Pablicatons

|

ay

PERV CUSTOMERS

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2024 with funding from University of Toronto

https://archive.org/details/39302008080082

keeE cE cl Ry be Galea Non Nd Ea Lin

EN VeRO NM: EN TALE NeNs AcE Yoo LS

ay

eo

5 ty

on

eA

ve

Pim eles eerie;

i oa

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ]

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

9.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS

2.1 Common Elements 2-1

2.2 Major Supply Cases 2-2

2.3 Candidate Sites 2-10 2.4 Transmission Requirements 2-10

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PROCESS

3.1 General Assumptions vd ee Method 3.3 Evaluation aoe and Background 3.3.1 Natural 5 tees Criteria 3.3.2 Social eS Criteria 3-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4,0 EVALUATION OF COMMON ELEMENTS IN ALTERNATIVE PLANS

4.1 Demand Management 4.2 nial Generation 4.3 eae Generation 4.4 Station Relernicecs 4.5 Mano Purchase 4-

5.0 EVALUATION OF DIFFERENCES AMONG ALTERNATIVE SUPPLY PLANS

5.1 Typical Environmental Effects and Mitigation Associated with Major Supply Options 5-1]

5.2 Evaluation of Case Differences 5-6 5.2.1 Case 23 5-8 5.2.2 Case 22 5-18 5.2.3 Case 15 5-24 5.2.4 Case 24 5-30 5.2.5 Case 26 5-34

5.3. Sensitivity Considerations 5-40 5.3.1 Load Growth 5-40 5.3.2 Planning Period 5-40 5.3.3 Siting 5-42 5.3.4 Regulatory Changes 5-46

6.0 SUMMARY ASSESSMENT 6.1 Natural Environment 6-1 6.2 Social Environment 6-11 6.3 Residual Effects 6-14 6.4 Conclusions 6-16

7,0 REFERENCES We

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

List OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Natural and Social Environment Evaluation Assumptions A-1 Appendix B Alternative Plans - Common Elements B-1 Appendix C

| Summary of Typical Environmental Effects and:

Mitigation C-]

List OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Major Supply Additions by 2014 - Case 23 2-3

Table 2-2 Major Supply Additions by 2014 - Case 22 a4

Table 2-3 Major Supply Additions by 2014 - Case 15 2-4

Table 2-4 Major Supply Additions by 2014 - Case 24 2-7

Table 2-5 Major Supply Additions by 2014 - Case 26 2-7

Table 2-6 Illustrative Siting Cases Ut Table 2-7

Major Radial Transmission Requirements for

Incorporation of Major Supply 2-13 Table 5-1

Environmental Performance of Fossil Fuelled

Supply Options 5-3 Table 5-2

Natural Environment - Cumulative Effects

1989-2014 5-7

Table 5-3 Siting Requirements for Load Growth Cases

5-39

Table 5-4

Changes in Natural Environment Factors - Median to Upper Load Forecast

5-4]

Table 5-5

Comparison of Cumulative Effects at 2014 and

2039: Natural Environment 5-43 Table 5-6 Candidate Sites — Potential Environmental Concerns 5-44 Table 5-7 Potential Regulatory Changes Affecting Demand/Supply Planning in the Period 1989-2014 5-45 Table 6-1

- Natural Environemnt - Summary Comparison |

6-2 Table A-1 Natural Environmental Analysis A=2 Table A-2 Trace Element Emissions A-4 Table B-1 Electrical Efficiency Improvements B-2 Table B-2 Load Shifting B-2 Table B-3 Capacity Interruptible Loads B-2 Table B-4 Total Demand Management Demand - Reduction B-2 Table B-5 Demand Displacement Non-utility Generation B-2 Table B-6 Purchase Non-utility Generation B-3 Table B-7 Total Non-utility Generation B-3

Table B-8 Manitoba Purchase B-3 Table B-9 Hydraulic Plan B-4 Table C-1

| Conventional Steam Cycle (CSC) - Coal Fired |

C-1 Table C-2 Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) C-4 Table C-3 Nuclear (CANDU) C-7 Table C4 Combined Cycle Plants (CC) C-10 Table C-5 Combustion Turbine Units C-12 Table C-6 Hydraulic C-14 Table C-7 Purchases C-17 Table C-8 Demand Management C-19 Table C-9 NUG - Municipal C-20 Table C—10 NUG - Small Hydraulic C-22 Table C-11 NUG - Natural Gas Cogeneration C-24 Table C—-12 NUG - Wood Watse C-26

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Demand/Supply Plan Evaluation Criteria Figure 2-1 Alternative Cases - Energy Production by Source So Figure 2-2 New Major Supply - Case 15 2-5

Figure 2-3 New Major Supply - Case 26 2-6

Figure 2-4 New Major Supply - Case 23 2-8 Figure 2-5 New Major Supply - Case 24 2-9 Figure 2-6 New Major Supply - Case 22 2-12 Figure 2-7 Candidate Site Locations 2-14 Figure 3-1 Demand/Supply Plans - Planning Process 3-2

Figure 4-1 Non-utility Generation Emissions

4-3

Figure 5-1

Non-renewable Resource Use

5-9

Figure 5-2

Water Use - Mining and Generation

5-10

Figure 5-3

Land Use 5-1]

Figure 5-4 Atmospheric Emissions (Radionuclides) 5-12 Figure 5-5 Atmospheric Emissions (Conventional) 5-15 Figure 5-6 Water Effluents 5-16 Figure 5—7 Waste Production 5-17 Figure 5-8 Case 23 — Resource Use Indices 5-19 Figure 5-9 Case 23 — Emission/Effluent/Waste Indices 5-20 Figure 5-10 Case 22 — Resource Use Indices 5-21 Figure 5—11 Case 22 — Emission/Effluent/Waste Indices 5-22 Figure 5-12 Case 15 — Resource Use Indices 5-25 Figure 5-13 Case 15 - Emission/Effluent/Waste Indices 5=27 Figure 5-14 Case 24 - Resource Use Indices 5-29 Figure 5-15 Case 24 - Emission/Effluent/Waste Indices 5-31 Figure 5—16 Case 26 — Resource Use Indices 5-33 Figure 5-17 Case 26 - Emission/Effluent/Waste Indices 5-35 Figure 5-18 Atmospheric Emissions - Median and Upper Forecasts 5-37

