Facility Application – Power Plant
TransAlta MidAmerican Partnership, a partnership between TransAlta Canadian Gas Development LP and MEHC Canada Genco Limited Partnership (“TAMA Power”) applied for an 856-megawatt (“MW”) combined cycle natural gas and steam generation facility, to be designated as Sundance 7 (“Sundance 7”). The Sundance 7 facilities are to be located in the Lake Wabamun area in Alberta on the west half of Section 10, Township 52, Range 4, west of the Fifth Meridian, and in close proximity to existing coal-fired power generation facilities.
While Sundance 7 will be located on a Greenfield site, it will be located adjacent to a number of existing power generation facilities and coal mines, including Sundance Generating Facilities 1 to 6, Keephills Generating Facility units 1 to 3, and other mining and energy projects.
Three intervener groups participated in the hearing, namely the Cymbaluk family, the Summer Village of Kapasiwin (“Kapasiwin”), the Gunn Métis Local 55 (“Gunn Métis”) and the Paul First Nation (“Paul FN”). The intervener groups were concerned with the consultation, noise impacts, vegetation and wildlife impacts, impacts on waterbodies, air emissions, construction and traffic, safety and visual impacts, corporate structure of the parties proposing Sundance 7, and the cumulative impacts to aboriginal and treaty rights from increased traffic, noise and activity caused by Sundance 7.
Consultation
With respect to consultation matters, TAMA Power stated that it undertook personal consultations for stakeholders within 800 metres of the project site boundary, and notified residents within 2,000 metres of the project site boundary. TAMA Power also conducted First Nations engagement with the Paul FN, Gunn Métis, and the Enoch Cree nation. TAMA Power also submitted that it developed a public involvement program and provided project information packages to stakeholders, in addition to holding open houses and providing a website with project information.
The AUC determined that TAMA Power’s efforts to identify aboriginal stakeholders was reasonable in the circumstances, and further made efforts to consider the specific concerns of the Gunn Métis. The AUC held that TAMA Power met the requirements of AUC Rule 007: Applications for Power Plants, Substations, Transmission Lines, Industrial System Designations and Hydro Developments by providing multiple avenues for landowners and other stakeholders to obtain information or contact TAMA Power.
Noise
TAMA Power filed a Noise Impact Assessments (“NIA”) performed by Golder Associates Ltd. (“Golder”), with its application. TAMA Power submitted that the results of the initial NIA predicted that the project would comply with the permissible sound levels of 50 dBA Leq daytime and 40 dBA Leq nighttime, as set out by AUC Rule 012: Noise Control.
However, TAMA Power submitted that due to advances in project design, a second NIA was submitted to respond to intervener concerns. The updated NIA results were consistent with the previous NIA, predicting maximum daytime and nighttime noise limits of 46 dBA Leq and 39 dBA Leq, respectively.
TAMA Power noted that its NIA modelling included assessments of sound levels from existing facilities in the area. TAMA Power also noted that it modelled a noise barrier measuring 18.3 metres high and approximately 213 metres in length in its NIAs, to reduce the noise emitted towards the Cymbaluk family’s residence.
The Cymbaluk family submitted that they were primarily concerned with high frequency and low frequency noise from the project, and stated that the existing noise impacts were unacceptable and non-compliant with current noise control requirements. An acoustics expert for the Cymbaluk family expressed concerns with the selection of ground absorption factors, and the effects of wind and thermal inversion modelled in the NIAs. The Cymbaluks also questioned the effectiveness of the proposed noise barrier in the NIAs, noting that the “shadow zone” of the noise barrier would not mitigate noise under certain weather conditions.
The Cymbaluk family requested that the AUC direct that a safety margin be imposed on the acceptable noise limits for TAMA Power to account for any incaccuracies in the predicted versus actual noise impacts.
Kapasiwin expressed concerns that the project would add another noise source which could contribute to noise levels, and noted that the stack height of the proposed power plant would be 166 feet above ground level, providing limited options for sound attenuation. As such, Kapasiwin requested that the AUC direct that TAMA Power institute independent sound monitoring upon completion of the project.
The AUC determined that TAMA Power and Golder used a reasonable approach to modelling the noise impacts of the project. The AUC noted that not all models are inherently uncertain, and that noise control requirements do not require an applicant to take those uncertainties into account. However, the AUC held that even if the modelling is inaccurate, the applicant is required to operate its project in such a way that it will comply with permissible sound levels, which can be determined through post-construction sound level surveys.
