tank 2.9 2.42 TK-702 Condensate Tank 3.7 5.96

Plant 2 (Demonstration Project)

TK-230 Sales Oil Tank 11.7 7.40 TK-232 Sales Oil Tank 11.7 7.40 TK-233 Sales Oil Tank 11.7 7.40 TK-234 Recycle Tank 6.6 7.16 TK-258 Exchanger Wash Tank 2.9 7.27 TK-301 Skim Tank 13.7 9.77 TK-302 Desand Tank 6.6 9.36 SE-305 Induced Gas Flotation Unit 1.8 7.16 SE-345 Induced Gas Flotation Unit 1.8 7.16 TK-460 Raw Water Tank 6.6 7.02 SE-430 Hot Lime Softener 6.6 9.18 TK-501 Boiler Feedwater Tank 8.6 13.66 TK-570 Concentrated Brine Tank 5.3 7.26 TK-446 Neutralizer Tank 6.1 4.72 TK-321 De-Oiled Water Tank 10.5 9.19 TK-406A Acid Storage Tank 3.1 3.71 TK-406B Acid Storage Tank 3.1 3.71 TK-407 Caustic Storage Tank 3.7 5.40 TK-417 Lime/Magox Slurry Tank 2.1 2.89 TK-750 Glycol/Water Storage Tank 3.7 5.58

Expansion (the Expansion Project)

3UU-TK-101A Treated Bitumen 33.5 12.2 3UU-TK-101B Treated Bitumen 33.5 12.2 3UU-TK-102 Diluent 35.1 12.2 3UU-TK-104 Recycle 21.3 12.2 3UU-TK-105 Exchanger Wash 5.3 7.3 4UUSE-102 Hot Lime Softener 13.7 30.0 4UUSE-202 Hot Lime Softener 13.7 30.0


24

Table 25-1 Demonstration Project and Expansion Project Tanks (cont’d) Location

Tank ID

Tank Description

Tank Diameter

(m) Tank Height

(m) Expansion (the Expansion Project) (cont’d)

4UU-TK-101 Produced Water Surge 18.3 14.6 4UU-TK-102 Produced Water Skim 32.0 7.1 4UU-TK-103 Deoiled Produced Water 18.3 14.6 4UU-TK-104 WAC Neutralization 6.6 7.3 4UU-TK-105 WAC Acid 6.6 7.3 4UU-TK-106 WAC Caustic 5.3 7.3 4UU-TK-107A Lime Silo 3.7 18.3 4UU-TK-107B Lime Silo 3.7 18.3 4UU-TK-108A Magnox Silo 3.7 18.3 4UU-TK-108B Magnox Silo 3.7 18.3 4UU-TK-109 Slop 9.1 7.3 5UU-TK-101 Boiler Feedwater 24.4 12.2 5UU-TK-102 Steam Gen. Startup/Blowdown 4.72 7.3 5UU-TK-103 Disposal Water 7.32 9.8 9UU-TK-101 Raw Water 15.24 12.2 9UU-TK-102 Firewater 13.7 14.6 9UU-TK-103 Diesel Storage 3.4 4.6

Updated Response 25

As in the original SIR 25 response, the Expansion Project and the Demonstration Project tanks were included as buildings in the assessment. Updated dimensions (heights and diameters) of the Expansion Project tanks are used in the updated Air Quality modelling. The tanks were conservatively assumed to be square with the length of one side being equal to the diameter of the tank. Part 2B, Volume 2, Section 5, Table 5-10 in the updated Air Quality assessment provides the dimensions of the Expansion Project tanks.

Question 26

Volume 2, Part A, Appendix 5A, Section 5A.2.1.1, Tables 5A-13, 5A-14 and 5A-16, Pages 5A-28, Page 5A-31, and Page 5A-35

Volume 2, Part A, Appendix 5A, Section 5A.3.8, Page 5A-91

In the noted Tables, flare parameters of inside tip diameter and effective stack diameter are listed, the values being significantly different. Page 5A-91 notes that the flare stack parameters are pseudo parameters, but it is unclear what the basis of the calculation is and how the parameters were derived.


25

a. Provide a discussion and include documentation and calculations to support the derivation of the effective stack diameter of the flares, and inherently for the derivation of the other flare parameters.


Dispersion models are not designed to directly evaluate combustion sources such as flare stacks. Therefore, flare stack parameters must be modified to produce “effective” or “pseudo” parameters for use by the models. An energy balance approach is used to determine the pseudo stack parameters that produce equivalent plume rise.

For the Demonstration Project, the effective parameters for the flare stacks (as shown in Volume 2, Appendix 5A, Table 5A-13, pages 5A-28 to 5A-30) were obtained from the AENV Approval Renewal Application report for the Expansion Project facilities (Zelensky et al. 2007).

For the Expansion Project, the effective parameters for the flare stacks were calculated from the ERCB Directive 60 spreadsheet EUBflare version1.01 (ERCB 2006). The Directive 60 spreadsheet was applied to normal flare operations (Volume 2, Appendix 5A, Table 5A-14, pages 5A-31 and 5A-32) and the upset/emergency operations (Volume 2, Appendix 5A, Table 5A-16, pages 5A-34 and 5A-35).

Images of ERCB Directive-60 spreadsheets are presented in Figures 26-1 to 26-6 for the normal operations and for the upset/emergency operations.

An inconsistency with the gas composition associated with one upset/emergency flaring case was found. For the LP Flare Case 1 (VRU failure), the composition given in Table 5A-16 (Volume 2, Appendix 5A, pages 5A-35 to 5A-36 of the Application)) reflects an earlier composition that has been updated. Table 26-1 provides an updated Table 5A-16 to reflect the updated composition.

The ambient SO2 concentration values due to a VRU failure that were presented in Table 5E-13 (Volume 2, Appendix 5A, page 5E-44 of the Application)) are virtually unchanged with the updated effective parameters. Specifically, the maximum 1st highest 1-hour SO2 concentration decreases from 74.8 µg/m3 based on the EIA to 73.6 µg/m3 based on t he updated values. Similarly, the maximum 9th highest 1-hour SO2 concentration increases from 5.62 µg/m3 based on the EIA to 5.68 µg/m3 based on the updated values.

REFERENCES

Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB). 2006. EUBFlare_ver1.01.spreadsheet. Developed by Public Safety and Air Quality Management and Zelt PSI. December 11, 2006.

Zelensky, M. and B. Zelt. 2007. Air Quality Modelling For JACOS Hangingstone. Prepared for JACOS. 21 pages plus appendices.


26

Table 26-1 Expansion Project Flare Stack Parameters and E missions (Emergency Operations, Stacks 25 and 26) (Updated Table 5A-16)

Source identification # 25 26 Unit Name/Description LP Flare HP Flare

Event VRU Failure (Case 1) Full Flow Fuel Gas (Case 1) Produced Gas to Flare (Case 2) ESD Blowdown Initial Max Rate (Case 4)

Frequency Less than 5 times per year

5 times during Facility lifetime

Less than 5 times per year To be determined

Estimated Duration A few hours per event 15 minutes or less A few hours per event 15 minutes or less Flow Rate Inlet Gas Stream Vapour Collected from

Tankage Sweet Gas Sour Gas Sweet Gas

Inlet Flow Rate 103 Nm3/d 198.2 2,123.4 61.9 283 Inlet Gas Composition He Mole % 0.00 0.05 0.0 0.05 N2 Mole % 0.77 0.73 0 0.73 CO2 Mole % 1.41 0.44 38.75 0.44 H2S Mole % 0.08 0.00 1.19 0.00 C1 Mole % 97.54 98.69 54.31 98.69 C2 Mole % 0.18 0.07 4.67 0.07 C3 Mole % 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 C4 Mole % 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 C5+ Mole % 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 H2O Mole % 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.00 Total Mole % 100 100 100 100


