AXYS Double-sided Report Template - Regulatory Document ...

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd. Section 6: Acoustic Environment

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. December 2006 Page 6-i

Table of Contents

6 Acoustic Environment ................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Assessment of Effects on the Acoustic Environment .......................................... 6-1 6.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries.................................................................................... 6-2

6.2.1 Spatial Boundaries ............................................................................................... 6-2 6.2.2 Temporal Boundaries........................................................................................... 6-2

6.3 Key Issues Identification.................................................................................................. 6-2 6.4 Valued Ecosystem Components, Key Indicator Resources, Measurable Parameters ..... 6-2 6.5 Assessment Methods and Data Sources........................................................................... 6-5 6.6 Background Acoustic Environment................................................................................. 6-9

6.6.1 Pump Station 6 and the Pipeline Operational Tank Facility................................ 6-9 6.6.2 Utilization of Existing Facilities - Saskatchewan and Manitoba ....................... 6-11 6.6.3 Manitoba ............................................................................................................ 6-13

6.7 Project Effects Assessment ............................................................................................ 6-15 6.7.1 Determination of Effects Significance............................................................... 6-15 6.7.2 VEC 1 – Ambient Sound Levels........................................................................ 6-16 6.7.3 Mitigation and Effects Management.................................................................. 6-28 6.7.4 Residual Effects Characterization...................................................................... 6-29

6.8 Cumulative Effects Assessment..................................................................................... 6-29 6.8.1 Projects to be considered ................................................................................... 6-29 6.8.2 Assessment of Cumulative Effects .................................................................... 6-33 6.8.3 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................ 6-33

6.9 References...................................................................................................................... 6-34 Appendix 6A Meteorological Conditions During Sound Level Survey................. 6A-1

List of Tables

Table 6-1 Potential Effects on Ambient Sound Levels (VEC 1) – Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba................................................................................ 6-3

Table 6-2 Ambient Conditions at Monitoring Locations during Sound Level Survey ........ 6-6 Table 6-3 Proposed Pump Station Equipment ..................................................................... 6-6 Table 6-4 Existing Ambient Sound Levels at Proposed Pump Station PS-6 Location........ 6-9 Table 6-5 Existing Sound Levels at Closest Sensitive Receptors to Compressor

Station #17, Regina, Saskatchewan ................................................................... 6-11 Table 6-6 Existing Sound Levels at Closest Sensitive Receptors to Compressor

Station #30, Brandon, Manitoba ........................................................................ 6-15 Table 6-7 Typical Sound Levels from Construction Equipment ....................................... 6-16 Table 6-8 Sound Levels at Representative Pump Station .................................................. 6-19 Table 6-9 Sound Levels at 1.5 km from Representative Pump Station ............................. 6-19 Table 6-10 Sound Attenuation from Proposed Project Pump Stations PS-6, PS-7, PS-

9, and PS-26 with Distance Including Background Sound................................ 6-23 Table 6-11 Sound Attenuation from Proposed Project Pump Stations PS-8, PS-25 and

PS-27 with Distance Including Background Sound........................................... 6-24


December 2006 AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.Page 6-ii

Table 6-12 Predicted Sound Levels at Closest Sensitive Receptors to Compressor Station #30, Brandon, Manitoba ........................................................................ 6-25

Table 6-13 Predicted Sound Levels at Closest Sensitive Receptors to Compressor Station #17, Regina, Saskatchewan ................................................................... 6-25

Table 6-14 Sound Attenuation from Proposed Project Pump Stations PS-18 with Distance Including Background Sound ............................................................. 6-27

Table 6-15 Noise Impact Assessment Rating Criteria ......................................................... 6-30 Table 6-16 Assessment of Effects on Ambient Sound Levels (VEC 1) .............................. 6-31

List of Figures

Figure 6-1 Locations of existing compressor stations, proposed pump stations and noise monitoring sites along the RoW................................................................. 6-7

Figure 6-2 Existing ambient sound levels at selected sensitive receptors near the proposed Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities .................................................. 6-10

Figure 6-3 Location of Compressor Station #17 near Regina, Saskatchewan, including closest sensitive receptors.................................................................. 6-12

Figure 6-4 Location of Compressor Station #30 near Brandon, Manitoba, including closest sensitive receptors .................................................................................. 6-14

Figure 6-5 Sound attenuation from representative pump station with distance .................. 6-20 Figure 6-6 Predicted ambient sound levels at selected sensitive receptors near the

proposed Project Operational Tank Facilities.................................................... 6-21 Figure 6-7 Sound attenuation from proposed pump stations PS-8, PS-25, and PS-27

with distance ...................................................................................................... 6-22 Figure 6-8 Sound attenuation from proposed Project pump stations PS-6, PS-7, PS-9,

and PS-26 with distance..................................................................................... 6-23 Figure 6-9 Sound attenuation from proposed pump station PS-18 with distance ............... 6-27


AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. December 2006 Page 6-iii

Abbreviations

ESA ..........................................................Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment EUB...............................................................................Alberta Energy and Utilities Board dBA .......................................................................................................A-Weighted Decibel Leq.................................................................................................. Equivalent Sound Level LSA ...........................................................................................................Local Study Area LSD ...................................................................................................Legal Site Description PSL ................................................................................................Permissible Sound Level RoW ............................................................................................................... Right-of-Way RSA ..................................................................................................... Regional Study Area VEC..................................................................................... Valued Ecosystem Component VEC 1...............................................................................................Ambient Sound Levels


December 2006 AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.Page 6-iv


AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. December 2006 Page 6-1

6 Acoustic Environment 6.1 Introduction

For the purposes of this ESA, evaluated impacts on the Acoustic Environment are divided by the three geographical segments of the Project, based on the following:

• New pipeline and facilities in Alberta and Saskatchewan; • Utilization of Existing Facilities – Saskatchewan and Manitoba; and • New pipeline and facilities in Manitoba.

Operational Tank Facilities will be developed directly adjacent to the existing Hardisty Complex at Legal Site Description (LSD) NW29-42-9-W4M, near the Town of Hardisty. The Operational Tank Facilities will receive crude oil from incoming pipelines and then marshal the crude oil for transportation. The existing Hardisty Complex is oil-products storage and handling terminal and is a central zone for oil pipeline distribution systems in Alberta. Operators with oil-product tank facilities at the existing Hardisty Complex include the following: • Enbridge Pipelines Inc.; • Kinder Morgan Canada Inc.; • Husky Oil Operations Ltd.; • Gibson Petroleum Company Limited; • Flint Hills Resources Ltd.; and • Inter Pipeline Fund.

The proposed Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities at the Hardisty Complex will consist of three new crude oil pipeline operational tanks, each having a capacity of 350 000 bbl. Other onsite facilities will include four pumps, a pressure control valve, and four booster pumps. All pumps and valves will be electrically driven. This equipment will support the transport of crude oil from the tanks into the adjoining Project pipeline.

6.1.1 Assessment of Effects on the Acoustic Environment For this assessment, the Acoustic Environment refers to the ambient environmental noise in the region surrounding the site of the proposed Operational Tank Facilities, 15 pump stations, and pipeline. Environmental noise is an accumulation of distant noise sources that creates a relatively steady background noise with no identifiable source.

