Transalta Energy Corporation

Decision 2002-014 TransAlta Energy Corporation 900-MW Keephills Power Plant Expansion Application No. 2001200 February 2002 Alberta Energy and Utilities Board ALBERTA ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD Decision 2002-014: TransAlta Energy Corporation 900 - MW Keephills Power Plant Expansion Application No. 2001200 February 2002 Published by Alberta Energy and Utilities Board 640 – 5 Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 3G4 Telephone: (403) 297-8311 Fax: (403) 297-7040 Web site: www.eub.gov.ab.ca ALBERTA ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD TransAlta Energy Corporation TRANSALTA ENERGY CORPORATION 900 MW KEEPHILLS POWER PLANT EXPANSION CONTENTS 1 THE APPLICATION AND HEARING............................................................................ 1 1.1 The Application ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Hearing and the Participants............................................................................ 1 1.3 Existing Plant.......................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Project Summary..................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Review and Participation by Federal Government Agencies ................................. 4 2 ROLE AND AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD REGARDING APPLICATIONS FOR ELECTRIC GENERATION PLANTS............................................................................. 4 3 ISSUES ................................................................................................................................. 6 4 HUMAN HEALTH ............................................................................................................. 7 4.1 Views of the Applicant ........................................................................................... 7 4.2 Views of the Interveners ......................................................................................... 9 4.3 Views of the Board ............................................................................................... 11 5 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED POWER PLANT................ 12 5.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 12 5.1.1 Views of the Applicant ............................................................................. 12 5.1.2 Views of the Interveners ........................................................................... 14 5.1.3 Views of the Board ................................................................................... 18 5.2 Surface Water........................................................................................................ 20 5.2.1 Views of the Applicant ............................................................................. 20 5.2.2 Views of the Interveners ........................................................................... 22 5.2.3 Views of the Board ................................................................................... 26 5.3 Fish and Other Aquatic Biota ............................................................................... 27 5.3.1 Views of the Applicant ............................................................................. 27 5.3.2 Views of the Interveners ........................................................................... 29 5.3.3 Views of the Board ................................................................................... 35 5.4 Groundwater ......................................................................................................... 37 5.4.1 Views of the Applicant ............................................................................. 37 5.4.2 Views of the Interveners ........................................................................... 38 5.4.3 Views of the Board ................................................................................... 39 5.5 Terrain, Soils, And Reclamation........................................................................... 41 5.5.1 Views of the Applicant ............................................................................. 41 5.5.2 Views of the Interveners ........................................................................... 42 5.5.3 Views of the Board ................................................................................... 43 5.6 Terrestrial and Wetland Vegetation...................................................................... 44 5.6.1 Views of the Applicant ............................................................................. 44 EUB Decision 2002-014 (February 12, 2002) • i ALBERTA ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD TransAlta Energy Corporation 5.6.2 Views of the Interveners ........................................................................... 45 5.6.3 Views of the Board ................................................................................... 46 5.7 Wildlife ................................................................................................................. 47 5.7.1 Views of the Applicant ............................................................................. 47 5.7.2 Views of the Interveners ........................................................................... 49 5.7.3 Views of the Board ................................................................................... 50 5.8 Noise ..................................................................................................................... 51 5.8.1 Views of the Applicant ............................................................................. 51 5.8.2 Views of the Interveners ........................................................................... 51 5.8.3 Views of the Board ................................................................................... 52 5.9 Traditional Land Use ............................................................................................ 52 5.9.1 Views of the Applicant ............................................................................. 52 5.9.2 Views of the Interveners ........................................................................... 52 5.9.3 Views of the Board ................................................................................... 53 6 SOCIO ECONOMIC ISSUES ......................................................................................... 53 6.1 Public Consultation............................................................................................... 53 6.1.1 Views of The Applicant............................................................................ 53 6.1.2 Views Of the Interveners .......................................................................... 54 6.1.3 Views Of the Board .................................................................................. 55 6.2 Landowner Issues.................................................................................................. 55 6.2.1 Views of the Applicant ............................................................................. 55 6.2.2 Views of the Interveners ........................................................................... 56 6.2.3 Views of the Board ................................................................................... 57 6.3 Economic Benefits................................................................................................ 57 6.3.1 Views of the Applicant ............................................................................. 57 6.3.2 Views of the Interveners ........................................................................... 58 6.3.3 Views of the Board ................................................................................... 59 7 TECHNOLOGY SELECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF THE PROPOSED POWER PLANT............................................................................... 59 7.1 Views of the Applicant ......................................................................................... 59 7.2 Views of the Interveners ....................................................................................... 61 7.3 Views of the Board ............................................................................................... 63 8 IMPACT ON AREA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM AND UPGRADES ....................... 64 8.1 Views of the Applicant ......................................................................................... 64 8.2 Views of the Interveners ....................................................................................... 65 8.3 Views of the Board ............................................................................................... 65 9 DECISION ......................................................................................................................... 66 APPENDIX A –THOSE WHO APPEARED AT THE HEARING ....................................... 77 APPENDIX B – MEMORANDUM OF DECISION FROM THE PREHEARING MEETING....................................................................................................... 81 ii • EUB Decision 2002-014 (February 12, 2002) ALBERTA ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD Calgary, Alberta TRANSALTA ENERGY CORPORATION Decision 2002-014 EXPANSION OF KEEPHILLS POWER PLANT Application No. 2001200 1 THE APPLICATION AND HEARING 1.1 The Application TransAlta Energy Corporation (TransAlta) applied on July 6, 2001, to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) and Alberta

Load more