27

Table 26-1 Expansion Project Flare Stack Parameters and E missions (Emergency Operations, Stacks 25 and 26) (Updated Table 5A-16) (cont’d)

Source identification # 25 26 Unit Name/Description LP Flare HP Flare

Flared Gas Properties Molecular Mass kg/kmole 16.58 16.26 27.79 16.26 Net Heating Value MJ/m3 33.26 33.57 21.56 33.57 Stack Location UTM NAD 83 m N 6236840 6236840 UTM NAD 83 m E 461340 461340 Base Elevation of Stack m ASL 617 617 Stack Dimensions Height Above Base Elevation m 46 46 Inside Tip Diameter m 0.1541 0.4445 Effective Parameters Stack Height m 53.43 70.36 48.20 53.36 Stack Diameter m 5.18 15.23 7.37 15.25 Exit Velocity m/s 9.25 11.59 0.886 1.55 Exit Temperature ˚C 2,504 2,506 2,348 2,506 Exit Temperature K 2,777 2,780 2,621 2,779 Emission Rate CO2 t/d 367 3,926 118.2 523.3 H2O t/d 296 3,196 59 426 SO2 t/d 0.43 0.00 2.00 0.00 NOx t/d 0.214 0.58 0.04 0.31 VOC t/d 0.45 1.212 0.14 0.65 PM2.5 t/d 0.0241 0.0645 0.0075 0.0344


28

Updated Response 26

The effective parameters for the Expansion Project flare stacks were updated using the ERCB Directive 60 spreadsheet EUBflare version1.05 (ERCB 2010). Updated normal and ups et operation effective parameters are presented in Table 5-5 and Table 5-6 of the updated Air Quality assessment, respectively.

Updated images of ERCB Directive-60 spreadsheets are presented in Figures 26-1 to 26-6 for the normal operations and for the upset/emergency operations.

REFERENCES

Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB). 2010. EUBFlare_ver1.05.spreadsheet. Developed by Public Safety and Air Quality Management and Zelt PSI. March 5, 2010.

FIGUREDate:2011-08-11

Drawn By:MD

Figure 26-1Output from Directive 60 spreadsheet: HP Flare(Normal Operations)

123510469-068

1


Drawn By:MD

Figure 26-2Output from Directive 60 spreadsheet: LP Flare(Normal Operation)

123510469-069

1


Drawn By:DB

Figure 26-3Output from Directive 60 spreadsheet: LP Flare(Case 1, Emergency - VRU Failure)

123510469-070

1


Drawn By:MD

Figure 26-4Output from Directive 60 spreadsheet: HP Flare(Case 1, Emergency - Full Flow Fuel Gas)

123510469-071

1


Drawn By:MD

Figure 26-5Output from Directive 60 spreadsheet: HP Flare(Case 2, Emergency - Produced Gas to Flare)

123510469-072

1


Drawn By:MD

Figure 26-6Output from Directive 60 spreadsheet: HP Flare(Case 4, Emergency - ESD Blowdown InitialMax Rate)

123510469-073

1


35

Question 27


TOR 2.7 [A] b) requires annual and total greenhouse gas emissions for the life of the Project. Identify the primary sources and provide examples of calculations. Neither total greenhouse gas emissions for the life of the Project, nor sample calculations were provided.

a. Provide total GHG emissions over the life of the Project.

b. Provide example calculations.


a. Total greenhouse gas emissions over the life of the Expansion Project can be calculated as follows from the yearly estimation for construction for a per iod of two years and the yearly estimate for normal operation for a period of 25 years:

Construction: 2 years X 8.27 kt/year = 16.54 kt

Operations: 25 years X 1028 kt/year = 25700 kt

Total: 16.54 + 25700 = 25720 kt CO2e over the life of the Project

b. The response to Question 19 provides example emission calculations for a calculation of CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions from various equipment associated with the Expansion Project. The CO2 equivalents were then calculated, as explained in Volume 2, Section 5A.2.1.5 of the Application, by multiplying the mass flow of CO2 by 1, the mass flow of CH4 by 21 and the mass flow of N2O by 310 to get the total CO2 equivalents.

Updated Response 27

a. Total greenhouse gas emissions over the life of the Expansion Project can be calculated as follows from the yearly estimation for construction for a per iod of two years and the yearly estimate for normal operation for a period of 25 years:

Construction: 2 years X 8.27 kt/year = 16.54 kt; round up to 20 kt

Operations: 25 years X 911 kt/year = 22780 kt

Total: 20 + 22780 = 22800 kt CO2e over the life of the Project

b. The approach to calculating total GHG emissions for the life of the Expansion Project is unchanged.


36

3.3. Air Quality Assessment

Question 47

Volume 2, Part A, Section 5.7.4, Page 5-93

JACOS outlines the average PAI and the extent of the RSA in the Low, Moderate and Sensitive ecosystems. However, JACOS does not show or discuss the impact of the Project on the PAI predictions.

a. Discuss how the Expansion Project impacts the PAI predictions.


The Expansion Project EIA does provide a discussion of the Expansion Project Only PAI predictions in Appendix 5E. Figure 5E-23 (page 5E-40, Volume 2) shows the maximum annual average PAI attributable to the Expansion Project operating in isolation (0.28 keq H+/ha/y). The contribution due to the Expansion Project is the highest along the Expansion Project fenceline and decreases rapidly with increasing distance from the fenceline.

In addition, the Expansion Project EIA presents the change in PAI predictions from the Baseline Case to the Application Case on both a grid-cell basis and an ecosystem sensitivity basis. These respective results are presented in Tables 5-30 and 5-31 (pages 5-92 to 5-94, Volume 2). Because the only difference between the Baseline and Application cases is the addition of the Expansion Project, the change in the predicted values is attributable to the Expansion Project.

On a grid-cell basis, the maximum increase in PAI predictions between the Baseline and Application Case is 1.7%, for the grid-cell that contains the Expansion Project CPF (see Table 5-30). For sensitive ecosystems, about 9.1, 6.3, and 5.6% of the RSA exceed the monitoring, target, and critical load criteria for the Application Case, respectively. These represent increases ranging from 0.2 to 0.6% relative to the Baseline Case (see Table 5-31).

Updated Response 47

For an updated discussion of PAI deposition associated with the Expansion Project, please see the updated Air Quality assessment (Part 2B, Volume 2, Section 5.3.7).


37

4. Water

4.1. Water Management

Question 54

JACOS states that the CPF, pads and other project facilities will maintain a 100 meter buffer to water bodies, streams and ponds, when possible. Where developments falls within 100m of a waterbody site specific mitigation measures will be developed.

a. Identify what development will be located within the 100 m buffer. Discuss the alternative locations considered and why they were not considered applicable.

b. What mitigation actions will be taken to address the impacts of development in the instances where the 100 m buffer is not maintained?

c. Clarify if ‘streams and ponds’ include wetlands, intermittent and ephemeral water courses.


The surface facilities were located using a backdrop of recent (Spring 2009) aerial photographs and LiDAR data to help identify and avoid any wetlands, ponds, continuously flowing streams, and indications of intermittent or ephemeral draws. The proposed lease edges of the majority of the wellpads and the CPF are in excess of 100 m from the nearest such waterbodies.

a. Wellpads W14 and W15 are located such that the nearest point of the proposed lease edge comes very close to encroaching on the 100 m buffer. JACOS anticipates that minor adjustments to these pad l ocations may be ac commodated following the finalization of well trajectories in order to restore a comfortable buffer in excess of 100 m.