Environmental noise attenuates between source and receptor via a number of different mechanisms. These include the following: • distance attenuation – the attenuation of sound with increasing distance from the

source; • ground attenuation – the attenuation of sound as it passes over absorptive or

semi-absorptive open terrain; • atmospheric attenuation – the attenuation of sound as it is absorbed by components of

the atmosphere; and • barrier attenuation – the attenuation of sound as it is absorbed or refracted by

intervening structures such as buildings and hills.


December 2006 AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.-2

A number of analyses were completed to assess the potential effects of the Project on the Acoustic Environment during construction, operation, and decommissioning and abandonment. This assessment allows the Project to be placed into context with Acoustic Environment conditions generally, and permits the characterization of acoustic interactions with specific aspects of the Project.

6.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries

6.2.1 Spatial Boundaries The local study area (LSA) for pipeline noise consists of a 3 km corridor centered on the pipeline RoW. This corresponds to a 1.5 km corridor on either side of the RoW, which is consistent with the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) Noise Control Directive 99-8. Noise Control Directive 99-8 and the associated Guide 38 state that new facilities planned for remote areas should meet a target equivalent sound level (Leq) of 40 dBA at a distance of 1.5 km from the facility (EUB 1999). This is the only guideline available in the Project area.

In addition to the LSA centered on the RoW, the study area encompasses the nearest sensitive receptors to the Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities near Hardisty, Alberta as per the receptor-based approach stipulated by Noise Control Directive 99-8. It also encompasses a 1.5 km radius around the proposed pump stations.

6.2.2 Temporal Boundaries The temporal boundaries for the noise assessment are limited to the construction, operation, and decommissioning and abandonment phases of the Project. No distinction is made between daytime and night time periods for the operation phase, as operational activities at the Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities, pump stations and pipeline will continue 24 hours per day. Construction and decommissioning noise will only be assessed for the daytime period, as these activities will only occur during the day because of construction safety-related constraints.

6.3 Key Issues Identification The key Project issue involving the Acoustic Environment is the environmental impact of noise sources by Project activity and phase.

Noise from Project activities has the potential to impact the Acoustic Environment in the surrounding region. The Acoustic Environment is assessed in the context of Project-related noise.

6.4 Valued Ecosystem Components, Key Indicator Resources, Measurable Parameters

Ambient Sound Levels was the Valued Ecosystem Component (VEC) selected for the acoustical assessment.

Sound itself is defined as any pressure variation that the human ear can detect. These variations in pressure travel between source and receptor as atmospheric waves (Alton Everest 2001). Noise refers to the phenomenon of unwanted sound.



Ambient sound levels have been selected to address the potential environmental effects of noise associated with the proposed Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities, pipeline and pump stations. The measurable parameter that describes the ambient sound level is the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq), which is reported in decibels (dBA).

The Leq is the A-weighted equivalent continuous sound level. This measure is an energy average of the varying sound levels over a specified period of time. The use of this permits the description of a varying sound level environment as a single number. As the Leq is an average level, the measured sound level may exceed the criterion level for a short period, provided that the duration of exceedance is limited. The most common averaging period is hourly; however, Leq can describe any series of noise events for any selected duration. Therefore, the Leq value considers both the sound level and the length of time that the sound level occurs. The A-scale gives proportional weighting according to the sensitivity of the normal human ear at different frequencies of sound. There is a relationship between the subjective loudness of a sound and its intensity. The human ear begins to perceive a change in the sound level when the ambient sound level changes by 3 dBA; each 10-dBA increase in sound level is perceived as about a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities (Alton Everest 2001).

Project-related issues or effects for the project are summarized in Tables 6-1.

Table 6-1 Potential Effects on Ambient Sound Levels (VEC 1) – Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba

Project Activities and Physical Works

Key Issue or Effect Source Relevance

Construction – Pipeline and Pump Stations RoW and pump station site preparation (clearing, grubbing, slash burning)

• Increased noise levels

• Professional judgment

• Change in Acoustic Environment

Temporary and permanent road development




Pipeline construction equipment and vehicles associated with grading, pipe installation, tie-ins, testing, cleanup and reclamation.




Vehicular traffic • Increased noise levels



Construction – Operational Tank Facilities Site preparation activities • Increased noise

levels • Professional

judgment • Change in Acoustic

Environment Operation of construction equipment




Tank construction • Increased noise levels







December 2006 AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.Page 6-4

Table 6-1 Potential Effects on Ambient Sound Levels (VEC 1) – Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba (cont’d)



Operations – Pipeline and Pump Stations Pipeline maintenance and inspection activities, aerial patrols, vehicular traffic, pipeline maintenance/servicing)




Pump station operations, maintenance, and inspection activities (pump maintenance/servicing, repair and replacement)




Operations – Operational Tank Facilities Maintenance and inspection activities (vehicular traffic, tank maintenance/servicing)




Decommissioning and Abandonment – Pipeline and Pump Stations RoW restoration • Increased noise



Environment Decommissioning activities. • Increased noise



Environment Removal of infrastructure and facilities




Decommissioning and Abandonment– Operational Tank Facilities Operations of decommissioning equipment




Removal of tanks • Increased noise levels






Construction – Pump Stations Ancillary facilities (valves etc) site and pump station site preparation




Temporary and permanent road development




Operations of construction equipment on RoW







Cleanup and reclamation • Increased noise levels





Table 6-1 Potential Effects on Ambient Sound Levels (VEC 1) – Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba (cont’d)



Operations – Pipeline and Pump Stations Pipeline maintenance and inspection activities (vegetation control, vehicular traffic, pipeline maintenance/servicing)




Pump station operations, maintenance, and inspection activities (pump maintenance/ servicing, repair and replacement)




Decommissioning and Abandonment – Pipeline and Pump Stations Removal of infrastructure, pump stations, and above ground facilities




6.5 Assessment Methods and Data Sources The noise assessment is based on sound level monitoring, historical data, and predicted noise values from proposed pump stations.

Noise monitoring took place at a total of four locations in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Monitoring was performed using a Larson-Davis 824 Type 1 Integrating Sound Level Meter. At representative existing facilities in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the sound level meter captured 1/3 octave band readings at five-minute intervals at radial sites from the facilities. Five minute readings were also taken at the closest sensitive receptors near existing facilities. The monitoring locations are illustrated in Figure 6-1.

The background ambient sound level monitoring survey in Alberta took place at sensitive receptors surrounding the proposed Pipeline Operational Tanks Facility site and existing Hardisty Complex. For this survey, 20 minute interval measurements were taken. Additionally, a noise survey measuring five-minute intervals at an existing pump station was performed. The equipment and shelter in place at this location is analogous to the equipment and shelter planned for the Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities.

A Weather Wizard III weather station was deployed for the duration of monitoring in Alberta and Manitoba. This station gathered site-specific wind and temperature data. In Saskatchewan, hourly meteorological data for the duration of the survey were downloaded from Environment Canada (2006).

Table 6-2 summarizes monitoring location details and average meteorological conditions during the survey period. Detailed meteorological data are also presented in Appendix 6A.