Figure 6—1 Non-renewable Resource Use Index — All Cases 6-3 Figure 6-2 Land Use Index — All Cases 6-4 Figure 6-3 Water Use Index - All Cases 6-5 Figure 6-4 Typical Water Use and Land Use Allocation for Cases 6-6 Figure 6-5 Atmospheric Emissions Index - All Cases 6-7 Figure 6-6 CO2 Produced Using Different Electricity Generation Processes 6-8 Figure 6-7 Radionuclide Index - All Cases 6-9 Figure 6-8 Thermal Discharge Index — All Cases 6-10 Figure 6-9 Waste Production Index - All Cases 6-11 Figure 6-10 Comparison Summary 6-15

Sa Srp re ro

rif i tet ae ae

20

25

- offs in order to reach an acceptable, : effective solution.

: mental standpoint, there are many complex

: in selecting a plan. This document identifies

social

Environmental Analysis

- environmental advantages and disadvantages.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In any assessment of future industrial developments, concern for

the environment will continue to be a top priority.

The implementation of a demand/supply plan will have both positive

and negative effects on the natural and social environment in Ontario.

: No single demand/supply plan can both : : meet future energy needs and avoid the | : full range of environmental issues. 3 Ultimately, any plan must balance advan- : 7 tages and disadvantages and requires trade- |

Froma technical as well as an environ- |

- choices and combinations (technologies, . timing, etc.) which have to be considered |

: and describes the potential natural and

environmental effects

of |

- demand/supply plan alternatives, and pro- : : vides an assessment of their advantages ' and disadvantages.

The environmental criteria are grouped : as follows: ;

Natural Environmental Criteria

: Resource Use : Non-renewable resources

Land use

: Water use

Emissions /Effluents/Waste

: Atmospheric emissions

Aquatic effluents Solid waste production

Social Environmental Criteria

- Socio-economic Effects

: This environmental analysis has been pre- : : pared in support of Ontario Hydro’s 7 Demand/Supply Plan. Approval of the : requirement and rationale for certain plan : components is being requested under : Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act. :

The analysis consists of three major com- »

- ponents: development of environmental cri- ' teria; a comparative analysis of alternative - demand/supply plans; and a summary of :

: Regional employment

Regional economic development Local community impacts

Societal Considerations

Social acceptance Special/sensitive groups Lifestyle impacts

Distribution of risks and benefits

Alternative plans are analyzed in three stages:

' Initially, there is a discussion of the potential —

1

- environmental effects associated with com- | - mon elements, i.e., those components which | are included in all plans. The common ;

: elements include:

: Demand management : Non-utility generation : Hydraulic generation : Station rehabilitation

: Manitoba purchase

Secondly, the report evaluates the differences : : among the alternative major supply options : : and Cases. It discusses potential environmental : : effects, together with potential mitigation :

- and/or compensation for dealing with any _

: anticipated adverse effects.

Finally, the study concludes with a summary 2 : of the advantages and disadvantages of each 2 : plan, from the perspective of the natural and : : social environmental effects likely to occur. | All plans reflect a serious commitment to : mitigating and controlling environmental : effects. In addition, the plans contemplate : that additional demand management programs, 2 : and the use of renewable resources for electricity : : generation, will continue to be given high : priority. However, there are residual environ- : mental effects that are evident by the end of : : the planning period. These include continued : : use of non-renewable resources, water and 2 : land, emissions of acid gas and COs, and pro- : duction of solid waste. All plans also offer a : : range of potential social benefits, including : : increased employment and regional devel- : opment opportunities. Potential adverse social 2 : effects relate to localized community impacts : : associated mainly with the supply components :

of a preferred plan.

Ongoing efforts by Ontario Hydro in the : _ following areas will provide opportunities to |

: further reduce residual effects:

¢ Research and development to facilitate appli- : cation of best available control technology : at existing and new stations to provide con- : : tinuing reductions in overall system emissions : : and afford a wider operating margin with respect : : to existing and anticipated regulations; ; : ¢ Regular re-evaluations of the trade-offs : associated with advancement of the phasing : : of IGCC or other clean coal technologies, : : with a view to further reducing acid gas 2 and CO, emissions, and waste volumes, over : General

the long term;

¢ Continued and expanded commitment to : waste re-use and recycling programs, particularly in the area of fossil combustion and emission :

- control wastes;

* Continued and expanded commitment to

water re-use and recycling to reduce con- |

sumptive water use and reduce discharges |

to Ontario waterbodies;

¢ Continued and expanded support for waste : heat utilization projects (e.g., aquaculture) : to reduce thermal discharges to the environment, : ¢ Continued and expanded commitment to :

promoting compatible uses of land at generating -

stations and along rights-of-way; ¢ Continued and expanded commitment to

reforestation efforts to offset vegetation losses : due to hydraulic flooding and transmission : right-of-way clearing. This has ancillary benefits : of increasing the CO, absorbing vegetative : sink in Ontario and providing local employ- :

ment opportunities;

¢ Continued commitment to public consul- tation and community impact management | in dealing with potentially affected individuals |

and communities.

<Executive Summary> 2

Implementation of these measures will 7

involve weighing their benefits against financial |

and other societal considerations, to ensure |

that an appropriate balance is struck between | Ontario’s electricity use and its desire to main- ©

: tain a high level of environmental quality.

Conclusions

Nine conclusions can be drawn from the envi-

ronmental analysis:

¢ None of the alternative plans is clearly superior with respect to all natural and

social environmental criteria.

_ © Achieving acceptable environmental effects

siting, design, construction, and mitigation :

: for the alternative plans will require careful |

measures for the various plan components. |”

_ Project environmental assessments will address

these factors.

Common Elements

¢ The high priority common elements in the : plans generally reduce the need for future : : major supply and promote the utilization of : renewable resources. :

Demand management options are generally : favoured from an environmental viewpoint, : | since the focus of these programs is on using : |

energy more efficiently, thereby reducing energy

use for the same level of service.