Piperacks, pipelines, and utilities may be situated within the 100m buffer, using appropriate engineering practices and adhering to applicable regulatory requirements.

b. A number of mitigation measures that were described in Volume 2, Section 9 of the Application will be i n place to ensure sensitivities related to waterbody proximity are addressed:

i. Changes in Watercourse Flows (Volume 2, Section 9.4.1.2)

ii. Sediment and Erosion Control (Volume 2, Section 9.4.2.2)

iii. Spill Management (Volume 2, Section 9.4.3.2)

iv. Wastewater Releases (Volume 2, Section 9.4.4.2)

v. Changes to Groundwater Quality (Volume 2, Section 9.4.5.2)


38

vi. Acidification of Water (Volume 2, Section 9.4.6.2)

vii. Monitoring programs to detect for any deleterious effects (Volume 2, Section 9.4.7)

c. Streams and ponds include wetlands, intermittent and ephemeral water courses.

Updated Response 54

a. Please see response to AENV SIR 52 in Part 3, Response to Second Supplemental Information Request for an updated response to Question 54 a.

b. Please see response to AENV SIR 52 in Part 3, Response to Second Supplemental Information Requestfor an updated response to Question 54 b.

c. There is no change to this response.

4.5. Aquatics

Question 94

JACOS identifies 21 crossings of watercourses associated with the Expansion Project to accommodate associated facilities, and states that some of these crossings may be constructed outside Alberta Environment’s Restricted Activity Period (RAP).

a. Provide detail as to what type of crossing (i.e., road, pipeline) will be occurring for all proposed watercourses.

b. Clarify which locations will have crossings constructed outside the RAP, the rationale for this choice, and alternatives considered.


a. Of the 21 s urface crossings of watercourses associated with the Expansion Project, 19 crossings will be f or a combination of road, piperack, and powerline, and two crossings will only be f or roads. Of these 19 crossings that are a c ombination of road, piperack, and powerline, four will also include an underground pipeline crossing. Additionally there are nine watercourses that require crossing for underground pipelines. All of these streams are considered Class C watercourses.

b. The preferred construction period for roads, piperacks, pipelines, and the associated crossings is during the winter in frozen conditions. There is a possibility, with potential developments in the schedule, that it becomes necessary from a practical standpoint to construct during the restricted activity period for Class C watercourses. Should that occur, a qual ified aquatic environment specialist will be c onsulted to advise on c onstruction considerations for


39

environmental sensitivities as per AENV’s Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings. In all cases, JACOS does not expect these crossings to entail in-stream work.

Updated Response 94

Please see Part 2B, Section 8.6.3 and Part 2B, Section 8.6.8 for updated details of crossings of proposed watercourses associated with the Expansion Project.

5. Terrestrial

5.1. Land Use and Land Management

Question 95


JACOS is currently operating the Hangingstone Demonstration Project on the northeastern portion of Lease 70.

a. Does JACOS currently have a camp located within the Demonstration Project that can possibly be utilized/expanded instead of developing new for the expansion?

i. If yes, will JACOS utilize/expand this camp for the expansion project?

ii. If not, provide rationale for not utilizing the existing camp.


JACOS does not have a permanent camp associated with the Demonstration Project. There is an approved private recreational vehicle (RV) park used by some operational staff associated with the Demonstration Project. There are no plans to expand this as part of the Expansion Project. As indicated in Volume 2, Section 20.5.1.4, new camps for construction and operations staff are planned to be included in the design of the Expansion Project. Prior to the opening of the construction camp, JACOS plans to use existing commercial camps or hotel accommodation in Fort McMurray for any personnel associated with the Expansion Project.

Updated Response 95

JACOS has revised their plans and now intend to utilize a commercial camp for construction and operations.


40

Question 96

The CPF plot plan shows two large Sand Piles; one located to the east and one to the south of the CPF.

a. Where will this sand come from?

b. Discuss whether the sand will be stockpiled at the CPF until reclamation occurs or utilized elsewhere within the Expansion project prior to reclamation activities.


a. As discussed in Volume 1, Section 9.2 of the Application, the CPF site is located on an area with a s olid clay base that is topped with a significant layer of sand overburden under the surface layers. The earthwork for the CPF is planned such that it will be based on a minimum of 1 m of low permeability clay (or synthetic equivalent). The sand piles shown on the plot plan are the overburden spoil that must be stripped from the area of the CPF plot plan.

b. The overburden sand will be s tockpiled on t he CPF until reclamation. Half of the sand pile located in the southern region of the CPF will be redistributed to the larger sand pile to the east and the space allocated to Horizon B subsoil stockpile. Adequate area has already been allocated for the storage of the Horizon A topsoil stockpile.

Updated Response 96

a. There is no change to this response.

b. The revised plot plan no longer has a sand pile to the east. All sand will be stockpiled in the subsoil pile to the south until reclamation occurs.

5.2. Conservation and Reclamation

Question 104


Volume 2, Part B, Appendix 11A.5.2.3, Table 11A-11, Page 11A-34

Volume 1, Section 15.11.6, Table 15-18, Page 15-44, Table 15-19, Page 15-46, and Figure 15-6, Page 15-43

Tables 15-3 and 11A-11 present data on the distribution and extent of land capability classes within the Project LSA. However, discrepancies between the two tables were noted for Class 4 and Class 5 land.


41

a. Confirm the areal extent of Class 4 and Class 5 lands within the LSA.

b. Provide updates to tables and figures as necessary

c. Based on any changes identified in (a) and (b), provide updates to the EIA regarding any resulting changes to soil capability.


a. Please see Table 104-1 (Table 15-3, updated), below, for the areal extent of land capability classes, including Class 4 and Class 5, in the LSA.

Table 104-1 Distribution of Land Capability Classes in the LSA (Table 15-3, updated)

Land Capability Classification1 Soil Series1

Area

(ha/%) Class Description 1 High None 0.0/0

2 Moderate Kinosis, Gleyed Kinosis 115.5/7.5

3 Low Dover, Fort 53.5/3.5

4 Conditionally productive Bitumount, Firebag, Gleyed Firebag, Mamawi, Steepbank, Rego Steepbank

592.7/38.5

5 Permanently non-productive

Albian, Bonnie, Hartley, McLelland, Terric McLelland 682.3/44.3

Subtotal 1444.0

Disturbed lands2 92.6/6.0

Water 2.6/0.2

Subtotal 95.2/6.2 Total 1539.2/100.0 NOTES: 1 From Part 2B, Section 11: Terrain and Soils. 2 Existing disturbed lands are not rated for commercial forest production.

b. Please see the Part 2A, Figure 15-2 for the revised figure illustrating land capability distributions).

Table 104-2 (Table 15-18, updated) outlines the updated pre-disturbance and conceptual post-reclamation land capability class distributions. The latter are also shown in Table 104-1 (Table 15-7, updated).

Table 104-3a (Table 15-20, updated) and Table 104-3b (Table 15-21, updated) present the predisturbance and conceptual post-reclamation distributions of ecosites and AWI classes. In Table 104-3b the following assumptions were made:

• for the borrow pits, there would be no disturbance of the wetland/peat soil areas,


42

• of the disturbed areas in the borrows, approximately 35.7 ha would form as open water bodies at closure fringed by marsh vegetation (MONG, AWI class) and

• disturbed lands would likely be reclaimed as d1 ecosites.

It is more accurate to target ecosites (e.g., d) as opposed to ecosite phases (e.g., d1) for the closure vegetation, but that tables were retained as ecosite phases to be consistent with the overall baseline reporting and impact assessment approach.

c. Please see Part 2B, Section 11 for any changes to the impact assessment that may result from addressing these inconsistencies regarding soil capability.

Updated Response 104

a. Table 15-3 has been updated in the Conservation and Reclamation Plan. Please see Part 2A, Table 15-3.

b. The Conservation and Reclamation Plan has been updated. Please see Part 2A, Figure 15-2 for the revised land capability distributions; Part 2A, Table 15-18 for the updated pre-disturbance and conceptual post-reclamation land capability class distributions; Tables 15-20 and 15-21 for the pre-disturbance and conceptual post-reclamation distributions of ecosites and AWI classes respectively.

c. There is no change to this response.