Table 6-2 Ambient Conditions at Monitoring Locations during Sound Level Survey

UTM NAD 83 Average Meteorological

Conditions

Location Identifier

Monitoring Date

mE

mN

Elevation

(m)

Wind Speed(km/h)

Wind Direction

Temperature

Sensitive Receptors (Day) 4.8 108 22.3 Pipeline Operational

Tank Facilities, Hardisty, AB

21-Aug-06

Sensitive Receptors (Evening) Calm - 13.7

PS-6, Lakesend, Ab 20-Jul-06 496365 5792510 720 12.8 320 25 19-Jul-06 458097 5582615 179 29.9 310 22 TC-17, Regina, SK 20-Jul-06 458097 5582615 179 11.0 145 19.5

TC-30, Rapid City, Mb 18-Jul-06 428615 5547553 530 4.0 315 23.9

To determine the impact of additional equipment, acoustic specifications of the proposed equipment were provided by the vendor (Sulzer Pumps 2006). A summary of the number of pumps at each location, along with the proposed size and anticipated construction year is presented in Table 6-3. Pump stations are identified by their assigned pump station number and any pumps that will be co-located at an existing compressor station are noted.

Table 6-3 Proposed Pump Station Equipment Station Identifier

Number of Operating Pumps

Motor Size

(kW) Hardisty Operational Tank Facility (PS-5)

3 3000

PS-6 3 3000 PS -7 3 3000 PS-8 2 3000 PS-9 3 3000 PS-11 (co-located) 2 3000 PS-13 (co-located) 2 3000 PS-15 (co-located) 3 3000 PS-17 (co-located) 2 3000 PS-18 2 3000 PS-19 (co-located) 2 3000 PS-21 (co-located) 2 3000 PS-23 (co-located) 2 3000 PS-25 (co-located) 2 3000 PS-26 3 3000 PS-27 2 3000

PREPARED FOR

REVISION DATE

DRAFT DATE

FIGURE NO.

Locations of Existing Compressor Stations, Proposed Pump Stations, and Noise Monitoring Sites Along the ROW6-1

30/08/06

22/11/06

Existing TransCanadaCompressor Station

Distance in Kilometres

0 25 50 75

Proposed KeystonePump Station

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA100 125

PS-11PS-13 PS-15

PS-19 PS-21PS-25

PS-7

PS-8

PS-9

PS-18

PS-26

PS-27

R:/1

0106

64_K

eyst

one

Alb

erta

/t066

4noi

/Noi

se C

ompr

esso

r S

tatio

n Lo

catio

ns.s

rf

Noise Monitoring Survey Location

PS-17

PS-6

Proposed ProjectOperational Tank Facilities

PS-23

Hardisty

PS-5

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd.

TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE GP LTD.



Finally, mathematical calculations were performed in accordance with accepted acoustic practices to determine noise levels at the closest sensitive receptors or at a distance of 1.5 km, as appropriate. These noise levels were then compared to the EUB Permissible Sound Level (PSL) (1999).

6.6 Background Acoustic Environment

6.6.1 Pump Station 6 and the Pipeline Operational Tank Facility

Environmental Conditions During the survey, the skies were primarily clear, and meteorological conditions were favourable for sound level measurement. Topography in the area is hilly. A weather station was deployed to monitor weather conditions for the duration of the survey. During the day, the temperature ranged between 16.5°C and 26.4°C for the hours during which sound measurements were taken. Daytime winds ranged between 1.6 km/h and 9.7 km/h and were primarily from the east-southeast. During the evening, wind was calm, therefore no wind direction was recorded by the meteorological station; the temperature fell from 18.7°C to 11.6°C during the ambient sound level survey.

Background Ambient Sound Levels Monitoring was performed following the methods described in Section 6.5 at the proposed location for Pump Station 6 (PS-6) (refer to Figure 6-2). Five-minute and 30 minute Leqs were recorded. These measurements were made at the same geographic location, and are presented in Table 6-4.

Table 6-4 Existing Ambient Sound Levels at Proposed Pump Station PS-6 Location

Location Easting (mE)

Northing (mN)

Leq

(dBA) 496365 5792510 38.0 496365 5792510 38.8 496365 5792510 39.8 496365 5792510 40.7 496365 5792510 39.8

Ambient sound levels at this location were dominated by natural sounds, particularly the sound of crops being blown by the wind. In addition, some intermittent highway traffic served to elevate the Leq.

Monitoring was also performed following the methods described in Section 6.5 during the late morning and evening at selected sensitive receptors around the Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities near Hardisty, Alberta. Ambient sound levels varied between 31.7 dBA and 50.3 dBA, as presented in Figure 6-2.

Town of

Hardisty

474000 476000 478000 480000 482000 484000 486000 488000

UTM mE

5826000

5828000

5830000

5832000

5834000

5836000

5838000

5840000

UT

M m

N

31.7 dBA

37.2 dBA

50.3 dBA

46.1 dBA

45.6 dBA

42.3 dBA

1

2

3

4

5

6

11/08/06

22/11/06

Existing ambient sound levels at sensitive receptorsnear proposed Project Operational Tank Facilities6-2

590

600

610

620

630

640

650

660

670

680

690

700

710

720

730

740

750

Proposed Enbridge Hardisty Expansion

Hardisty Complex

Project Operational Tank Facilities

0 1000 2000 3000

Distance in Metres

FIGURE NO. PREPARED FOR

REVISION DATE

DRAFT DATE

Sensitive Receptor

1 L & G. Kobitzsch2 C. Cody3 W & E. Bitzer4 H & E. Campbell5 S. Crone6 L. Leland

Sensitive Receptors

Elevation (m asl)





Ambient sound levels at these receptors were dominated by highway traffic noise. The logarithmic nature of Leq calculation means that although a relatively low sound power level may be present for the majority of the measurement, a short term loud noise, such as a passing truck, can dominate the resulting Leq (EUB 1999), thereby masking the typical ambient sound levels. Highway 13 near the proposed Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities experienced an annual average daily traffic count of 1524 vehicles between 1996 and 2005 (Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation 2006).

Additionally, it should be noted that while the measurements at some sensitive receptors are somewhat elevated, they are not substantially higher than the existing Acoustic Environment present at an undeveloped location such as that proposed for PS-6, illustrated in Table 6-4.

6.6.2 Utilization of Existing Facilities - Saskatchewan and Manitoba

Station Operating Conditions Compressor Station # 17 was operating at full capacity on July 19th and 20th, 2006. Therefore, sound level measurements taken on these dates are representative of maximum noise levels at this station for the current equipment configuration.

Environmental Conditions During the survey measurements, the skies were primarily clear, with some late-day cloud developing. Vegetation in the area is flat, cultivated fields. Meteorological data for the Regina International Airport were obtained from Environment Canada for the duration of the survey (Environment Canada 2006). Temperature ranged from 18.3°C to 23.7°C on July 19th and from 13.7°C to 22.7°C on July 20th for the hours during which sound level measurements were taken. Winds ranged between 22 km/h and 39 km/h on July 19th and between 9 km/h and 13 km/h on July 20th. Wind direction on July 19th was primarily from the north, while on July 20th winds were primarily from the southeast.

Background Ambient Sound Levels Monitoring was performed during the morning and early afternoon of July 19th, and the morning of July 20th, 2006 at radial locations from the fence line of Compressor Station #17, as well as at receptors to the north and the south of the station, as presented in Figure 6-3.

Five-minute Leqs were recorded at each of these locations. Sound levels at the closest sensitive receptors ranged between 44.8 dBA and 49.9 dBA, as presented in Table 6-5.