Hydraulic generation, certain types of non- : utility generation, and the Manitoba purchase 2 provide the only true renewable energy sources utilized in each plan. There will, however, be : - environmental effects associated with pursuing : : these options. Environmental assessments will : be carried out, as required, to ensure that - these projects are implemented in an envi- : : ronmentally acceptable manner. |

a a

a

Hydro’s continuing efforts to increase the | - contribution from the common elements, par-

ticularly those related to demand management and renewable resource use, are important

for increasing the plans’ long-term environ- |

- mental sustainability and social acceptance.

; Major Supply Cases

- significantly affect the wastes produced and : | amount of land utilized by each plan. Most : | of these impacts are beyond the direct control : | of Ontario Hydro. Itis assumed, however, that : | these activities will be regulated to meet appro- : | priate environmental standards, and that the : | costs of any remedial measures (e.g., site man- 7 | agement and reclamation) are reflected in

| the price of purchased fuels.

¢ Nuclear-based Cases tend to have the lowest

system non-renewable resource use, atmospheric

' emissions, and total waste production. However, . they produce higher amounts of radioactive

waste, and utilize higher quantities of water.

: While these radioactive emissions/wastes are - well managed, they representa source of public : concern.

radioactive waste production and water use.

However, they consume the highest quantities | of non-renewable resources and produce sig-

nificantly higher acid gas and CO, emissions,

and waste volumes. While these Cases meet | current regulatory limits on emissions and | wastes, problems like acid rain and the green- |

house effect are a source of public concern.

<Executive Summary> 3

: ¢ A Case that utilizes a mix of both fossil and : : nuclear generation provides a “middle ground” : : in that it has an intermediate level of non- : : renewable resource use, atmospheric emissions, : water use, aquatic effluents, and waste pro- 2 : duction. However, public concerns related :

to both forms of generation will have to be 7

- reconciled.

¢ Regulations related to the environmentare |

: expected to tighten, requiring reduced emission

levels and increased levels of control. Meeting these regulatory limits will be more difficult

: for the fossil-based Cases, particularly under :

upper load growth. ¢ There are residual environmental effects. : Ontario Hydro is committed to pursuing a |

variety of measures which offer the potential : : to further mitigate the residual environmental : : effects of the Demand/Supply Plan.

cel

*

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this environmental analysis is to identify and compare major

environmental characteristics of the alternative demand/supply plans,

comment on any significant differences, and provide a broad

analysis of their comparative environmental advantages and disadvantages.

This analysis has been prepared in support : of Ontario Hydro’s Demand/Supply Plan Report. 3 : Material from this report is summarized in | : Chapters 14, 15, and 17 of the Demand/Supply :

Plan Report and in the Analysis Report. - © take aleadership role in protecting the envi- 3

Approval of the requirement and rationale

for certain plan components is being requested ; : under the Environmental Assessment Act. : Subsequent project environmental assessments : will ensure that these components are located : and implemented in an environmentally accept- able manner, and with opportunities for com- : : munity input.

| The Demand/Supply Plan Report docu- : ments alternative demand/supply plans devel- : oped to meet the electricity requirements of Ontario to 2014. Itis the third stage of a planning process that began with the Demand/Supply : Options Study (Ontario Hydro, 1986b) in 1986. : This study was followed by a draft Demand/Supply Planning Strategy (Ontario ; Hydro, 1987d) which was reviewed by a Select : : Committee of the Legislature in 1988. The : : Select Committee’s recommendations (Select : : Committee, 1988) are reflected in the approved : : Demand/Supply Planning Strategy (Ontario | : Hydro, 1989a), released in March, 1989. The strategy describes the planning principles and criteria, Figure 1-1, used to develop and evaluate demand/supply options and plans. |

This environmental analysis supports a num- :

ber of the General Strategic Principles outlined |

in the Demand/Supply Planning Strategy. These : principles call on Hydro to:

- ronmentand encouraging the social benefits

associated with its activities; * meet environmental requirements and standards; * consider social acceptance;

* consider environmental characteristics and :

- other social considerations which may influence : the recommended plans; and

¢ include the cost of meeting social and envi- ronmental requirements in cost evaluations |

of demand/supply options.

Along with comparing the effects of alter-

" native plans, this analysis:

* identifies environmental characteristics and social considerations for each technology option; : * discusses appropriate mitigation and com- : pensation measures; and ¢ identifies the advantages and disadvantages :

of alternative plans.

The Environment Affected The Demand/Supply Plan could potentially : affect all parts of Ontario and have some impact -

- outside the province.

1-1

Figure 1-1

Demand/Supply Evaluation Criteria

Demand/Supply Planning Strategy

v

The primary criteria (which must be met) for eval-

uating and developing recommended plans are:

¢ customer satisfaction o

* reliability standards

* safety requirements and standards

¢ environmental requirements and standards (worker and public)

° low cost of electricity service

* social acceptance

* technical soundness

¢ flexibility

v

Secondary criteria, which are considered and

may influence the recommended plans, include:

resource preferences

diversity

resource smoothing |

environmental characteristics (in addition - to requirements and standards) public safety characteristics (in addition to

e

requirements and standards) economic impact

other social considerations

Demand/Supply Plan

- Within Ontario, the success of demand man- : : agement programs and the distribution of addi- : - tional sources of supply, including associated 2 : transmission, will vary regionally. For example, : : for large, centralized nuclear and fossil generation, 2 : cooling water requirements dictate that they : be sited on the Great Lakes. Remaining hydraulic : : projects are mainly located in northern Ontario. : - Obvious regional differences exist within : _ the province. Southern Ontario is characterized : : by high population densities, moderate climatic 2 : conditions, a reliance on industrial /commer- : : cial/agricultural activity, large numbers of : : competing uses for a limited, privately-owned : - land base, and few undisturbed natural areas. :

Conversely, northern Ontario is charac- :

terized by lower population densities, more

severe climatic conditions, a reliance on : resource-based industry and tourism, and a

large Crown-owned land base having a significant

proportion of natural areas.