Question 109


Volume 1, Section 15.11.4.2, Page 15-39


JACOS states that Wellpads constructed in peatland areas may be reclaimed by removing the fill used to build the pads. and that this will result in the formation of swamps, marshes and shallow open water. JACOS also states that There may be instances when it is determined, at reclamation that developments constructed on deep organics will not have the geotextile and fill removed.

a. Where does JACOS plan to put the fill material after removing it from the wellpad areas?

b. If the material is to be returned to the borrow pits, has this returned material been factored into the Post Reclamation Land Capability Classification areas presented in Table 15-18? Provide updates as necessary

c. Describe the decision process that JACOS plans to follow when deciding to leave a wellpad in place versus removing the fill and geotextile material.


43

d. What contingencies does JACOS have in place, should the decision process described in (c) result in leaving most well pads in place, potentially resulting in a shortage of subsoil and topsoil reclamation materials?


a. JACOS proposes to reuse as much of the salvaged fill material as possible, depending upon how the overall Expansion Project development plan evolves over the course of its operational life. Salvaged fill would be used to the greatest degree possible for the construction of roads and wellpads in the later phases of the Expansion Project as the initial developments are decommissioned and reclaimed. JACOS would investigate alternative methods for disposal of any excess material, such as in an approved facility, should the need arise.

b. Updates to the Post Reclamation Land Capability Classification areas (Table 15-18) are not required. JACOS does not propose to replace the fill materials in the borrow pits from which it was originally obtained as these sites will have been r eclaimed, potentially as open w ater areas, by the time fill materials are ready for disposal.

c. Please see Figure 109-1, which illustrates JACOS’ procedure for determining when to retain and when to remove pads constructed with geotextile and fill.

d. JACOS does not believe there will be any shortfall in the amount of subsoil or topsoil reclamation materials. All well pads that are partly or entirely constructed on upland locations will have the required volumes of topsoil and subsoil salvaged to allow reclamation by the proposed prescriptions. Pads that are partly constructed on shallow wetlands (peat deposits) will have 40 cm of peat salvaged so the site can be reclaimed to uplands at closure. Pads that are constructed on deep wetlands (peat deposits) will be removed at closure and the sites allowed to recover as wetlands by natural processes. Due to the infilling of the borrows pits with water to produce ponds at closure, there will be an es timated 50,000 m3 of topsoil and 70,000 m3 of subsoil extra to the recommended reclamation prescriptions. These materials could be used to reclaim well pads, if necessary (see also the response to Question 107, Tables 15-16 and 15-17 revised, for material balances).


The response to SIR 109 has been updated in response to Supplemental Information Requests received from AENV. For parts a. and b., please see the response to SIR 23 (Part 3). For parts c. and d., please see the response to SIR 50 (Part 3).


44

Question 112



In Tables 15-16 and 15-17, JACOS indicates a positive reclamation material balance for both topsoil and subsoil.

a. What does JACOS plan to do with this excess reclamation material?

b. How has the excess material been factored into the expected post-reclamation landscape and predicted post-reclamation soil capability?


a. Please see the response to Question 107c for revised material balance (revised Table 15-16 and Table 15-17). At this time, JACOS does not have specific plans for the excess reclamation material. It is possible that once the Expansion Project is approved and the detailed Pre-Development Assessment and Conservation and Reclamation Plan (PDA-C&R) is conducted, these values may change as a result of more detailed information becoming available. It is also possible that the proposed borrows may not fill with water, either entirely or partially, which may require that some or all of the excess material may be us ed in reclaiming such areas.

b. The excess materials have not been factored into any post-reclamation calculations. The potential for further revisions to the Expansion Project due t o refinements in facility design, results of the geotechnical evaluations, soil information of greater (i.e., more accurate) resolution from the PDA-C&R make any specific uses assigned to these materials at this time speculative. Ultimately, all conserved topsoil and subsoil resources will be used for reclaiming the disturbed sites in a manner that targets the best opportunity for successfully achieving the reclamation and closure objectives.


The response to SIR 112 has been i ntegrated into the Conservation and Reclamation Plan. Please see Tables 15-16 and 15-17 (Part 2A, Section 15.11.5).


45

5.3. Terrain and Soils

Question 114

Volume 1, Section 15.3.3, Table 15-1, Page15-7

Volume 2, Part B, Appendix 11A.4.2, Table 11A-8, Page 11A-21


In Tables 15-1 and 11A-8, JACOS presents the types of surficial materials identified within the LSA and their distribution by area (ha) and percent of the LSA. Numerous discrepancies exist between the two tables in the number of ha covered by each surficial material type. In addition, Table 11A-8 presents a different value for the number of ha of water than all other tables (e.g., Table 11A-9) in the EIA.

a. Confirm the number of ha of water within the LSA. Provide updates to affected tables within the EIA as required.

b. Confirm the number of ha of each surficial material type within the LSA. Provide updated tables as necessary.

c. Table 11A-8 identifies anthropogenic surficial materials. Confirm that this is the same material as described elsewhere in the EIA as disturbed lands.

d. If they are not the same, clarify the difference and provide a d escription of these materials similar to those provided in Volume 2, Sections 11A.4.2.1 and 11A.4.2.2.

e. If they are the same, confirm the number of ha as requested in part (b) and provide updated tables as necessary.


a. The number of ha of water (0.5 ha) within the LSA is confirmed and affected tables have been updated and are provided in the Supplemental Submission.

b. The number of ha of each surficial material type within the LSA is confirmed in the affected tables which have been updated and a re provided in the Supplemental Submission. An updated Table 11A-8 that summarizes surficial material by type, area and per centage is provided below (see Table 114-1). There are discrepancies between Tables 11A-8, 11A-9 and 15-1 due t o the different scales used in terrain and s oils mapping. Terrain mapping is at a scale of 1:7,500 and soils mapping at a scale of 1:5,000. As a result, there are water features and anthropogenic (disturbed land) features that are identified in the soils mapping but not in the terrain mapping as they are too small to represent individual polygons on the terrain map.

c. Anthropogenic surficial materials are the same as disturbed lands. In Table 114-1, ‘disturbed land’ has been added in brackets.


46

d. As indicated in the response to Question 114c, anthropogenic surficial materials are the same as disturbed lands. As such, no action is required.

e. The number of ha of anthropogenic (disturbed land) is confirmed. See response to Question 114b regarding the updated table.

Table 114-1 Summary of Surficial Material by Type, Area and Percentage (Table 11A-8 revised)

Surficial Material

Area (ha)

Percent of Local Study Area (%)

Anthropogenic (disturbed land) 80.4 5.2 Colluvial 1.0 0.07 Fluvial 55.9 3.6 Glaciofluvial 515.4 33.5 Glaciolacustrine 22.7 1.5 Morainal (Till) 159.1 10.3 Organic 704.2 45.8 Water 0.5 0.03 Total 1539.2 100.0


The Expansion Project footprint and associated Terrain and Soils analysis has been u pdated. Please see Part 2B, Section 11 and Appendix 11A. For further discussion of disturbed areas in the Soils LSA, please see Part 3, Response to AENV SIR 28.

Question 115




Tables 15-2, 15-6, and 11A-9 present data on the distribution and extent of mapped soil series within the Project LSA. However, discrepancies between the two tables were noted for the following soil series: Firebag, Bitumount, Rego Steepbank, McClelland, and Terric McClelland.

a. Confirm the areal extent of each mapped soil series within the LSA.

b. Provide updated tables as necessary.

c. Based on any changes identified in (a) and (b), provide updates to the estimated salvage volumes of topsoil and subsoil (Tables 15-13 and 15-15) within the Project footprint as required.