The AUC also noted that the Cymbaluk family’s outstanding noise complaints were the subject of another proceeding and that no determination was required in this decision.
Wildlife and Vegetation Impacts
TAMA Power retained Golder to prepare an environmental report and conduct fieldwork with respect to the potential impact of the project on vegetation and wildlife. TAMA Power submitted that the project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes, and also consists of remnant native woodlots, shrubs and wetlands.
TAMA Power submitted that the project was not likely to cause adverse environmental effects, and that an environmental assessment was not required under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. TAMA Power noted that there were no confirmed instances of rare plants during site surveys, and that the overall impact on vegetation from the project would be minor.
TAMA Power also noted a paucity of wildlife habitat on the project site, and submitted that the implementation of mitigation measures would have a negligible impact on wildlife and wildlife habitat.
Karen Kubiski submitted a report on behalf of the Gunn Métis on the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation. The Gunn Métis noted that Golder failed to assess the impact on native plant community types at the landscape level. The Gunn Métis noted specifically that sweetgrass habitat would be fragmented by the project, and would in turn make it more difficult for remaining patches of sweetgrass in the watershed area to reproduce and colonize. The Gunn Métis also criticized Golder’s identification of vegetation, noting that it failed to identify tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), which the Gunn Métis noted was identifiable, even during winter months.
The Gunn Métis submitted that the Lake Wabamun watershed likely cannot sustain any further disturbance, while continuing to meet the ethnobotanical harvesting needs of the Gunn Métis.
The Gunn Métis therefore requested that the AUC approve the project on the follwoing conditions:
(a) That TAMA Power conduct a special-use vegetation survey of the Lake Wabamun watershed prior to construction, and the results and recommendations of that study be provided to the AUC six months prior to construction of the project;
(b) That TAMA Power consider establishing a native plant nursery to be planted in areas outside those disturbed by TransAlta; and
(c) That TAMA Power monitor sweetgrass and other threatened ethnobotanical species in the Lake Wabamun watershed.
The AUC determined that the nature and extent of the environmental reports commissioned by TAMA Power were adequate in the circumstances, and the AUC was not persuaded that a study of ethnobotanical plants was warranted, given the limited impacts on vegetation. The AUC also determined that, because the impacts of the project were limited to species available in the project area, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the project would result in fragmentation of habitat for vegetation and wildlife. The AUC concluded that the project would have a minimal impact on wildlife, wildlife habitat and vegetation, given the footprint and current use of the project site. The AUC therefore rejected the requests for additional environmental work from the Gunn Métis.
Waterbodies
TAMA Power submitted that the project would use water from the existing Sundance industrial cooling pond, and would not draw from, nor discharge water into Lake Wabamun. Instead, TAMA Power would source and return its water to and from the industrial cooling pond from the North Saskatchewan River, as allowed under existing approvals from Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (“ESRD”). TAMA Power noted that the project was designed so that the temperature of any water returned to the North Saskatchewan River would not be changed. Tama Power futher submitted that it expected minimal impacts on water quality.
TAMA Power also indicated that it would be compensating for any lost wetland habitat by a factor of 3 to 1 through Ducks Unlimited.
The Gunn Métis expressed concern about the lack of analysis for the potential for increased withdrawals and warm processed water flowing back into the North Saskatchewan River. The Gunn Métis also requested meaningful engagement on development of any wetlands as compensation. TAMA Power in turn committed to arranging meetings between the Gunn Métis and Ducks Unlimited for this purpose.
The AUC accepted TAMA Power’s submissions that water withdrawals for the project would be limited to the water at the existing Sundance industrial cooling pond. The AUC found that the impacts on the North Saskatchewan River would be minimal, noting that the withdrawals would be within the limits of existing approvals from ESRD.
Air Emissions
TAMA Power submitted that the project would result in improved air quality because it would replace existing coal-fired generating power plants in the area, and that TAMA Power would implement a catalytic reduction system to mitigate air emissions impacts.