In addition to these regional differences, | there are other characteristics of the Ontario : environment considered. For example, there : is an established government objective of main- : taining high environmental quality throughout : Ontario. This is reflected in environmental : regulations and standards governing industrial : and other activities. The existing and anticipated : regulatory framework is an important part :

<Introduction - Chapter One> 1-2

' of the operating environment and as such is considered in the development of any :

: demand/supply plan.

The availability of reliable and reasonably |

: priced electricity has become an accepted part 2 of the existing environment in Ontario. Ina : 2 number of instances, changing industrial pro- 2 2 cesses (e.g., in the pulp and paper and steel 2 2 making sectors) to take advantage of electro- : : technologies has increased process efficiencies 2 : and economies and, at the same time, improved :

- environmental quality in Ontario.

The nature of the Bulk Electrical System |

: (BES) itself is a critical part of the environment : : that will be affected by this undertaking. Hence, : : certain limitations of the existing BES need : : to be addressed. For example, maintaining 2 : a regional balance between demand and supply : : is an important principle governing future : system development. BES considerations are : discussed more fully in the Plan Report. :

Certain components of the plan will also :

affect areas outside Ontario. For example, : : there are environmental effects outside Ontario : related to purchases of fossil fuels in the US : : (mainly coal) and Western Canada (low-sulphur 2

coal and natural gas). The purchase of power |

: from neighboring utilities will also have asso-

ciated environmental effects. For example, : the purchase from Manitoba will require addi- | tional hydraulic development in the Nelson :

' River area and newor upgraded transmission |

interconnections with Ontario Hydro’s Bulk : Electrical System. :

This broad environmental context has been : assumed and incorporated into the development : of criteria and in this environmental analysis. :

The environmental analysis report is : organized as follows: : ¢ Section 2.0 contains a description of the 2 alternative plans.

* Section 3.0 provides a description and ratio- 7 nale for the method of analysis, as well as a : discussion of the natural and social environ- : mental criteria which were developed to evaluate : the plans. ¢ Section 4.0 describes the potential envi- ronmental effects of the common elements - in all the alternative plans, (i.e., demand

management, non-utility generation, hydraulic |

generation, station rehabilitation, and the Manitoba purchase) and associated potential mitigation and compensation measures.

: * Section 5.0 discusses the potential comparative : environmental effects of major supply com- ponents of each Case and associated mitigation : and compensation measures. Sensitivity to - changes in load growth, planning period, siting, : : and regulatory changes are also discussed. :

<Introduction - Chapter One> 1-3

* Section 6.0 provides an overall assessment,

highlighting natural and social environmental : - advantages and disadvantages of the alternative | _ plans, the residual effects of these plans, and

the conclusions of this analysis.

a <Alternative Demand/Supply Plans Environmental Analysis>

9.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS

To assist in the selection of a Demand/Supply Plan, a number

of alternative plans were developed to demonstrate

and assess the range of acceptable options available to meet

Ontario’s electricity needs over the next 25 years.

: These alternative plans are discussed in Chapters

: 15 and 17 of the Plan Report.

: 2.1 Common Elements

: As noted previously, certain options are com- : : mon to all plans. These common elements | are included in all of the alternative : : Demand/Supply Plans before adding new 7 : major supply facilities is considered. The : : Demand/Supply Planning Strategy, DSPS, calls for the maximum economically achiev- : : able contributions from each of the common : , elements, thereby reinforcing government : : and corporate goals of maximizing energy 7

efficiency and utilizing renewable resources. :

' The common elements include:

: ¢ Demand management - programs related

: to end-use energy efficiency improvements

as well as load shifting.

: ¢ Non-utility generation (NUG) - future NUG : - contributions will likely come from private 2

: hydraulic developments (less than 10 MW)

and gas-fired cogeneration projects. Less than : 10 percent of cogeneration projects are likely

: to use alternative fuels such as waste wood or |

- municipal solid waste.

¢ Hydraulic generation - future hydraulic gen- | : eration will be derived from new sites and rede- : : velopment of some existing sites to take fuller : : advantage of available flows. Most of the remain- :

ing undeveloped potential is in the Moose River : _ basin in northeastern Ontario and at Sir Adam : 7 BeckG.S. on the Niagara River (see list of sites : in Appendix B). ;

The Select Committee on Energy (1988) : has recommended that, “remaining economic hydroelectric sites should be developed in an : orderly and environmentally appropriate man- : ner” and that, “available hydraulic sites should : be developed to maximize positive economic and social impacts to Ontario and Canadian : economies in an orderly fashion. Such devel- : opments should also be designed and operated : to provide positive economic spinoffs and employment opportunities, particularly in more : ' remote parts of the province”. : * Station Rehabilitation - rehabilitation will : take place at many stations within the Bulk : Electrical System. At hydraulic stations, dam : safety will be assessed and opportunities to : upgrade facilities to take fuller advantage of : - available flows will be undertaken. At nuclear stations, retubing activities are planned. At fossil stations, rehabilitation programs are planned : for Lakeview, Lambton and Nanticoke generating :

- stations during the 1990s to ensure these stations _

operate reliably over their full service life.

¢ Manitoba Purchase - starting in 2000, all : plans assume that a firm purchase of 1000 | MW will be in-place from Manitoba. The power _

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two> al

| } / 4 7

: will be delivered from new hydraulic generation

_ at the Conawapa site on the Nelson River in

northern Manitoba, and requires major - - upgrades of interconnections between Ontario’s - - West System and Manitoba. About 1100 km : fired generation.

; of new high voltage transmission line will be :

required in Ontario.

2.2 Major Supply Cases

Figure 2-1 provides a summary of five different

mixes of generation options. These combinations

of major supply options, called Cases, were selected from dozens of Cases formulated to illustrate alternatives or pursue improvements. :

Siting assumptions and associated trans- : (IGCC) units.

mission assumptions for each Case are discussed:

in Sections 2.3 and 2.4.

Major Supply Terminology

The following terminology is used to describe

options within the Cases: CSC refers to conventional steam cycle coal-

CANDU refers to nuclear generating stations | : (Canadian Deuterium Uranium).