47

d. Based on any changes identified in (a), (b), and (c) provide updates to the reclamation material balances (Tables 15-16 and 15-17) within the Project footprint as required.


a. The discrepancies in the distribution and e xtent of: Firebag, Bitumount, Rego Steepbank, McClelland, and Terric McClelland soils, have been resolved. A revised Expansion Project footprint has been provided (as part of the Supplemental Submission) to help resolve the discrepancies. As a result, numerous updates have been made to relevant sections in the Supplemental Submission pertaining to soils and terrain. The areal extent and distribution of soil series has been updated in:

• Volume 1, Section 15.3.4, Table 15-2, Page 15-8 (See Part 2A, Project Update – Project Description)

• Volume 1, Section 15.3.10, Table 15-6, Page 15-15 (See Part 2A, Project Update – Project Description)

• Volume 2, Part B, Appendix 11A.5.2.1, Table 11A-9, Page 11A-31 (See Appendix J: Updated Appendix 11A, Terrain and Soils Baseline Report)

In addition several associated figures, tables and text have also been updated in the Terrain and Soils section of the Supplemental Submission (See Part 2B, Project Update – Environmental Impact Assessment).

b. Updated tables are provided in Part 2 (Project Update) of the Supplemental Submission and the volumes and Appendix J as listed above in the response to Question 115a.

c. Volume estimates of salvage volumes of top soil and subsoil have been r ecalculated and tables 15-13 and 15-15 have been updated in Part 2A of the Supplemental Submission.

d. Volume estimates of the reclamation material balances have been recalculated and Tables 15-16 and 15-17 have been updated in Part 2A of the Supplemental Submission.


The Expansion Project footprint and associated Terrain and Soils analysis has been u pdated. Please see Part 2B, Section 11 and Appendix 11A for the updated Terrain and Soils effects assessment and baseline analysis respectively. The Conservation and Reclamation Plan has also been updated. Please see Part 2A, Section 15 for the updated Conservation and Reclamation Plan.


48

Question 137

Volume 2, Part B, Appendix 11A.5.2.2, Figure 11A-8, map pocket

Figure 11A-8 indicates a large pipeline ROW running parallel to Hwy 63. The section of pipeline ROW running north-south has been mapped as disturbed land, while the section of pipeline ROW running northeast-southwest has been mapped as undisturbed (i.e., given a soil series map unit label). As well, other pipeline ROW’s within the LSA have been mapped as ‘undisturbed’.

a. Discuss the rationale for mapping the north-south portion of the ROW adjacent to Hwy 63 as disturbed land, while other pipeline ROW’s have been mapped as undisturbed.

b. Discuss any changes to the areal extent of mapped soil series and reclamation material balance calculations that would result if the soils were mapped as undisturbed.

c. Provide any changes or updates to the EIA as necessary.


a. The inconsistencies in mapping of pipeline ROWs have been corrected and remapped. Some additional well pads originally mapped as undisturbed have now been added to the disturbed land category. These were originally mapped as undisturbed likely because the stereo imagery used for mapping was older than that used for the orthophoto background, and the wellpads were not present on this imagery. The newer orthophoto imagery has been used to map the pads during the footprint revision, so that all disturbed areas have now been mapped correctly and consistently. The updated mapping has been i ncorporated into the Supplemental Submission.

b. Disturbed land extent increased, with a corresponding decrease in other soil map units. There has been an ov erall decrease in the size of the LSA and the disturbance footprint due to a revised disturbance footprint provided by JACOS.

c. The appropriate EIA sections have been r ewritten to reflect the correct information. The following items have been revised:

• Volume 2, Part B, Appendix 11A.5.2.2, Figure 11A-8, map pocket

• Affected figures, tables and text have been updated in response to the revised Expansion Project footprint and these are provided in the Supplemental Submission. Updates have been made to relevant sections pertaining to soils and terrain.


The Expansion Project footprint and associated Terrain and Soils analysis has been u pdated. Please see Part 2B, Section 11 and Appendix 11A. For further discussion of disturbed areas in the Soils LSA, please see Part 3, Response to AENV SIR 28.


49

5.4. Vegetation

Question 138


Volume 2, Part B, Section 12, Table 12-13, Page 12-54

JACOS indicates that maintaining a 50m buffer around identified rare plant locations was considered when developing the Expansion Project site layout and subsequent footprint.

a. Does JACOS intend to maintain a 50m buffer around each of the 7 rare plants located within the project footprint?

i. If yes, provide a map showing each rare plant and buffer.

ii. If no, what alternate mitigation strategies have been considered?


FOOTPRINT RECONCILIATION

The number of rare plant occurrences within the Expansion Project footprint at Application Case has changed as a result of some minor revisions made to the Expansion Project footprint. (see Supplemental Submission). In total, there are now six rare plant occurrences potentially affected by the Expansion Project (see Table 138-1). Two separate survey sites with observed occurrences of Chrysosplenium iowense and Lophozia excisa are no longer found within the Expansion Project Footprint while one additional survey site with an observed occurrence of Cephaloziella hampeana is now located within the Expansion Project Footprint.

RARE PLANT MITIGATION STRATEGIES

JACOS does not plan to apply a 50 m buffer around each of the six rare plant species currently located within the Expansion Project Footprint in all cases. Rare plant avoidance may not always be feasible as some individual situations may not allow for avoidance.

Alternate mitigation strategies may be implemented when avoidance is not feasible. Examples considered by JACOS include, seed collection and sowing, direct transplantation or diaspore dispersal (see Volume 2, Section 12.6.2.4). JACOS plans to develop individual rare plant mitigation strategies in consultation with provincial agencies after additional rare plant surveys are conducted prior to final facilities sitting. JACOS also plans to conduct additional rare plant surveys prior to final facilities siting to provide the site-specific information needed to potentially develop alternate and specific rare plant mitigation strategies in consultation with provincial agencies (e.g., ASRD and ACIMS) (see Volume 2, Sections 12.6.2.5 and 12.6.2.8).


50

Table 138-1 Number of Rare Plant Occurrences within the Expansion Project Footprint at Application Case by Footprint Version

Scientific Name Track or Watch

List Provincial

ANHIC Rank

Original Volume 2 Footprint

(April 2010)

Revised Volume Supplemental Submission

Footprint (February 2011)

Vascular Species Cardamine pratensis Watch S3 0 0 Chrysosplenium iowense Track S3? 3 2 Cypripedium acaule Track S3 0 0

Number of Rare Vascular Plant Occurrences 3 2 Bryophyte Species Anastrophyllum helleranum Track S2 1 1 Brachythecium rutabulum Track S2? 0 0 Cephaloziella hampeana Track S1 0 1 Chiloscyphus pallescens Track S1 0 0 Dicranum ontariense Track S1 1 1 Herzogiella turfacea Watch S3 1 1 Lophozia excisa Track S1 1 0 Scapania apiculata Track S1 0 0

Number of Rare Bryophyte Occurrences 4 4 Total Number of Rare Plant Occurrences 7 6


The footprint update described in Part 2A, Section 1.2 has resulted in changes to the incidence of rare plants within the Expansion Project Footprint as identified in Table 138-1 (updated). In keeping with the original response, JACOS will consider alternative mitigation where avoidance is not possible.