TAMA retained Golder to compare the baseline emissions in the area, the project-only emissions and the “application case” which included the emissions from the project in addition to the baseline emissions. Golder compared the predicted maximum ground level concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, fine particulate matter and ammonia to the Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives (“AAAQO”). Golder predicted that ground level concentrations of NO2, fine particulate matter and ammonia would be below the AAAQO for the project’s normal operations. Golder predicted no change to carbon monoxide concentrations or fine particulate matter concentrations, with the exception of:
(a) One carbon monoxide exceedance per year under the project’s idling load operating conditions; and
(b) Two exceedances of fine particular matter due to forest fires and nearby mining operations.
TAMA Power submitted that despite these exceedance instances, the concentration levels for all inputs were well below the AAAQO requirements.
The AUC determined that, since the air modelling study was consistent with methodologies specified by ESRD, no additional modelling would be required if the project is approved. The AUC also held that any incremental difference in air quality due to the operation of the project would likely be minimal and temporary.
Health
The Gunn Métis had concerns with its members’ proximity to the project, primarily due to exposure to fine particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide. The Gunn Métis retained Dr. Joseph Vipond (“Dr. Vipond”) to provide evidence of the health impacts due to air emissions. Dr. Vipond presented evidence that there were no safe exposure limits to fine particulate matter and ozone, and that exposure to these substances was associated with small birth weight in babies, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, strokes and autism.
Dr. Vipond found that the project would substantially increase fine particulate matter concentrations. Therefore, the Gunn Métis advocated for conditions imposing thresholds on ambient air quality near the project in order to protect the Gunn Métis members.
TAMA Power submitted that the project’s emissions could only be hazardous to health if it has the capacity to cause health effects through significant exposure. TAMA Power submitted as an example, that the peak one-hour nitrogen dioxide concentration of 190 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) was short of the 1,100 μg/m3 required to induce adverse effects. On this basis, TAMA Power did not expect the concentrations from air emissions from the project to result in adverse health impacts.
The AUC determined that while Dr. Vipond had expertise in human health, he did not appear to have specialized knowledge of the health effects of air emissions, and therefore weighed his evidence and findings as non expert evidence with respect to air modelling and interpretation of epidemiologic studies.
The AUC held that, while all the experts agreed that power plant air emissions are associated with adverse health effects, they disagreed on the level at which such effects may occur. The AUC agreed with the conclusions of TAMA Power in noting that the concentration of emissions was not likely to reach such a level that they would cause adverse health impacts, and further found that there was no evidence that the incremental increase in emissions would create any adverse health effects on members of the public.
Construction and Traffic
TAMA Power submitted that increased impacts due to construction activities would be temporary, and that it would introduce protocols to address any issues arising from construction, including bussing employees to and from work, and encouraging contractors to do the same. TAMA Power also committed to coordinating its shift changes in order to reduce or avoid any interference with peak traffic periods in the area.
The AUC agreed that impacts from construction would be temporary, and found that TAMA Power’s proposed mitigation efforts, including bussing workers in, to be reasonable in alleviating any traffic issues in the area.
Safety
TAMA Power stated that the proposed power plant initially utilized anhydrous ammonia, which would be used in the selective catalytic reduction system to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, and is a requirement of ESRD. However, TAMA Power also noted that anhydrous ammonia is a corrosive chemical that can cause adverse health effects at low concentration levels. TAMA Power’s initial risk modelling studies for anhydrous ammonia usage predicted that the potentially impacted area from a hazardous release at ground level would extend outside the project site, and resulted in a higher risk to the Cymbaluk family’s residence. As a result of this finding, TAMA Power changed its project design to use aqueous ammonia, which it stated would reduce the potentially impacted area from a release to an area entirely within the project site.
TAMA Power stated that it hired Golder to conduct an Ammonia Tank Risk Modelling Study to examine the impacts of any accidental release.
Golder outlined a number of mitigation strategies designed to mitigate the chances of accidental releases. TAMA Power submitted that it would commit to implementing these mitigation strategies.
The Cymbaluk family retained Zelt Professional Services (“Zelt”) to review the Golder report, which commented on numerous deficiencies in the Golder report, including the temperature at which modelling was conducted, and Golder modelling only one ammonia tank failure. The Cymbaluk family also expressed concerns that the emergency response plan had not been fully developed.
The AUC held that the evidence submitted by Zelt and by Golder both concluded that the change from anhydrous to aqueous ammonia greatly reduced the risk to nearby residents, and limited any potentially serious impacts to an area entirely within the project site boundary. The AUC directed TAMA Power to file a letter on the record of the proceeding when its emergency response plan had been finalized.