Table 6-5 Existing Sound Levels at Closest Sensitive Receptors to Compressor Station #17, Regina, Saskatchewan

Distance from Station (m)

Direction from Station

Leq (dBA)

2514 North 49.7 1803 West 49.8 2208 South 44.8

539500 540000 540500 541000 541500 542000 542500 543000 543500 544000

UTM mE

5580500

5581000

5581500

5582000

5582500

5583000

5583500

5584000

5584500

5585000

UT

M m

N

1

2

3

25/08/06

22/11/06

Location of Compressor Station #17 (TC-17)near Regina, Saskatchewan including closest sensitive receptors.6-3

572

574

576

578

580

582

584

586

588

590

592

594

596

598

600

Compressor Station #17

0 250 500 750

Distance in Metres


REVISION DATE

DRAFT DATE

Elevation (m asl)

Sensitive Receptor

1000

Compressor #17





Ambient sound levels at these locations were dominated by the sound of rustling leaves and bird vocalization, as well as intermittent vehicle traffic. Sound from Compressor Station #17 was not audible.

These measurements were consistent with a previous 24-hour noise survey performed at the closest sensitive receptors to Compressor Station #17 (HFP Acoustical Consultants Corp. 1999). In this instance, measurements were also dominated by the sound of rustling vegetation, as well as wind-induced microphone noise. Therefore, although the Leq appears to be elevated, it is unlikely that these levels can be attributed to Compressor Station #17.

Sound levels at monitoring sites in close proximity to the station fence line ranged between 43.3 dBA and 61.2 dBA, Measurements taken near the northwest corner of the compound were not only influenced by compressor operations, but also by the sound of electrical transformers present on the property.

6.6.3 Manitoba

Station Operating Conditions Compressor Station # 30 is equipped with four compressors: A, B, C, and D. However, only two of the four operate at any given time. As confirmed by Keystone, units D and E at Compressor Station # 30 were operating near full capacity on July 18th. Therefore, measurements taken on these dates are representative of maximum noise levels at this station for the current equipment configuration.

Environmental Conditions During the survey measurements, the skies were primarily clear, and the topography in the area is flat, cultivated land. A weather station was deployed to monitor weather conditions for the duration of the survey. During the day, the temperature ranged between 17.4°C and 32.8°C for the hours during which sound level measurements were taken. Daytime winds ranged between 1.6 km/h and 6.4 km/h and were consistently from the northwest.

Background Ambient Sound Levels Monitoring was performed on July 18th, 2006 at radial locations from the fence line of Compressor Station #30, as well as at three sensitive receptors to the north and the south of the station. Sensitive receptor noise monitoring locations are presented in Figure 6-4.

Five-minute Leqs were recorded at each of these locations. Ambient sound levels at the closest sensitive receptors ranged between 35.5 dBA and 39.3 dBA, as presented in Table 6-6.

Ambient sound levels at these locations were dominated by the sound of rustling leaves and bird vocalization, as well as intermittent vehicle traffic. Sound from Compressor Station #30 was not generally audible.

427000 427500 428000 428500 429000 429500 430000

UTM mE

5546500

5547000

5547500

5548000

5548500

5549000

UT

M m

N

1

2

3

23/08/06

22/11/06

Location of Compressor Station #30 (TC-30)near Brandon, Manitoba, including closest sensitive receptors.6-4

516

518

520

522

524

526

528

530

532

534

536

538

540

Compressor Station #30

0 200 400 600

Distance in Metres


REVISION DATE

DRAFT DATE

Elevation (m asl)

Sensitive Receptor

Compressor #30





Table 6-6 Existing Sound Levels at Closest Sensitive Receptors to Compressor Station #30, Brandon, Manitoba



Leq (dBA)

699 North 35.5 976 Northwest 36.7

1382 South 39.3

These measurements were consistent with a previous 24-hour noise survey performed at the closest sensitive receptors to Compressor Station #30 (Howe Gastemeier Chapnik Limited 2000). In this instance, measurements were also dominated by the sound of rustling vegetation, as well as wind-induced microphone noise. Night time measurements at the receptors ranged between 30 to 35 dBA to the south, and 35 to 40 dBA to the north.

Sound levels at monitoring sites in close proximity to the station fence line ranged between 43.3 dBA and 61.2 dBA.

6.7 Project Effects Assessment

6.7.1 Determination of Effects Significance The EUB Noise Control Directive (ID 99-8) specifies maximum allowable outdoor sound levels for noise from energy industry facilities (EUB 1999). This Directive, while developed in Alberta, is also used as guidance in neighbouring provinces. Further, the NEB requires that provincial and local noise regulation be considered in the assessment, and refers to the Noise Control Directive as additional guidance.

The current Directive uses a receptor viewpoint, thus controlling sound levels at permanently occupied dwellings or seasonal dwellings, not at facility fence lines. All lands between the facility equipment and the residential locations are acceptable as a sound attenuating buffer zone.

Developments in remote areas are not permitted to generate uncontrolled noise. If proposed development is located in an area without receptors, EUB guidance requires that noise levels not exceed 40 dBA at 1.5 km from the facility (EUB 1999). This limit is referred to as the Permissible Sound Level (PSL). The PSL is based on historical surveys which indicate that night time (2200h – 0700h) sound power levels in Alberta are typically 35 dBA. A 5 dBA adjustment is permitted as the allowable impact from energy facilities. Therefore, the default PSL in Alberta is 40 dBA. This may be further adjusted to reflect a variety of factors including daytime activity, the spatial density of dwellings, and the presence of ambient noise levels that deviate from the assumed 35 dBA.

The 40 dBA PSL is used to determine whether the Project will have a significant impact on the Acoustic Environment.



6.7.2 VEC 1 – Ambient Sound Levels

6.7.2.1 Construction

Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities The potential for noise during construction of the Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities to cause environmental effects on the Acoustic Environment is assessed on the basis of expected sound power levels, frequency of occurrence, and the duration of the noise-related activities.

Construction activities associated with the proposed Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities near Hardisty, Alberta are expected to be of limited duration. The equipment required to construct the tanks is similar to that required to construct the pipeline. Therefore, noise associated with tank construction will be of a similar nature to that associated with pipeline construction as presented in Table 6-7; however it will be of somewhat longer duration. The impact of the proposed Pipeline Operational Tank Facility construction on ambient sound levels is considered low.

Table 6-7 Typical Sound Levels from Construction Equipment

General Category of Sound Source Typical Noise Level (dBA) Front Loaders 72–93 Backhoes/Ditchers 72–99 Bulldozers (at 15m) 85 Scrapers, Graders 80–94 Sidebooms/Tractors 76–96

Earth-Moving Equipment (Internal Combustion Engines) (dBA at 4.5 m)

Trucks 82–94 Cranes (Moveable) 75–86 Materials Handling Equipment Cranes (Derrick) 86–88 Pumps 68–72 Generators 72–82

Stationary Equipment

Compressors 75–91

SOURCES: May (1978), Cowan (1994), EUB (1999), Jacques Whitford Limited (2004).