Table 138-1 Number of Rare Plant Occurrences within the Expansion Project Footprint at Application Case by Footprint Version (updated)

Scientific Name

Track or Watch

List Provincial

ANHIC Rank


(April 2010)

Supplemental Submission


Project Update Footprint

(August 2011) Vascular Species Cardamine pratensis Watch S3 0 0 0 Chrysosplenium iowense Track S3? 3 2 0 Cypripedium acaule Track S3 0 0 0

Number of Rare Vascular Plant Occurrences 3 2 0


51

Table 138-1 Number of Rare Plant Occurrences within the Expansion Project Footprint at Application Case by Footprint Version (updated) (cont'd)

Scientific Name

Track or Watch

List Provincial

ANHIC Rank


(April 2010)

Supplemental Submission


Project Update Footprint

(August 2011) Bryophyte Species Anastrophyllum helleranum

Track S2 1 1 1

Brachythecium rutabulum Track S2? 0 0 0 Cephaloziella hampeana Track S1 0 1 1 Chiloscyphus pallescens Track S1 0 0 0 Dicranum ontariense Track S1 1 1 1 Herzogiella turfacea Watch S3 1 1 1 Lophozia excisa Track S1 1 0 0 Scapania apiculata Track S1 0 0 0

Number of Rare Bryophyte Occurrences 4 4 4 Total Number of Rare Plant Occurrences 7 6 4

6. Health

Question 162

Volume 2, Part C, Appendix 19A, Section 19A.3.1.1, Page 5-15

JACOS describes plant upset conditions and in Volume 2, Section 5, the air quality assessment presents predicted SO2 concentrations under upset conditions. However, health risks have not been assessed quantitatively for this scenario.

a. Provide an assessment of health risks under upset conditions.


a. Since the health risks assessed as part of the normal operating scenarios were more conservative than the upset conditions, additional quantitative assessment was not considered necessary. As indicated in Table 5E-13 (Volume 2, Appendix 5E), the 1-hour highest results for both flaring scenarios (432 μg/m3

for flaring produced gas and 74.8 μg/m3 for VRU failure)

are lower than the 1-hour highest result (490 μg/m3) that was used for the Expansion Project Scenario, Application Case, and Planned Development Case.


52

Updated Response 162 a. The only update to Response 162 is the 1-hour highest result has changed from 490 μg/m3 to

500 μg/m3.

7. Approvals

7.1. Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act

Question 182


JACOS states that The construction camp’s domestic water system is expected to be certified for use as drinking water. A separate EPEA Approval may be required for the domestic water system.

a. Confirm whether an EPEA Application will be submitted. If so, provide a description of the domestic water system. If not, explain.


JACOS continues to evaluate the options with respect to third-party commercially available temporary construction camps for the Expansion Project. The supply of potable water for the camp is expected to be part of the commercial scope of supply. Therefore, any required EPEA Approvals will be obtained by the commercial camp operator.


JACOS has revised their plans and now intend to utilize a commercial camp for construction and operations.

Question 185

JACOS states that… the initial development… will have between 2 and 9 well pairs on each pad, future development may require up to 16 w ell pairs per pad” and indicates an average surface disturbance of 21 ha at each pad location.

a. Indicate the range of pad sizes (dimension and area) that will be required to accommodate the varying number of well pairs that will be used.


53


a. Well pads are located to provide the best possible coverage of the resource in alignments that are consistent with the characteristics of the geological structure within the limitations imposed by environmental conditions and d rilling constraints. Minor adjustments are then made to optimize the well pair to pad ratio as much as it is practical, in an effort to minimize the surface disturbance and the associated facility costs. The result of this effort is a range of well pad sizes.

Well pads, as illustrated by Figure 10-2 (Volume 1, Section 10, page 1-3 of the Application), are typically rectangular in shape with chamfered corners on one side. As a r esult of the geology, Pads W11, W12, W17, W18, W20 and W26 are arranged in L-shapes (see Figure 1-4 in Volume 1 of the Application) in order to support drilling in two perpendicular directions and resemble two small pads that are adjacent to each other. The disturbance associated with these L-shaped pads is smaller than the combined area of two smaller individual pads, since they tend to be s lightly overlapped. In general, the surface disturbance ranges from about 11 ha to 49 ha with a median of 21 ha.

Table 185-1 Wellpad Area Depletion

Area

Wellpad

Well Pairs

Length (m)

Width (m)

Approximate Area (m2)

B1 W01 4 144 115 16425 B1 W02 8 240 115 26025 B1 W03 6 192 115 21225 B1 W04 2 96 115 11040 B1 W05 5 168 115 18825 BE-North W06 7 216 115 23625 BE-North W07 7 216 115 23625 BE-North W08 6 192 115 21225 BE-North W09 7 216 115 23625 BE-North W10 9 264 115 28425 BE-South W11 16 280 260 48875 BE-South W12 11 160 260 35075 BE-South W13 5 168 115 18825 BE-South W14 8 240 115 26025 BE-South W15 8 240 115 26025 BE-South W16 5 168 115 18825 BE-South W17 9 184 188 29555 BE-South W18 10 160 236 32315 BE-South W19 6 192 115 21225


54

Table 185-1 Wellpad Area (cont'd) Depletion

Area

Wellpad

Well Pairs

Length (m)

Width (m)


D W20 10 208 188 32315 D W21 5 168 115 18825 D W22 3 120 115 13800 D W23 3 120 115 13800 C W24 5 168 115 18825 C W25 4 144 115 16425 C W26 6 164 136 21275


The surface disturbance ranges from 1.1 ha to 4.9 ha, with an average of 2.4 ha. Table 185-1 (updated) presents the updated pad sizes.

Table 185-1 Wellpad Area (Updated) Depletion

Area

Wellpad

Well Pairs

Length (m)

Width (m)


B1 W01 5 168 115 18825 B1 W02 8 240 115 26025 B1 W03 3 120 115 13800 B1 W04 5 168 115 18825 B1 W05 7 216 115 23625 BE-North W06 4 144 115 16425 BE-North W07 7 216 115 23625 BE-North W08 6 192 115 21225 BE-North W09 2 96 115 11040 BE-North W10 13 260 155 40300 BE-South W11 16 280 260 48875 BE-South W12 11 160 260 35075 BE-South W13 5 168 115 18825 BE-South W14 8 240 115 26025 BE-South W15 8 240 115 26025 BE-South W16 5 168 115 18825 BE-South W17 9 184 188 29555 BE-South W18 10 160 236 32315 BE-South W19 6 192 115 21225


55

Table 185-1 Wellpad Area (Updated) (cont'd) Depletion

Area

Wellpad

Well Pairs

Length (m)

Width (m)


D W20 10 208 188 32315 D W21 5 168 115 18825 D W22 3 120 115 13800 D W23 3 120 115 13800 C W24 5 168 115 18825 C W25 4 144 115 16425 C W26 6 164 136 21275

Question 189

Volume 1, Section 15.0, Page 15-8, 15-9, 15-12 and 15-15

a. Provide tables similar to Tables 15-2, 15-3, 15-4, and 15-6 that show actual footprint disturbance.


Revised versions of tables 15-2, 15-4 and 15-6 are provided below as Table 189-1, Table 189-2 and Table 189-3, respectively. Table 15-3 has been revised in response to Question 104; please see Table 104-1. It must be emphasized that while the proposed disturbance footprint encompasses an area of 495.87 ha, not all of this area will be physically disturbed to develop and operate the Expansion Project. The total area of disturbance for soils is estimated at only 230.3 ha (this excludes above-ground piperacks, utility corridors and buried pipelines that are temporary disturbances). Areas that will include vegetation disturbance amount to 451 ha . The difference, 220.7 ha, is made up of areas where vegetation clearing will be required, but no soil disturbance is proposed (e.g. above-ground piperacks).