_ to meet peaking requirements. To protect

against the possibility of higher than forecast

provision is made to develop some of these :

CTUs, in phases, into combined cycle (CC)

or integrated gasification combined cycle ~A1-4, CANDUB5-8, CANDUC 9-10. These provisions make it necessary to make : 7 the following distinctions:

- conversion;

- CTU/CC - CTUs convertible to CCs;

Figure 2—1 Alternative Cases — Energy Production by Source

Median Load Forecast

Case 24 Case 26

Case 22 Case 23

Case 15

Hydro Nuclear Coal Gas

Oil NUG Purchase

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two> rear)

_ CTU/IGCC - CTUs convertible to CC and ~ : IGCC units.

Each Case requires differing numbers of 3

- generating units and stations. It is necessary | _ at times to describe the number of stations

required and the number, timing and capacity 7

- of the generating units at any station. _ CTUs (Combustion Turbine Units) are used -

This will be done as follows: | ¢ Letters indicate the order in which stations |

_ of a particular option are employed, i.e., |

: fuel prices or higher CTU capacity factors, CANDU A is the first station, CANDU B is :

the second station.

' © The units in stations of a particular option |

are numbered consecutively, i.e., CANDU :

¢ For fossil options, the symbol Ce is intro- |

duced before the unit numbers. Ce means | : CTU/G -a general term covering all CTUs; Capacity Equivalent, i.e., CTU/NC A Ce 1 : CTU/NC - CTUs with no provision for : 150 MW units, or different size units equivalent :

to 600 MW capacity.

- 4 is the first CTU/NC station, with four -

The five Cases have varying mixes of fossil :

and nuclear generation: : ¢ Case 15 - mixed reliance on nuclear and : fossil generation; : * Case 26 - heaviest reliance on fossil gen- : : eration; * Case 23-heaviest reliance on nuclear gen- eration;

2 * Case 24 - between 15 and 26; : ¢ Case 22-between 15 and 23.

: Case 15 7 In this Case, about two-thirds of new capacity : under each load forecast condition consists : : of purchases and base load nuclear gener- : : ation, the remaining one-third is peaking | 7 fossil generation. Table 2-1 summarizes :

: capacity additions.

Figure 2-2 illustrates the approximate timing : _ of major supply additions under the three |

: load forecast paths.

Under the median load forecast, base load 2 : is supplied by nuclear generation, with in- : : service dates set by cost and environmental : - considerations. The intermediate requirement : is met by existing fossil stations, retrofitted : : as necessary, to meet environmental require- : ments. The remaining peaking requirement : : is met with gas-fuelled CTUs, convertible to : —CCs or IGCCs. In total, by 2014, this Case | 2 requires ten CANDU units at three stations, six CTU/CCsat one station and 26 CTU/IGCCs |

- at three stations.

Under the upper forecast, options are : advanced in the early years to the extent per- : : mitted by lead times. In later years, in-service : : dates are set by cost and environmental con- : : siderations. CTU/NCs at existing stations are : used to reduce capacity shortfalls in the mid : 1990s. These are followed by CTU/IGCCs on : : new sites starting in the late 1990s. More base : : load nuclear is added in later years to restore : an appropriate mix of generation. In total, : : by 2014, this Case requires 14 CANDU units : : at four stations, ten CTU/NCs at three stations, : : 12 CTU/CCs at two stations, and 16 CTU/IGCCs :

' at two stations.

Under the lower forecast, requirements | : are met with fewer and later nuclear units : and CTUs, whose in-service dates are set by : : cost and environmental considerations. The : : exception to delayed in-service dates is the : : Manitoba Purchase, for which contract com- : : mitments have been made. This Case requires, : : by 2014, six CANDU units at two stations, six : - CTU/CCsat one station, and 14 CTU/IGCCs |

' at two stations.

Table2—1 Major Supply Additions by 2014 Case 15 Capacity (GW) Lower Median Upper © Major Supply Option Forecast Forecast Forecast Utility Purchase 1.0 1.0 1.0 CANDU 03° 8.8 12.3 CTU/NC 0 0 1.7 CTU/CC 1.0 1.0 20 4 CTU/IGCC 23 44 a | Total 9.6 15.2 19.7 Case 26 : gas fired CTUs convertible to CCs or IGCCs.

In this Case, about half of the new base load

capacity under each load forecast condition

consists of purchases and CSC coal. Peaking requirements are met by CTU/Gs. The pro- : portion of peaking generation is larger than : in Case 15, because the CSC coal station is : smaller than a nuclear station and more CTUs

are installed to compensate. Table 2-2 sum- :

marizes capacity additions by 2014.

An alternative to Case 26 was developed

using IGCC stations rather than CSC coal stations : : as base load fossil generation. The results of : the two Cases are similar, except for solid waste and technical soundness. IGCC features lower solid waste. CSC is more technically proven.

The approximate timing of capacity addi- : tions over the planning period is shown in : : CTUs. The Manitoba Purchase is not delayed,

- because contract commitments have been made. |

Figure 2-3. Under the median forecast, base load

requirement is met with CSC coal generation.

The intermediate requirement is met by existing fossil stations, retrofitted with emission controls, - to meet environmental requirements. The -

- remaining peaking requirement is met with -

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two> 2-3

This Case requires, by 2014, ten CSC Coal : ' units at three stations, six CTU/CCs at one |

station, and 34 CTU/IGCCs at three stations. :

Under the upper forecast, options are advanced in the early years, to the extent per- mitted by lead times; in later years they are ; advanced to the extent permitted by cost. CTUs :

at new stations are advanced more than CSC |

: Coal units, because of their shorter lead times.

- The remaining requirement is met with very :

short lead time CTU/NCs on existing stations. : This Case requires, by 2014, 14 CSC coal units : at four stations, eight CTU/NGs at two stations, 12 CTU/CCs at two stations, and 30 CTU/IGCCs | at three stations.