Pipeline and Pump Stations The potential for noise during the construction phase of the new pipeline and pump stations to cause environmental effects on the Acoustic Environment is assessed on the basis of expected sound power levels, frequency of occurrence, and the duration of the noise-related activities. The level of activity on construction sites will vary with the different phases of construction. Construction of the Alberta and Saskatchewan section will take place on three mainline construction spreads simultaneously during the late summer and fall/winter of 2008 and is expected to progress at a rate of 1.5 to 2 km per day. Construction of the Manitoba section will take place on one construction spread during the late summer and fall of 2008. Noise sources associated with this construction work include:

• increased vehicle traffic along the RoW;



• RoW and Site preparation; and • pipeline and pump construction.

Vehicle Traffic Existing roadways will be used as much as possible during Project construction. When existing roadway is not used, traffic will be restricted to the construction RoW and approved private roads. The projected traffic increases resulting from construction are not expected to be discernible from current traffic levels, except in remote locations where current traffic levels are low. Traffic will be of limited duration and will be reversible. The potential changes in the Acoustic Environment resulting from increased vehicle traffic during construction are not expected to be noticeable. Therefore, the potential changes in ambient sound levels from vehicle traffic are expected to be low.

RoW and Site Preparation To clear vegetation at appropriate locations along the RoW, trees and shrubbery will be cut and that, which is not salvageable in terms of lumber will be mulched and spread over the ground surface in the RoW. Noise from vegetation cutting and mulching is typically around 50 dBA to 60 dBA daily at a setback distance of 760 m. Noise levels from these activities would drop below the impact level of 70 dBA as an average daytime noise level at a distance of about 210 m from the area of equipment operations (United States Army Corps of Engineers 2002). Few residential areas would be this close to the areas affected by vegetation clearing and consequently this impact is considered minimal.

Site preparation activities at the pump station locations will be limited to topsoil salvage and grading. Noise from graders is typically around 84 dBA to 90 dBA at 4.5m. Similar to cutting and mulching, noise from these sources will attenuate quickly and the impact is therefore considered minimal.

Pipeline and Pump Station Construction The operation of pipeline construction equipment is expected to be intermittent, transient, and will move along the RoW as pipeline is constructed. Therefore, the impact of pipeline construction and installation on the Acoustic Environment is considered minimal

The typical noise outputs of construction machinery used for these activities are listed in Table 6-7.

Pump Station Construction and Installations Associated with Existing Facilities To minimize fieldwork, and to take advantage to offsite fabrication before the construction window, piping assemblies will be pre-fabricated and pre-tested. Installation of pre-fabricated infrastructure requires that existing pipeline and utilities are located and exposed. Excavation of the existing pipeline will be accomplished using Hydro-vac equipment. The operations of this equipment are expected to be intermittent, transient, and will move along the ROW as pipeline is modified. Therefore, the impact of pipeline construction and installation on ambient sound levels is considered minimal.



Summary The use of construction equipment during pipeline construction has the potential to result in increased sound levels. The operation of such equipment is expected to be intermittent, transient, and will move along the RoW at a rate of 1.5 to 2 km per day. The noise emissions from various pieces of construction equipment are similar and vary with factors such as equipment load. Construction will only take place during the day-time (for safety reasons), substantially reducing the likelihood of noise impacts at night. Therefore, impacts on ambient sound levels from new pipeline construction in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, as well as from the conversion of existing facilities in Saskatchewan and Manitoba are considered low.

6.7.2.2 Operation

Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities Sources of noise from Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities near Hardisty, Alberta are limited to four electrically driven pumps (three operational and one standby) and four booster pumps (three operational and one standby). The booster pumps are to be located below grade, immediately adjacent to the proposed tanks. They are equipped with 450 hp motors, which emit 87 dBA (Sulzer Pumps 2006 pers. comm.). However, because these pumps are located in the ground, noise is expected to attenuate to imperceptible levels nearly immediately. Therefore, noise from the booster pumps is not included in this analysis.

The four primary pumps near the proposed tank locations will be equipped with electrically driven 3 000 kW motors that have a sound power level of 90 dBA (Sulzer Pumps 2006 pers. comm.). These pumps will be housed in a steel building that has 10 cm of fibreglass insulation and a 15 cm roof. The building will be equipped with two louvered openings, two fan openings, and four large roll-up doors. This structure will serve to facilitate maintenance activities and will also reduce noise from the pumps.

As discussed in Section 6.5, to most accurately determine the noise impact of the proposed Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities pump station, noise measurements were taken at an existing pump station where the pumps are housed in a building. The equipment in place at the existing pump station, as well as the building surrounding it, were determined to be analogous to the proposed pump station and building at the Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities. The pumps at this location were running at full capacity and two doors on the building were open due to high temperatures. Therefore, the measurements obtained are considered to be representative of conditions which produce high noise levels. In addition, no noise sources other than typical rural background noise were present. Results of these measurements are presented in Table 6-8.

Given these measured levels, sound is expected to attenuate quickly with distance. At a distance of 1.5 km from the pump station, noise levels are anticipated to fall well below the PSL for rural Alberta, as illustrated in Table 6-9. These values were calculated based on a loss of 6 dBA with a doubling of distance (EUB 1999) using the formula:

L(R2) = L(R1)-20log10(R2/R1)

Where: R1 = distance R1 in meters R2 = distance R2 in meters L = sound level in dBA



Table 6-8 Sound Levels at Representative Pump Station Distance from Source

(m) Leq

(dBA) 41.8 59.8 39.6 61.9 50.6 57.9 34.7 62.9 77.4 49.8 66.6 48.8 83.3 51.1 86.1 44.3

Table 6-9 Sound Levels at 1.5 km from Representative Pump Station Orientation

Leq

(dBA) NW 26.0 NE 19.5 SW 24.1 SE 21.7

Of these measurements, sound levels are highest to the northwest of the station. This is due to site-specific topography and the configuration of the equipment. Although the spatial pump configuration for the proposed Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities is currently unknown, assuming a sound level of 26 dBA, the attenuation of sound from the representative pump station is presented in Figure 6-5.

Although the noise from the pump station appears to have some directivity, ambient sound levels at a distance of 1.5 km will be well below the PSL in all directions.

Therefore, adding these sound levels to existing ambient sound levels at the closest sensitive receptors to the Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities demonstrates the effect the proposed pump station will have at these receptors. Assuming a 6 dBA loss in sound power with a doubling of distance, and using the most conservative measurement from the noise survey at the representative pump station, the predicted ambient sound levels at selected sensitive receptors near the proposed Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities are presented in Figure 6-6.

Although these are conservative calculations, the addition of a housed pump station does not substantially change the ambient sound levels at the sensitive receptors. Ambient sound levels will continue to be dominated by the sound of highway traffic, particularly at Receptors Three, Four, and Five. In fact although highway noise dominated the Leq measurement at Receptor Three, resulting in a relatively high noise level, in the absence of traffic the noise level was about 35 dBA. Therefore, it is unlikely that the addition of a housed pump station at the proposed Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities will substantially change the ambient sound levels at sensitive receptors.



20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

Distance (m)

Soun

d Le

vel (

dBA

)

Figure 6-5 Sound attenuation from representative pump station with distance

To ensure that the proposed facility does not result in an exceedence of the PSL, noise monitoring will be performed in the first year of Project operations, as detailed in Section 6.8.1. This noise monitoring will control for highway noise and ensure that energy industry contributions to ambient noise levels are isolated.