Visual Impacts
TAMA Power noted that the proposed power plant would be visible from areas around the project site, but submitted that it would not overwhelm the viewscape, as TAMA Power committed to plant additional trees to mitigate the impacts on the viewscape. TAMA Power conducted a Visible Plume Assessment for potential fogging and icing associated with air emissions for the project. TAMA Power submitted that the visible plume would likely dissipate rapidly, and have a negligible visual impact.
TAMA Power committed to:
(a) Follow the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America publication IES RP-33-14 and IES RP-20-14;
(b) Follow the International Dark-Sky Association’s Fixtures Seal Approval for exterior lighting;
(c) Follow the International Illuminating Engineering Society of North America’s, Lighting Handbook, Tenth Edition; and
(d) Where applicable follow the International Dark-Sky Association’s Model Lighting Ordinance.
The AUC held that the visual impacts could be mitigated by planting additional trees, and through TAMA Power’s commitments with respect to lighting.
Siting
TAMA Power submitted that its proposed site had been owned by TransAlta Corporation since 1975 and has been primarily used for agricultural purposes since that time, and would therefore be a “Greenfield site”. TAMA Power noted that it selected the site, considering the existence of current operations owned by TransAlta Corporation, which would allow the power plant to use existing infrastructure and resources in place, while avoiding operational conflicts.
The Cymbaluk family submitted that their lands were adjacent to the project site, and therefore had strong reservations about the site selection.
The Gunn Métis indicated that the project may potentially impact archaeological, traditional and historical resources on the project site, as the project site was within the Gunn Métis’ traditional lands.
The Paul FN stated that the project site was protected by Treaty 6, and that the traditional lands of the Paul FN included the project site. The Paul FN also expressed concerns about the potential for gravesites within the project area, noting that their historical practice is to bury someone in an unmarked grave at the location where the person died.
The AUC held that, in considering whether a proposed site is suitable, it does not determine whether the site selected by the proponent is the best site or whether other sites were considered. The AUC’s analysis is restricted to whether the proposed site is suitable, taking into account:
(a) Potential impacts on local residents and stakeholders;
(b) Proximity to existing transmission facilities;
(c) Availability of water and fuel supplies; and
(d) The nature of the land use in the area.
The AUC noted that the Cymbaluks were the only residents within 2,000 metres of the project site voicing concerns. The AUC also noted that there was no persuasive evidence regarding the potential gravesites that may be found on the project site, but noted that should any be found, TAMA Power committed to notify the Paul FN and Gunn Métis. The AUC held that the current framework for identifying gravesites is sufficient.
Accordingly, the AUC held that the location of the project site is suitable for the construction and operation of the project.
Corporate Structure
TAMA Power explained that TAMA Power itself was structured as follows:
(a) TransAlta Canadian Gas Development LP; and
(b) MEGC Canada Genco Limited Partnership,
as partners holding an interest in TAMA Power.
The TransAlta Canadian Gas Development LP, in turn, is owned 99.99 percent by TransAlta Corporation as a limited partner, and 0.01 percent by 1707226 Alberta Ltd. as a general partner (and wholly owned subsidiary of TransAlta Corporation). MEHC Canada Genco Limited Partnership is owned 99.99 by MidAmerican Canada Holdings Corporation as a limited partner, and 0.01 percent by MEHC Canada Genco CP Corporation as a general partner (and wholly owned by MidAmerican Canada Holdings Corporation). TAMA Power explained that the permits and licences, if granted, would be held by 1707226 Alberta Ltd.
The Cymbaluk family submitted that 1707226 Alberta Ltd. did not file the application, and argued that the application should be re-filed by the correct entity. The Cymbaluk family also submitted that 1707226 Alberta Ltd. was not qualified to hold an approval for a power plant under section 11 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act.
The AUC indicated that the one requirement for eligibility to receive a permit or licence from the AUC is that the corporate entity be registered, incorporated or continued under the Alberta Business Corporations Act. The AUC held that 1707226 Alberta Ltd. met that requirement and is therefore eligible to receive a permit or licence. The AUC held that the applicant is entitled to arrange its corporate structure in a manner that most effectively advances its business interest, so long as it satisfies the requirements of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act.
Conclusion
Based on the findings made in this decision, the AUC determined that the proposed power plant was in the public interest, and therefore granted TAMA Power approval to construct Sundance 7.