Under the lower forecast, requirements are met with fewer and later CSC coal units and

- This Case requires, by 2014, six CSC coal units :

at two stations, six CTU/CCs at one station, and 18 CTU/IGCCs at two stations. :

Lower Major Supply Option Forecast Utility Purchase 1.0 CSC - Coal 4.5 CTU/NC. ~ 0 CTU/CC 1.0 CTU/IGCC 3.0 Total 9.5

Capacity (GW) Median Upper Forecast Forecast 1.0 1.0 7.4 10.4 0 1.4 1.0 2.0 Ort 5.0 15:1; 19.8

Lower Major Supply Option Forecast Utility Purchase 1.0 CANDU 8.8 CTU/NC : 0 CTU/CC 0 CTU/IGCC 0.3 Total 10.1

Capacity (GW)

Median Upper Forecast Forecast 1.0 1.0

14.1 1539

O= 1.3

0 0

0 13

15.1 1925

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two> 2-4

| Case 23

Table 2—2 Major Supply Additions by 2014 : Case 26

~ and base load nuclear generation. The remaining |

In this Case, more than 85% of new capacity |

under each load forecast consists of purchases

requirementis met with peaking fossil generation : : provided by existing fossil stations. Some fossil : : peaking generation is added, mostly under : : the upper load forecast. Table 2-3 summarizes : capacity additions by 2014. :

The approximate timing of capacity addi- |

- tions over the planning period is shown in °

: Figure 2-4.

Under the median load forecast, nuclear :

generation eliminates the need for new peaking : : fossil and minimizes the use of existing fossil : generation. In-service dates of nuclear units : : are scheduled to meet all base load requirements 2 : and some intermediate requirements. Existing : : fossil generation moves toward the peaking 2 role and no new peaking generation is required. : : In total, by 2014, 16 CANDU units at four :

: stations are required.

Table 2—3 Major Supply Additions by 2014 Case 23

- and atanewstation. Additional nuclear units |

Under the upper load forecast, CTUs are added in the early years, both at existing stations

: are added in later years. This Case requires, © - by 2014, 18 CANDU units at five stations, eight - CTU/NCsat two stations, and eight CTU/IGCCs |

: at one station.

Under the lower load forecast, fewer and :

: later nuclear units are required. This Case : requires, by 2014, ten CANDU units at three | _ stations, and two CTU/IGCCs at one station. -

Case 24 : : This Case is between Case 15 and the Case : 26. All peaking, all intermediate and part of : : the base load requirements are met by fossil

: generation,

Under the median load forecast, base load

: requirements are met, in turn, by CANDU A, |

a . <Alternative Demand/Supply Plans Environmental Analysis> |

GW

Figure 2-2. New Major Supply Case 15

24 ] Options © Manitoba Purchase 22 pe aa ae «Fossil : CANDU D Forecast a 13-14 paar) :¢ as CTU/IGCC B once : Ce 13-16 PP ct Median Lower

14 CANDU C 9-10

CTU/IGCC C Ce 25-26

12

10 CANDU B 5-6

~ CTU/IGCC B Ce 13-14 CTU/IGCC A Ce 7-12

CTU/NC C Ce 9-10

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2014 January of Year

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two> 2-5

GW

24

22

20

18

16

14

We

Figure 2-3 New Major Supply Case 26

Options 9% Manitoba Purchase

"~~ Nuclear a Fossil

CSc D Ce 13-14

Forecast

Upper

Median

1990 1995 2000 2005 January of Year

Lower

— CSCC Ce 9-10

CTU/IGCC B Ce 13-18 = CTU/IGCC A Ce 7-12

2010 2014

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two> 2-6

(SCA, and CANDU B. Existing and new fossil

M Table 2-4 Major Supply Additions by 2014 : | Case 24

: Coal units at one station, six CANDU units |

- generation meet intermediate and peak require-

: ments. This Case requires, by 2014, four CSC

: at two stations, six CTU/CCs at one station, : and 30 CTU/IGCCsat three stations by 2014. : Under the upper load forecast, the base : : load requirements are met, in turn, by CANDU 2 2 A, CSC A, CANDU B, and two units in CANDU : : C. Peaking requirements, by 2014, are met : : by eight CTU/NGs at two stations, ten ~ CTU/CCsat two stations and 24 CTU/IGCCs |

: at three stations.

: Under the lower load forecast, base load : : requirements are met by CANDU A followed : : by two units in CSC A. Peaking requirements, : by 2014, are met by six CTU/CCs at one station :

: and 14 CTU/IGCCs at two stations.

An alternative variation of Case 24 was - analyzed. It featured a CSC coal station as : the first base load station. The variant with

: a CANDU station first is favoured because :

: Table 2—5 Major Supply Additions by 2014 : Case 22 .

: 5

: it maintains CANDU capability in Canada. Table 2-4 summarizes capacity additions - by the end of 2014.

The approximate timing of capacity addi- :

- tions over the planning period is shown in :

: Figure 2-5.

; Case 22

: This Case has a mix of options that fall between :

: the mixes in Case 15 and Case 23.

Under the median load forecast, nuclear : : units are scheduled to reduce the need for : new fossil generation until later in the period. : - This Case requires, by 2014, 12 CANDU units : - at three stations, six CTU/CCsat one station, : : and 16 CTU/IGCCs at two stations.Under the :

- upper load forecast, requirements are met |

initially by CTU/NCs on existing sites, and

then by CTU/IGCCs. Nuclear units provide -

t

Lower Major Supply Option Forecast Utility Purchase 1.0 CSC — Coal ile) CANDU 3.5 CTU/NC 0 CTU/CC 1.0 CTU/IGCC 2.4 Total 9.4

Capacity (GW) Median

Forecast 1.0

3.0

5.3

0

1.0

5.0

15.3

Upper Forecast 1.0

3.0

8.8

les

Ley

4.0

19.8

Lower Major Supply Option Forecast Utility Purchase : 1.0 CANDU 7.0 CTU/NC 0 CTU/CC 0 CTU/IGCC es Total 37

Capacity (GW)

Median

Forecast

1.0 10.6 0 1.0 2.7 15.3

Upper Forecast 1.0

dg 322

Ue:

1.7

2.7

19.9

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two> 2-7,

: 30

Figure 2-4 New Major Supply Case 23

24

Options

©) Manitoba Purchase »— > Nuclear

MM Fossil

22

20 CANDUE Forecast 11-18 ese 18 Upper 16 edian Lower 14 12 10 <— CANDUC 9-10 8 << (TUIGCCA Ce 1-2 6 4 2 0 2 1990 1995. 2000 2005 2010 2014 January of Year

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two> 2-8

—)

a

<Alternative Demand/Supply Plans Environmental Analysis> -

GW

Figure 2-5 New Major Supply Case 24

Options

(8 Manitoba Purchase Nuclear

S288 Fossil

Forecast CANDUC 9-10 — ae

CTU/IGCC C Ce 21-24

CTU/IGCC C Ce 19-20 : 15

<— (SCA Ce 1-2

¢— CTU/IGCCB Ce 13-14 S CTUIGCCA Ce7-12

6 20 4 CTU/IGCC A Ce 9-12 2 CTU/NC A Ce 1-4 0 25 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2014 January of Year 35 40

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two> 2-9

20

or:

B35

base load generation as lead time permits. This Case requires, by 2014, 15 CANDU units : at four stations, eight CTU/NGs at two sta- tions, ten CTU/CCs at two stations, and - 16 CTU/IGCCs at two stations. 3 For lower load forecast, eight CANDU units : at two stations and ten CTU/IGCCs at one ~ 7 station are required by 2014.

Table 2-5 summarizes total capacity additions by 2014. | The approximate timing of capacity addi- : tions over the planning period is shown in Figure 2-6.

2.3 Candidate Sites Candidate sites are known sites that are being considered for future fossil and nuclear gen- erating facilities in the major supply Cases. : Candidate sites are used to illustrate that : it is technically and economically fea- sible to locate the selected options within : the province. Site locations are shown in : Figure 2-7, as are the locations of proposed - hydraulic developments. Subsequent envi- : _ ronmental assessments will assure that pro- jects are located in an environmentally acceptable manner, and with opportunities for community input. :

Candidate Sites for Nuclear Option : The following sites can accommodate a : _ 4x 881 MW CANDU station:

¢ Darlington (near Bowmanville) ¢ Wesleyville (near Port Hope)

and Espanola)

¢ Lennox (near Bath)

¢ North Channel Area (between Bruce Mines |

and Espanola) ¢ Wesleyville (near Port Hope)

Existing fossil generating station sites (Keith, Lakeview, and Lambton) could be used for

- new stations after the existing stations are : decommissioned. Some sites, such as Hearn and Keith, cannot accommodate IGCC or larger stations. These sites, however, are suitable for the addition of combustion turbine units, which can be converted to combined cycle generation. : into IGCCs, CTUs convertible to CC units, and - If redeveloped, Keith could possibly accom- modate a small IGCC station. :

Candidate Sites for CTU and CC Options

To meet the upper load forecast, Hydro requires - _ options with very short construction lead times

(2 to 5 years), such as combustion turbine

units on operating station sites. Existing oper- ating stations —- Lakeview, Lambton, Lennox : A and Nanticoke - are possible sites. 2 _ Hearnand Keith are currently mothballed : and do not have trained maintenance and operating staff on site. In short lead-time sit- uations, CTUs could be installed at these sites. : However, these two stations are better suited : 15, 22, 24 and 26; and three in Case 23. : for the longer lead time combined cycle stations. - This better site utilization may be precluded : by the installation of non-convertible CTUs. : The following sites are potentially suitable for CTUs:

_ © Hearn (Toronto) - CTU/CC (Phase 1)

- © Keith (Windsor) - CTU/IGCC (Phase 1) ¢ Bruce (between Kincardine and Port Elgin) e Lambton (Sarnia) - CTUs ¢ North Channel Area (between Bruce Mines : ¢ Nanticoke (Port Dover) - CTUs _ ¢ Lennox GSA (Bath) - CTUs

: ° Lakeview (Mississauga) - CTUs _ Candidate Sites for CSC and IGCC Options —

The following sites can accommodate at least

one CSC or IGCC station:

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two> 2-10

-: Site Categories and Associated Sites

The location of any new sites is not specified

: at this time in any of the alternate plans. Site : selection studies will be required to identify : and select any new sites. The set of illustrative ;

sites for each case represents a feasible choice

and meets the system requirement for a geo- |

graphic balance between electricity demand :

and supply. In general, the Cases require sites for CANDU | stations, CSC coal stations, CTUs convertible

CTU/NGs without further development options. Table 2-6 shows howillustrative sites could |

- be used in each Case under all three load forecasts. An alternative siting sequence was also studied.

The number of sites required varies between | Cases and between load forecasts (Table 5-3).

- For the upper load forecast, eight to eleven sites

would be used; for the median forecast, four to seven: for the lower forecast, three to five.

To meet base load requirements, all Cases : require new sites to be identified in locations : that maintain geographical balance between : demand and generation. For the median fore- : cast, two sites need to be identified in Cases

2.4 Transmission Requirements Since the siting of generating stations hasan —

impact on the transmission system, transmission

: considerations are included in this analysis. The transmission required to incorporate a : : new Ontario Hydro generating station will : include radial transmission necessary to connect the site to the existing and planned Bulk : Electricity System (BES). It may also include inter-area transmission necessary to maintain :

: an integrated BES.