Table 189-1 Soil Series Distribution in the Disturbance Footprint (Table15-2, updated)

Soil Series1 Soil Parent Material

Soil Classification

Footprint Area

(ha/%)2

Actual Disturbance

(ha/%)2 Name Abbreviation Upland Soils Dover DOV Fine glaciolacustrine Orthic Gray Luvisol 12.4/2.5 7.8/3.4

Firebag FIR Very coarse glaciofluvial Eluviated Dystric Brunisol Orthic Dystric Brunisol

150.5/30.4 106.4/46.2

Fort FRT Medium to very coarse glaciofluvial

Orthic Grey Luvisol 7.6/1.5 2.9/1.3


56

Table 189-1 Soil Series Distribution in the Disturbance Footprint (Table15-2, updated) (cont'd)

Soil Series1 Soil Parent Material

Soil Classification

Footprint Area

(ha/%)2

Actual Disturbance

(ha/%)2 Name Abbreviation Kinosis KNS Fine till Orthic Gray Luvisol 21.2/4.3 5.3/2.3

Gleyed Kinosis glKNS Fine till Gleyed Gray Luvisol 8.7/1.8 0.5/0.2

Mildred MIL Very coarse glaciofluvial Eluviated Dystric Brunisol

12.3/2.5 1.5/0.7

Subtotal 212.7/42.9 124.4/54.0 Lowland Soils Bitumount BMT Very coarse glaciofluvial Orthic Gleysol

Rego Gleysol 48.1/9.7 24.6/10.7

Mamawi MMW Medium fluvial Rego Gleysol 14.3/2.9 1.8/0.8

Steepbank STP Medium till Orthic Gleysol Orthic Luvic Gleysol

13.4/2.7 0.0/0.0

Rego Steepbank

STP Medium till Rego Gleysol 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0

Subtotal 75.8/15.3 26.4/11.5 Organic Soils Albian ALB Organic (fen peat) Typic Fibrisol 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0

Bonnie BNN Organic (fen peat) Typic Humisol 2.3/0.5 <0.1/<0.1

Hartley HLY Organic (fen peat) Terric Fibrisol 5.5/1.1 <0.1/<0.1

McLelland MLD Organic (fen peat) Typic Mesisol 18.0/3.6 1.6/0.3

Terric McLelland

MLDxc/xs/xt Organic (fen peat) Terric Mesisol 163.9/33.0 69.1/30.0

Subtotal 190.4/38.4 70.8/30.7 Miscellaneous Units Disturbed lands

DL Not applicable Not applicable 17.2/3.5 8.7/3.8

Water W Not applicable Not applicable 0.2/<0.1 0.0/0.0

Subtotal 17.4/3.5 8.7/3.8 Total 495.87/100 230.3/100 NOTES: 1 From Part 2B, Section 11: Terrain and Soils. 2 Areas and percentages may not add up to totals due to rounding.


57

Table 189-2 Ecosite Phases in the Disturbance Footprint1 (Table 15-4 revised)

Ecosite Phase2

Ecosite Phase Characteristics Ecosite Phase Code

Footprint Area

(ha/%) 4

Actual Disturbance

(ha/%)4 Moisture Regime

Nutrient Regime

Uplands

‘b’ blueberry Submesic Medium b1 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0

‘c’ Labrador tea (mesic) Mesic Poor c1 22.4/4.5 14.1/6.1

‘d’ low-bush cranberry Mesic Medium d1 14.3/2.9 9.7/4.2

d2 12.4/2.5 3.8/1.7

d3 0.6/0.1 0.0/0.0

‘e’ dogwood Subhygric Rich e1 2.5/0.5 0.0/0.0

e2 0.7/0.1 <0.1/0.0

e3 4.3/0.9 3.9/0.7

‘g’ Labrador tea (subhygric) Subhygric Poor g1 15.2/3.1 4.4/1.9

‘h’ Labrador tea-horsetail Hygric Medium h1 5.2/1.1 2.3/1.0

Upland subtotal 77.5/15.6 38.3/16.6 Wetlands AWI Code3

Shrubby fen/peatland Hydric – hygric Poor – rich FONS 57.4/11.6 15.9/6.9

Treed fen/peatland Hydric – hygric Poor – rich FTNN 16.1/3.2 4.0/1.7

Open deciduous swamp (shrubby)/nonpeatland

Hydric SONS 13.8/2.8 2.9/1.3

Wetland subtotal 87.3/17.6 27.8/12.1 Disturbed

Blueberry (submesic) Submesic Medium b0 0.5/0.1 0.0/0.0

Labrador tea (mesic) Mesic Poor c0 79.7/16.1 59.6/25.9

low-bush cranberry Mesic Medium d0 5.4/1.1 1.7/0.7

Labrador tea (subhygric) Subhygric Poor g0 214.2/43.2 98.7/42.9

Disturbed ecosite subtotal 299.8/60.5 159.9/69.4

Subtotal 464.6/93.7 221.0/96.0

Disturbed Lands with no Vegetation Cover 31.3/6.3 11.4/5.0 Total 495.87/100 230.3/100 NOTES: 1 Data summarized from Part 2B, Section 12: Vegetation. 2 Ecosite phases were classified for both the Boreal Highlands and Central Mixedwood Natural Subregions

(Beckingham and Archibald 1996) as the Expansion Project is situated in the transition zone between the two. 3 Wetlands were classified using the Alberta Wetland Inventory (AWI) system. 4 Areas and percentages may not add up to totals due to rounding


58

Table 189-3 Soil Series, Terrain Unit, Ecosite Phase and Land C apability Relationships in the Disturbance Footprint (Table 15-6, updated)

Soil Series

Terrain Unit

Ecosite Phase

Land Capability

Footprint Area

(ha/%)1

Actual Disturbance

(ha/%)1 Mamawi Fluvial c1, d1, e1, g1, h1,

FONS, MONG, SONS 4 14.3/2.9 1.8/0.8

Bitumount Glaciofluvial c1, e1, g1, c0, g0, FONS, FTNN, SONS

4 48.1/9.7 24.6/10.7

Firebag c1, d1, d2, d3, e3, g1, FONS,FTNN, SONS, c0,d0,g0

4 150.5/30.4 106.4/46.2

Fort c1, d1, d2, e1, g1, FONS, FTNN

3 7.6/1.5 2.9/1.3

Mildred c1, e1, e3, g1, FONS, FTNN, SONS, g0

4 12.3/2.5 1.5/0.7

Subtotal 232.8/47.0 137.2/59.6 Dover Glaciolacustrine C0, g0, h1, FONS,

SONS 3 12.4/2.5 7.8/3.4

Kinosis Till c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e3, g1, h1, FTNN, FONS, SONS, b0, c0, d0, g0

2 29.9/6.1 5.8/2.5

Steepbank g0 4 13.4/2.7 0.0/0.0 Subtotal 55.7/11.2 13.6/5.9 Albian Organic FONS 5 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 Bonnie co, g0 5 2.3/0.5 <0.1/<0.1 Hartley FONS, d1, g0 5 5.5/1.1 <0.1/<0.1 McLelland d2, e2, g1, h1, FONS,

FTNN, SONS, c0, g0 5 181.9/36.6 70.7/30.3

Subtotal 189.7/38.3 70.7/30.7 Disturbed Lands

NA c1, d1, d2, g1, c0, d0, g0 NA 17.2/3.5 8.7/3.8

Water NA NA NA 0.2/<0.1 0.0/0.0 Subtotal 17.4/3.5 0.0/0.0 Total 495.87/100 230.3/100 NOTE: 1 Areas and percentages may not add up to totals due to rounding


Table 15-2, Table 15-4 and Table 15-6 have been updated in the Project Description Update. Please see Part 2A, Section 15.3.4, Section 15.3.5 and 15.3.10, respectively.


59

Question 191

Volume 1, Section 15.4.1.2, Page 15-20

a. Provide the approximate time frames for borrow pit development and reclamation.


The approximate timeframes for Borrow Pit development and Reclamation are provided in Table 191-1 (below).

Table 191-1 Borrow Pit Development Schedule Location Construction Start Reclamation Comment

Clay Pits SE 22-84-11 W4M 2011 2016 Construction of CPF, Pads W01 – W12 and

associated infrastructure NE 23-84-11 W4M 2012 2017 SE 01-84-11 W4M 2019 2025 Construction of Pads W13 – W19 and associated

infrastructure NE 01-84-12 W4M 2026 2030 Construction of Pads W20 – W23 and associated

infrastructure SE 30-84-11 W4M 2025 2027 Construction of Pads W24 – W26 and associated

infrastructure Gravel Pits NW 12-84-11 W4M 2011 2017 Construction of CPF, Pads W01 – W12 and

associated infrastructure and pipelines. SE 19-83-11 W4M 2012 2017 NW 28-83-11 W4M 2019 2030 Construction of Pads W13 – W26 and associated

infrastructure


The approximate timeframes for Borrow Pit development and Reclamation are provided in Table 191-1 (Updated).