Pipeline and Pump Stations Noise sources associated with the operation of the new pipeline sections of the Project are limited to pump stations spaced at regular intervals along the route. All pump stations along the route will be equipped with two or three electrically driven, 3 000 kW pumps, with the occasional standby pump to be used in case of emergency (see Table 6-3). Each pump has a sound power level of 90 dBA (Sulzer Pumps 2006 pers. comm.). Noise typically attenuates at a rate of 6 dBA each time the distance from the source doubles (EUB 1999). Given this behaviour, predicted noise from the pump stations PS-8, PS-25, and PS-27 at 100 m intervals from the pump station is presented in Figure 6-7, while predicted noise from pump stations PS-6, PS-7, PS-9, and PS-26, are presented in Figure 6-8.

Although sound from the pump stations is relatively high in the immediate vicinity of the site, it attenuates rapidly with distance, following a logarithmic pattern. At a distance of 1.5 km from the pump station site, noise from the pumps is expected to attenuate to levels that are below the PSL of 40 dBA.

Town of

Hardisty

474000 476000 478000 480000 482000 484000 486000 488000

UTM mE

5826000

5828000

5830000

5832000

5834000

5836000

5838000

5840000

UT

M m

N

32.0 dBA

37.4 dBA

50.3 dBA

46.2 dBA

45.6 dBA

42.4 dBA

1

2

3

4

5

6

11/08/06

22/11/06

Predicted ambient sound levels at selected sensitive receptorsnear the proposed Project Operational Tank Facilities6-6

590

600

610

620

630

640

650

660

670

680

690

700

710

720

730

740

750

Proposed Enbridge Hardisty Expansion

Proposed Pump Station

Hardisty Complex

Project Operational Tank Facilities

0 1000 2000 3000

Distance in Metres


REVISION DATE

DRAFT DATE

Sensitive Receptor

1 L & G. Kobitzsch2 C. Cody3 W & E. Bitzer4 H & E. Campbell5 S. Crone6 L. Leland

Sensitive Receptors

Elevation (m asl)





20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

Distance (m)

Soun

d Le

vel (

dBA

) EUB Noise Level Requirement for Industrial Facilities (40 dBA)

Note: Based on an initial sound power level of 90 dBA (Sulzer Pumps 2006, pers. comm.)

Figure 6-7 Sound attenuation from proposed pump stations PS-8, PS-25, and PS-27 with distance

Background noise in rural areas, such as birds and leaves, is typically close to 35 dBA (EUB, 1999). As the pump stations will be built in largely rural areas, the noise associated with the pumps will slightly increase the background noise levels. Table 6-10 presents the expected noise levels at increasing distances from the pump stations PS-6, PS-7, PS-9, and PS-26 assuming a background noise level of 35 dBA. Table 6-11 presents the expected noise levels at increasing distances from the pump stations PS-8, PS-25, and PS-27, assuming a background noise level of 35 dBA.

Although noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the pump station are elevated, noise rapidly attenuates with distance. At 1.5 km from the pump station, noise levels are not expected be substantially different than the background. In addition, these calculations are quite conservative and do not account for atmospheric and topographic noise attenuation. It is very likely that vegetation surrounding the pump station locations, as well as the soft (i.e. unpaved) ground at these sites will serve to absorb sound, thereby reducing the contribution of the pump station to overall ambient sound levels. As a result, it is expected that each pump station will meet the PSL at a distance of 1.5 km. Therefore, the impacts of the proposed pump stations on ambient sound levels are considered minimal.



20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

Distance (m)

Soun

d Le

vel (

dBA

)

EUB Noise Level Requirement for Industrial Facilities (40 dBA)


Figure 6-8 Sound attenuation from proposed Project pump stations PS-6, PS-7, PS-9, and PS-26 with distance

Table 6-10 Sound Attenuation from Proposed Project Pump Stations PS-6, PS-7, PS-9, and PS-26 with Distance Including Background Sound Distance

Sound Level

(dBA) Background 35

100 54.8 200 48.9 300 45.6 400 43.4 500 41.8

T600 40.6 700 39.7 800 38.9 900 38.4 1000 37.9 1100 37.5



Table 6-10 Sound Attenuation from Proposed Project Pump Stations PS-6, PS-7, PS-9, and PS-26 with Distance Including Background Sound (cont’d) Distance

Sound Level

(dBA) 1200 37.2 1300 36.9 1400 36.7 1500 36.5

NOTE: Based on an initial sound power level of 90 dBA (Sulzer Pumps 2006, pers. comm.)

Table 6-11 Sound Attenuation from Proposed Project Pump Stations PS-8, PS-25 and PS-27 with Distance Including Background Sound

Distance

Sound Level (dBA)

Background 35 100 53.1 200 47.3 300 44.0 400 41.9 500 40.5 600 39.4 700 38.6 800 38.0 900 37.5

1000 37.1 1100 36.8 1200 36.6 1300 36.4 1400 36.2 1500 36.1


Utilization of Existing Facilities Noise sources associated with the operation of existing facilities in Saskatchewan and Manitoba are limited to pump stations co-located at existing compressor stations. Two 3000 kW pumps will be added to each compressor station, with the exception of Compressor Station #13, where three pumps will be co-located. Each pump has a sound level of 90 dBA (Sulzer Pumps 2006 pers. comm.).



Monitoring results outside the fence lines of Compressor Station #30 and Compressor Station #17 is very similar. Two pumps will be added to these stations, resulting in slightly increased sound levels at a 1.5 km distance from the station. The sound from each pump will attenuate at a rate of 6 dBA with doubling distance from the source (EUB 1999).

Using the monitoring results presented previously and adding the sound associated with two pumps, the final sound level at 1.5 km from Compressor Station #30 is anticipated to range between 30.1 and 42.4 dBA. This represents a change from baseline levels between 0.5% and 41.3%. The average change in ambient sound levels at 1.5 km from Compressor Station #30 is 7.7% and the average ambient sound level after the addition of two pumps is about 36 dBA.

Adding the additional sound associated with two pumps to existing ambient sound levels at the closest sensitive receptors to Compressor Station #30 results in minimal changes from baseline values, as illustrated in Table 6-12. As the human ear can only begin to detect a change in the ambient sound levels when the sound power level changes by 3 dBA (Alton Everest 2001), the addition of a two pumps to Compressor Station #30 is not anticipated to substantially impact ambient sound levels at the closest sensitive receptors.

Table 6-12 Predicted Sound Levels at Closest Sensitive Receptors to Compressor Station #30, Brandon, Manitoba



Baseline Leq

(dBA) Predicted Leq

(dBA) Change from Baseline

(%) 699 North 35.5 38.8 9.4 976 Northwest 36.7 38.3 4.4 1382 South 39.3 39.8 1.3

Using the monitoring results presented previously for Compressor Station #17 and adding the sound associated with two pumps, the final sound level at 1.5 km from Compressor Station #17 is anticipated to range between 32.4 dBA and 42.2 dBA. This represents a change from change from baseline levels between 1% and 11%. The average change from baseline ambient sound levels at 1.5 km from Compressor Station #17 is 3% and the average ambient sound level after the addition of two pumps is about 37 dBA.

Adding the additional sound associated with two pumps to existing ambient sound levels at the closest sensitive receptors to Compressor Station #17 results in minimal changes from baseline values, as illustrated in Table 6-13. As the human ear can only begin to detect a change in the ambient sound levels when the sound power level changes by 3 dBA (Alton Everest 2001), the addition of two pumps to Compressor Station #17 is not anticipated to significantly impact ambient sound levels at the closest sensitive receptors.

