Pierre River Mine Project

AIR ERCB SIRS 40 – 45
Request 41b Based on the response above, how would the air assessment change if the
additional thermal energy requirements would be met by additional boilers
running at the same time as the co-generation units?
Section 6.1
Response 41b The conclusions of the air quality impact assessment do not change if the
auxiliary boilers at the Jackpine Mine Expansion and the Pierre River Mine are
assumed to be in continuous use.
To assess the effect of the additional auxiliary boilers on the air quality
assessment, the boiler emissions sources were added to the Application Case
emissions and modelled according to the methodology outlined in the EIA (see
EIA, Volume 3, Appendix 3-8, Section 2). The updated project emissions,
including the additional auxiliary boilers, are presented in Table ERCB 41-1.
Table ERCB 41-1: Project Emissions Summary including Additional Auxiliary Boilers
Source
Jackpine Mine Expansion
Stream-
Day
SO2
(t/sd)
Calendar-
Day SO2
(t/cd)
Emission Rates
Change to Jackpine Mine – Phase 1 (a) -0.30 -0.30 -6.71 -1.60 -0.37 -0.78 0.00
Addition of Jackpine Mine Expansion (b) 4.08 4.08 6.45 7.75 0.31 8.79 0.07
Subtotal (c) 3.78 3.78 -0.26 6.15 -0.06 8.01 0.07
Addition of Auxiliary Boilers (d) 0.02 0.02 1.25 2.03 0.18 0.13 —
New Total with Auxiliary Boilers (c) 3.80 3.80 0.98 8.17 0.12 8.15 0.07
Pierre River Mine
Total (e) 4.10 4.10 12.45 13.31 0.51 17.39 0.14
Addition of Auxiliary Boilers (d) 0.02 0.02 1.25 2.03 0.18 0.13 —
New Total with Auxiliary Boilers (c) 4.11 4.11 13.70 15.34 0.69 17.52 0.14
Project Total (c) 7.91 7.91 14.68 23.51 0.81 25.66 0.22
Note:
(a) Emissions from EIA, Volume 3, Appendix 3-8, Table 31 and expressed as tonnes per stream-day [t/sd], tonnes per calendar-day [t/cd]
or tonnes per day [t/d]. The change is calculated in EIA, Volume 3, Appendix 3-8, Table 30 and represents the difference between the
updated Jackpine Mine – Phase 1 and the Base Case Jackpine Mine – Phase 1.
(b) Emissions from EIA, Volume 3, Appendix 3-8, Table 31.
(c) Some numbers are rounded for presentation purposes. Therefore, it may appear that the totals do not equal the sum of the individual
values.
(d) The emissions displayed assume all three boilers in service. This represents a conservative winter operations scenario.
(e) Emissions from EIA, Volume 3, Appendix 3-8, Table 36.
April 2010 Shell Canada Limited 6-3
CR029
NOx
(t/d)
CO
(t/d)
PM2.5
(t/d)
VOC
(t/d)
Table ERCB 41-2 shows a comparison of regional sulphur dioxide (SO2)
predictions for the Application Case and the Application Plus Boilers Case. A
comparison of the regional nitrogen dioxide (NO2) predictions for the same cases
is shown in Table ERCB 41-3. Note that the results for both cases do not include
the Fort McKay Lease, according to the May 2008 EIA Update. The SO2
TRS
(t/d)