Table 191-1 Borrow Pit Development Schedule (Updated) Location Construction Start Reclamation Comment

Clay Pits SE 22-84-11 W4M 2012 2017 Construction of CPF, Pads W01 – W12 and

associated infrastructure NE 22-84-11 W4M 2012 2017 SE 15-84-11 W4M 2012 2017 SE 01-84-11 W4M 2018 2025 Construction of Pads W13 – W19 and associated

infrastructure


60

Table 191-1 Borrow Pit Development Schedule (Updated) (cont'd) Location Construction Start Reclamation Comment

NE 01-84-12 W4M 2027 2030 Construction of Pads W20 – W23 and associated infrastructure

SE 30-84-11 W4M 2025 2027 Construction of Pads W24 – W26 and associated infrastructure

Gravel Pits NW 12-84-11 W4M 2012 2017 Construction of CPF, Pads W01 – W12 and

associated infrastructure and pipelines. SE 19-83-11 W4M 2012 2017 NW 28-83-11 W4M 2018 2030 Construction of Pads W13 – W26 and associated

infrastructure

Question 199

Volume 2, Part A, Section 5.6.1.1, Page 5-34

JACOS states that JACOS plans to fire seven once through steam generators (OTSG). Two of the seven OTSGs will be fired with a blend of produced gas and natural gas, while five of the seven will be fired with natural gas only.

a. Confirm whether the other five steam generators will be able to use produced gas. If so, will JACOS be using more produced gas resulting in higher emissions?

b. What is the reason to use only two of the seven OTSGs with produced gas while not the other OTSGs?"


a. Also see responses to Question 18d and Question 24. JACOS plans to burn all the produced gas in OTSG #1 and OTSG #2 for the Expansion Project. However, for the rare exception that both OTSG #1 and O TSG #2 ar e simultaneously off-line, requiring the produced gas to be routed to the remaining boilers, produced gas can be blended with sweet gas and burned in the other five boilers for a short period of time without any detrimental effects such as corrosion. The emissions will not increase as the produced gas that would normally be burned in OTSG #1 and OTSG #2 will be redistributed to the other five steam generators.

b. See Volume 1, Section 9.4 of the Project Description in the Application. Since produced gas is sour, the fuel gas equipment, piping and steam generator fuel systems handling the blended produced and sweet natural gas will be designed with materials of construction appropriate for continuous slightly sour fuel combustion. This is the reason why the blended fuel will only be used continuously in two of the seven OTSGs.


61


As described in Part 2A, Section 6, the number of OTSGs has been reduced from 7 to 6. The basic design philosophy remains the same; for the rare exception that both OTSG #1 and #2 are simultaneously off-line, produced gas can be blended with sweet gas and burned in the other four boilers for a short period of time without any detrimental effects such as corrosion. The emissions will not increase as the produced gas that would normally be burned in OTSG #1 and #2 will be redistributed to the other four generators.

Question 200

Volume 2, Part A, Appendix 5A, Table 5A-11 and 5A-12, Pages 5A-21 to 26


Table 5A-11 and Table 5A-12 lists the NOX emissions associated with the proposed Expansion Project. JACOS indicates that there are seven 73.2 MW OTSGs Volume 1, Section 9.6 yet Table 5A-11 there are seven 79 MW OTSGs.

a. Clarify whether the seven OTSGs are 73.2 MW or 79 MW.

b. Demonstrate with calculations how the proposed Once-through Steam Generators (OTSG) complied with the CCME National Emission Guideline for Commercial/Industrial Boilers and Heaters.

c. Confirm that the appropriate emission rate was used in the modeling for the OTSGs.

d. Provide an updated air dispersion modeling, if necessary.”


a. Both numbers are correct; they represent two different ratings. The seven OTSGs are rated 79 MW heat input and 73.2 MW heat output. These ratings are on a Low Heating Value (LHV) basis. On a High Heating Value (HHV) basis, the heat input and heat output are 87.7 and 81.3 MW, respectively. The LHV and HHV content of the fuel are 32.35 and 35.91 MJ/m3, respectively.

b. The CCME National Emission Guideline for Commercial/Industrial Boilers and Heaters (CCME 1998) state the NOX emission factor for boilers and heaters with capacity more than 105 GJ/h (or 100 MMBtu/h) is 40 g/GJ on a HHV basis of heat input.

This applies to the OTSG as the heat input on a HHV basis is 87.7 MW or:

Heat input = (87.7 MJ/s) (0.001 GJ/MJ) (3600 s/h) = 316 GJ/h


62

Therefore the NOX emission limit is:

NOX = (316 GJ/h) (40 g/GJ) (0.001 kg/g) = 12.6 kg/h

= (12.6 kg/h) (24 h/d) (0.001 t/kg) = 0.303 t/d

This does not take into account the thermal efficiency credit. The thermal efficiency = (81.3 MW heat output) / (87.7 MW heat input) = 92.7%. On this basis, the NOX emission limit would be:

NOX = (12.6 kg/h) (92.7/78.0) = 14.9 kg/h = (14.9 kg/h) (24 h/d) (0.001 t/kg) = 0.359 t/d

In the design of the OTSGs, JACOS has not taken credit for the thermal efficiency and is confident it can meet the 12.6 kg/h or 0.303 t/d NOX emission rate.

c. JACOS confirms that NOX emission rate corresponding to 12.6 kg/h or 0.303 t/d was used in the modelling of the OTSGs.

d. Updated dispersion modelling is not required.

REFERENCES

CCME. 1998. National Emission Guideline for Commercial/Industrial Boilers and Heaters, PN1286. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Available at: http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pn_1286_e.pdf


a. Six OTSGs are included in the updated Air Quality Assessment. They are rated 80.5 MW heat input and 73.3 MW heat output on a LHV basis. On a High Heating Value (HHV) basis, the heat input and heat output are 89.4 and 80.6 MW.

b. The CCME National Emission Guideline for Commercial/Industrial Boilers and Heaters (CCME 1998) state the NOX emission factor for boilers and heaters with capacity more than 105 GJ/h (or 100 MMBtu/h) is 40 g/GJ on a HHV basis of heat input.

This applies to the updated OTSG as the heat input on a HHV basis is 89.4 MW or:

Heat input = (89.4 MJ/s) (0.001 GJ/MJ) (3600 s/h) = 322 GJ/h

Therefore the updated NOX emission limit is:

NOX = (322 GJ/h) (40 g/GJ) (0.001 kg/g) = 12.9 kg/h

= (12.9 kg/h) (24 h/d) (0.001 t/kg) = 0.309 t/d

http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pn_1286_e.pdf


63

This does not take into account the thermal efficiency credit. The thermal efficiency = (80.6 MW heat output) / (89.4 MW heat input) = 90.2%. On this basis, the NOX emission limit would be:

NOX = (12.9 kg/h) (90.2/78.0) = 13.9 kg/h = (13.9 kg/h) (24 h/d) (0.001 t/kg) = 0.333 t/d

In the design of the OTSGs, JACOS has not taken credit for the thermal efficiency and is confident it can meet the 12.9 kg/h or 0.309 t/d NOX emission rate.

c. JACOS confirms that an update NOX emission rate corresponding to 12.9 kg/h or 0.309 t/d was used in the modelling of the OTSGs.

Date post:	27-Oct-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

PART 2C – UPDATES TO ROUND 1 SIRS - alberta.ca · JACOS Hangingstone Expansion Project...

Documents