In contrast to most compressor stations, three pumps will be co-located at Compressor Station #13. The sound from each pump will attenuate at a rate of 6 dBA with doubling distance from the source (EUB 1999). Sound increases associated with the addition of 3 pumps were approximated using monitoring data from Compressor Station #30 as representative compressor station noise.



Table 6-13 Predicted Sound Levels at Closest Sensitive Receptors to Compressor Station #17, Regina, Saskatchewan



Baseline Leq (dBA)

Predicted Leq

(dBA) Change from Baseline

(%) 2514 North 49.7 49.7 0.03 1803 West 49.8 49.8 0.06 2208 South 44.8 44.9 0.13

Adding the sound associated with three pumps, the final sound level at 1.5 km from Compressor Station #13 is anticipated to range between 31.7 dBA and 42.9 dBA. This represents a change from change from baseline levels between 0.8% and 48%. The average change from baseline ambient sound levels at 1.5 km from Compressor Station #13 is 9.8% and the average ambient sound level after the addition of three pumps is about 37 dBA.

The sound from these compressor stations was taken as representative of the existing facilities in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The addition of two pumps to these existing facilities will not substantially increase the ambient sound levels at nearby sensitive receptors, nor at a distance of 1.5 km from the compressor stations. Therefore the impacts of the proposed co-located pump stations on ambient sound levels are considered minimal.

In addition to the pumps co-located at existing compressor stations, one pump station will be built in a new location. Pump station 18 (PS-18) will be equipped with two 4,000 hp pumps, each of which has a sound level of 90 dBA (Sulzer Pumps 2006 pers.comm.). Noise typically attenuates at a rate of 6 dBA each time the distance from the source doubles (EUB 1999). Given this behaviour, predicted noise from the pump station PS-18 at 100 m intervals from the pump station is presented in Figure 6-9.

Sound from the pump stations is relatively high in the immediate vicinity of the site; it attenuates rapidly with distance, following a logarithmic pattern. At a distance of 1.5 km from the pump station site, noise from the pumps is expected to attenuate to low levels.

As the pump stations will be built in largely rural areas, the noise associated with the pumps will slightly increase the background noise levels. Table 6-14 presents the expected noise levels at increasing distances from the pump station PS-18 assuming a background sound level of 35 dBA.

Sound levels in the immediate vicinity of the pump station are elevated; however, noise rapidly attenuates with distance. At 1.5 km from the pump station, sound levels are not expected be substantially different than the background. In addition, these calculations are quite conservative and do not account for atmospheric and topographic sound attenuation. It is very likely that vegetation surrounding the pump station locations, as well as the soft (i.e. unpaved) ground at this site will serve to absorb sound, thereby reducing the contribution of the pump station to overall ambient sound levels. As a result, it is expected that the pump station will meet the PSL at a distance of 1.5 km. Therefore, the impacts of the proposed pump station on ambient sound levels are considered minimal.



20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

Distance (m)

Soun

d Le

vel (

dBA

) EUB Noise Level Requirement for Industrial Facilities (40 dBA)


Figure 6-9 Sound attenuation from proposed pump station PS-18 with distance

Table 6-14 Sound Attenuation from Proposed Project Pump Stations PS-18 with Distance Including Background Sound

Distance

Sound Level (dBA)

Background 35 100 53.1 200 47.3 300 44.0 400 41.9 500 40.5 600 39.4 700 38.6 800 38.0 900 37.5 1000 37.1 1100 36.8 1200 36.6



Table 6-14 Sound Attenuation from Proposed Project Pump Stations PS-18 with Distance Including Background Sound (cont’d)

Distance

Sound Level (dBA)

1300 36.4 1400 36.2 1500 36.1


6.7.2.3 Decommissioning and Abandonment

Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities Decommissioning activities associated with the proposed Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities near Hardisty, Alberta are expected to be limited. The proposed tanks will be cleaned and then removed and reclaimed for scrap metal. Little equipment will be required to dismantle the tanks and equipment used will be similar to that used during the construction phase. Therefore, noise associated with decommissioning will be of a similar nature to that associated with construction; however it will be of much smaller magnitude and duration. The impact of the proposed Pipeline Operational Tank Facility decommissioning on ambient sound levels is considered low.

Pipeline and Pump Stations Decommissioning activities associated with pipeline and pump stations are expected to be limited. It is assumed that the pipeline will remain in place in a condition that meets all applicable regulatory requirements, while pump stations will be dismantled, and sites and access roads reclaimed. Little equipment will be required to dismantle the pump stations and equipment used will be similar to that used during the construction phase. Therefore, noise associated with decommissioning will be of a similar nature to that associated with construction; however it will be of much smaller magnitude and duration. Therefore, the impact of pipeline and pump station decommissioning on ambient sound levels is considered low.

6.7.3 Mitigation and Effects Management The following mitigation measures should be implemented to address impacts associated with increased noise levels during site preparation and construction of proposed Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities, pipeline, and pump stations:

• advise nearby residents of significant noise-generating activities;

• schedule construction activities during daytime hours to the extent possible;

• perform regular inspection and maintenance of construction vehicles and equipment to ensure that they have high quality mufflers installed and worn parts replaced; and

• turn off equipment when not in use.



During operation, noise sources will add logarithmically to existing background sound levels, resulting in an increase in the overall ambient sound level. To mitigate this increase, the following strategies should be implemented:

• maintain Project roads to reduce noise associated with vibration and vehicle noise; • follow vehicle speed limits; and • purchase equipment that meets industrial acoustic standards.

In addition, the pumps proposed for the Pipeline Operational Tank Facilities will be enclosed to facilitate maintenance activities. The building proposed for these pumps will also help to reduce noise levels.

Decommissioning mitigation measures are similar to those that should be implemented during construction. Namely:

• schedule construction activities during daytime hours to the extent possible;

• perform regular inspection and maintenance of construction vehicles and equipment to ensure that they have high quality mufflers installed and worn parts replaced; and

• turn off equipment when not in use.

6.7.4 Residual Effects Characterization The magnitude, extent, frequency and duration criteria are have been developed to accurately reflect that residual effects of the Project on ambient sound levels. Table 6-15 defines the criteria that have been used to assess the residual effects on ambient sound levels. Table 6-16 presents the assessment of residual effects. The Project effects on the Acoustic Environment are not significant for all phases.

6.8 Cumulative Effects Assessment

6.8.1 Projects to be considered

6.8.1.1 Hardisty Complex One project has been publicly announced by Enbridge Midstream Inc. for the Hardisty Complex (Enbridge Midstream Inc., June 14, 2006). The proposed expansion involves the addition of 19 new oil products storage tanks to existing operations at the Hardisty Complex. The facility design includes room for future expansion, which may include additional tanks and truck unloading facilities.

6.8.1.2 Pipeline and Pump Stations At this time, no industrial projects that will interact with the acoustic environment have been publicly announced for the spatial extent surrounding the proposed pump stations or the spatial extent surrounding existing facilities.



Table 6-15 Noise Impact Assessment Rating Criteria Direction Magnitude Geographic Extent Duration Frequency Reversibility Significance

Positive: The Project will have a net positive effect on the Acoustic Environment. Neutral: The Project will not have a measurable effect on the Acoustic Environment. Adverse: The Project will have a net negative effect on the Acoustic Environment.

Low: The expected sound level change is expected to be less than 10 dBA. Moderate: the expected sound level change is expected be more than 10 dBA, but less than 20 dBA. High: The expected sound level change is expected to exceed relevant criteria, or be greater than 20 dBA.

Site Specific: The expected measurable changes are within 1.5 km. Local: The expected measurable changes extend between 1.5 km and 3 km. Regional: The expected measurable changes extend beyond 3 km.

Short Term: Predicted impact persists no longer than a few days. Medium Term: Predicted impact persists to the end of the construction phase of the Project. Long Term: Predicted impact persists to the end of the operational life of the Project.

Once: Occurs once Sporadic: Occurs at sporadic intervals Regular: Occurs on a regular basis Continuous: Occurs continuously

R Reversible I Irreversible

Significant: Leq exceeds regulatory limit of more than 40 dBA at 1.5 km in rural setting and 40 dBA at nearest receptor after application of mitigation Not Significant: Leq is below 40dBA at 1.5 km or nearest receptor



Table 6-16 Assessment of Effects on Ambient Sound Levels (VEC 1) Residual Environmental Effect

Activity Effect

Mitigation and Compensation

Measures Direction Magnitude Geographic

Extent Duration Frequency Reversibility Significance Construction – Pipeline and Pump Stations

Increased noise levels

• Maintain equipment and provide effective mufflers.

• Turn equipment off when not in use.

• Schedule construction activities during daytime hours.

Adverse Low Site Specific Medium Term

Sporadic R Not Significant

Construction – Operational Tanks




• Schedule activities during daytime hours.

Adverse Low Site Specific Medium Term


Operation – Pipeline and Pump Stations


• Maintain roadways.

• Follow vehicle speed limits.

• Purchase equipment that meets acoustic industry standards

Adverse Low Site Specific Long Term




Table 6-16 Assessment of Effects on Ambient Sound Levels (VEC 1) (cont’d) Residual Environmental Effect

Activity Effect

Mitigation and Compensation

Measures Direction Magnitude Geographic

Extent Duration Frequency Reversibility Significance Operation – Operational Tanks


• Maintain roadways.

• Follow vehicle speed limits.

• Purchase equipment that meets acoustic industry standards

Adverse Low Site Specific Long Term


Decommissioning – Pipeline and Pump Stations




• Schedule noisy activities during daytime hours.

Adverse Low Site Specific Short Term


Decommissioning – Operational Tanks




• Schedule noisy activities during daytime hours.

Adverse Low Site Specific Short Term




6.8.2 Assessment of Cumulative Effects

6.8.2.1 Hardisty Complex The manifolds and booster pumps described as part of the Enbridge Midstream Inc. expansion are likely to be the largest noise sources. However, the public disclosure document does not provide details on their size, horsepower, or acoustic characteristics. Therefore, it is not possible to quantitatively evaluate their contribution to cumulative effects.

As Guide 38 applies to energy industry facilities, developments such as the Enbridge Midstream Inc. expansion have to meet the PSL 1.5 km from the facility or at sensitive receptors, as applicable. As such, Guide 38 effectively prevents incremental increases in sound levels, particularly at sensitive receptors and minimizes cumulative effects on ambient sound levels. Therefore, the cumulative effects on the Acoustic Environment at the Hardisty complex are not significant.

6.8.2.2 Pipeline and Pump Stations Due to the fact that no projects have been publicly announced for the area surrounding the proposed pump stations or existing facilities, the Project is not anticipated to contribute to cumulative effects on ambient sound levels.

In addition, as the Guide applies to energy industry facilities, new developments also have to meet the criteria of 40 dBA at 1.5 km from the facility. As such, it effectively prevents incremental increases in sound levels, particularly at sensitive receptors. In addition, the 40 dBA at 1.5 km requirement ensures that any newly built receptors in the vicinity of energy developments will not be unduly affected. Therefore, the cumulative effects on the Acoustic Environment from the pipeline and pump stations are not significant.

6.8.3 Summary and Conclusions The effects of the Project on the Acoustic Environment with regard to the construction, operations, and decommissioning phases of the Project have been assessed and in some cases quantified. Increases in ambient sound levels resulting from the Project have been assessed in terms of their effect on the environment and with respect to current and reasonably foreseeable projects in the LSA.

Generally, ambient sound levels will not be affected by the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the pipeline and pump stations. This infrastructure will be constructed and operated in largely rural areas, and noise associated with it will not significantly change background ambient sound levels. The residual effects of the Project are, on the whole, of low magnitude and are expected to be site-specific. In addition, the effects of the Project are reversible. Therefore, the effects of the Project on the Acoustic Environment are not significant.



6.9 References Alton Everest, F. 2001. Master Handbook of Acoustics. 4th Edition. McGraw-Hill, San Francisco,

California.

Alberta Energy and Utilities Board 1999. Noise Control Directive User Guide. Online. Available at: http://www.eub.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_270_233_0_43/http%3B/extContent/publishedcontent/publish/eub_home/industry_zone/rules__regulations__requirements/guides/g38.aspx

Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation. 2006. Alberta Highways 1 to 986 Traffic Volume History (1996 – 2005). Online. Available at: http://www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca/INFTRA_Content/docType181/production/hnp003.htm

Cowan, J.P. 1994. Handbook of Environmental Acoustics. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, New York.

Enbridge Midstream Inc. 2006. New Enbridge Hardisty Merchant Tank Project at Hardisty Alberta. Landowner Public Disclosure for Open House. July 14, 2006.

Environment Canada. 2006. Canadian Climate Data. Available at: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html

Health Canada. 2006. Health Canada Draft Guidance on Noise Assessment for CEAA Projects.

HFP Acoustical Consultants Corp. 1999. TransCanada Pipelines Compressor Station #17 Plant C Exhaust Replacement Environmental Sound Survey. Prepared for TransCanada Pipelines by HFP Acoustical Consultants Corp.

Howe Gastmeier Chapnik Limited. 2000. TransCanada Pipelines Limited Compressor Station 30, E Plant Acoustic Performance Test & Engineering Sound Assessment , Rapid City, Manitoba. Prepared for TransCanada Pipelines Limited by HGC Engineering.

Jacques Whitford Limited. 2004. Liquefied Natural Gas Marine Terminal & Multi-Purpose Pier: EIS. Submitted to New Brunswick Department of the Environment and Local Government, March 23, 2004.

May, D. N. 1978. Handbook of Noise Assessment. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Toronto, Ontario.

Sulzer Pumps. 2006. Miazga, Walter, District Manager, Sulzer Pumps Inc. Personal Communication. August 14, 2006.

SNC-Lavalin. 2006. Keystone Cushing Option – Station Location and Pump Planning Report. Prepared for TransCanada Keystone Pipelines Limited by SNC-Lavalin, Calgary, Alberta.

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd. 2006. Keystone Pipeline Project Preliminary Information Package (PIP). Prepared for Submission to the National Energy Board. July, 2006.

AXYS Double-sided Report Template - Regulatory Document ...

Documents

Transcript of AXYS Double-sided Report Template - Regulatory Document ...