‘

Table 2—6 Illustrative siting and timing of options

Load

Forecast

Site Condition Lower Median Upper

Darlington B

Lower Median Upper

Hearn

Keith Lower Median Upper Lower Median Upper

Lakeview

Lower Median Upper

Lambton

Lower Median Upper

Lennox A

Lower Median Upper

Lennox B

Lower Median Upper

Nanticoke

Lower Median Upper

New Site 1

New Site 2 Lower Median

Upper

Case 23 Highest Nuclear In- Option Service Candu A 1999 CanduA 1999

CanduA 1999

CTU/IGCC A 2012

CTU/NC A 1993

CTU/NC B 1994 CANDU C 2012 CANDUC 2009 CANDU C 2007

CANDU D 2010 CANDU D 2008

Case 22 Higher Nuclear In- Option Service CanduA 2007 CanduA 2001

CanduA 2001

CTU/CCA 2008 CTU/CC B 2003

CTU/CCA 2002

CTU/IGCC A 2012 CTU/IGCC B 2012 CTU/IGCC B 2012

CTU/NCA 1993

CTU/NC B 1994

CANDUC 2010 CANDUC 2008

CANDU D 2011

Case 15 Balanced

In-

Option Service

CanduA 2009

CanduA 2003 -

CanduA 2002 CTU/CCA 2008 CTU/CC A 2001 CTU/CC B 2002

CTU/CC A 2001 CTU/IGCC B 2012 CTU/IGCC B 2009 CTU/IGCC B 2012 CTU/IGCC C 2012

CTU/NC A 1993

CTU/NC C 2001

CTU/NC B 1994

CANDU C 2012 CANDU C 2008

CANDU D 2012

Case 24

Higher fossil In- Option Service CanduA 2009 CanduA 2003 Candu A 2002 CTU/CC A 2008 CTU/CC A 2001

CTU/CC B 2003

CTU/CCA 2002 CTUIGCCB —-2012 CTU/IGCCB —-2008 CTU/IGCCC —-2006

CTU/IGCC C 2010 CTU/NC A 1993

CTU/IGCC B 2001

CTU/NC B 1994

CANDU B 2012

CANDUB 2008

CANDU C 2012

Case 26 Highest fossil In-

Option Service

CTU/CC A 2008 CTU/CC A 2001 CTU/CC B 2003

CTU/CC A 2002 CTU/IGCC B 2012 CTU/IGCC B 2008 CTU/IGCC C 2007

CTU/IGCC C 2010 CTU/NC A 1993

CTU/IGCC B 2001

CTU/NC B 1994

CSC COAL C 2012

CSC COAL C 2008

CSC COAL D 2012

Sag

: 20

5 385

£35

> 40

2:

5:

$03":

40:

Table 2-6

Load Forecast

Condition

Site New Site 3

Lower Median Upper Lower Median Upper

North Channel

Lower Median Upper

Wesleyville A

Lower Median Upper

Wesleyville B

Illustrative siting and timing of options (continued)

Case 23

Highest Nuclear

In-

Option Service CANDUE 2012 CANDU B 2010 CANDU B 2002 CANDU B 2002

CTU/IGCC A 1997

‘Case 22 Higher Nuclear In- Option Service CANDU B 2010 CANDU B 2006 CANDU B 2005 CTU/IGCC A 2009 CTU/IGCC A 1997

Case 15

Balanced In- Option Service CANDUB 2012 CANDU B 2009 CANDUB 2007 CTU/IGCC A 2009 CTUIGCCA —-2002 CTU/IGCC A 1997

Case 24

Higher fossil In- Option Service CSC COALA 2012 CSC COAL A 2009 CSC COALA 2007 CTU/IGCC A 2009 CTU/IGCC A 2002 CTU/IGCC A 1997

Case 26 Highest fossil In-

Option Service

CSC COAL B 2012 CSC COAL B 2009 CSC COAL B 2007 CTU/IGCC A 2009 CTU/IGCC A 2002 CTU/IGCC A 1997 CSC COALA 2009 CSC COALA 2003 CSC COALA 2002

2-12

a

GW

Figure 2-6 New Major Supply Case 22

Options (2 Manitoba Purchase

CTU/IGCC B Ce 13-16

CTU/CC B Ce5-6

1990

1995

2000 2005 January of Year

2010

Ga Nuclear 2 Fossil

Forecast al

Upper

Median

Lower

CTU/IGCC B Ce 13-16

<— CTU/IGCC A Ce 1-10

2014

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two> 2-18

25

> 35

Ze

35:

Table 2—7 Major Radial Transmission Requirements for Incorporation of Major Supply

1. Darlington B Incorporation Bowmanville SS x Cherrywood TS * build a 3rd 2—cct 500 kV line, approximately 46 km, on an existing approved right-of-way

2. North Channel Site Incorporation

North Channel GS x Mississagi TS

° build two 1—cct 500 kV lines, approximately 50 km, ona new right-of-way North Channel GS x Sudbury Area

* build two new 1 —cct 500 kV lines, approximately 225 km, on a new right-of-way

3.Southwestern Ontario Site Incorporation New GS x Existing 500 kV Transformer Station in SWO * build two 2 —cct 500 kV lines, up to 100 km long, on a new right-of-way

4. Manitoba Purchase Manitoba Border x Sault Ste. Marie area

¢ build one 1—cct 500 kV line, approximately 1,100 km, on a new right-of-way

Note:This covers only the facilities required in Ontario. New 500 kV stations will be established at Dryden, Lakehead and midway between Lakehead and Mississagi stations. The proposed facilities will displace indefinitely the following planned transmission projects in Northern Ontario:

° Birch x Marmion Lake

e Marmion Lake x Dryden

¢ Northern Ontario Interconnection Stages land Il

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two> 2-14

4

Figure 2-7 Candidate Sites Used in Alternate Plans

Legend Ontario Hydro Sites Allan Rapids @ Missinaibi Sand Rapids: Nuclear CBee Blacksmith Rapids: Fossil

Little Jackfish Nine Mile Rapids

‘ == Hydraulic Otter Rapids

(including new Abitibi Canyon and redevelopments) ; @ Undeveloped Thermal Sites Other Sites

A Undeveloped Thermal Sites

Lake Nipigon

Cypress Falls

Mattagami River

Montreal River :

Ragged Chute

Mississagi River

Patten Post North Channel

- me

_¢ Big Chute Severn

River Lennox

Wesleyville

Pickering EC

Hearn

Lakeview

G Sir Adam Beck Niagara Sey

Lake Gibson a ; River

WilLambton Nanticoke

ar

3.0. Keith

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two> 2-15

5:

30:

35h

40:

: The need for radial transmission 1s driven solely by the choice of site and its proximity : | to a suitable existing or planned transmission 2 stations in the integrated system. The need : : for inter-area transmission can be driven by : the choice of site, but is also influenced by many other factors such as security and reliability : of load supply, geographic mismatch of load : and generation, and operational flexibility : and economics. 7 Toillustrate the differences between radial : and inter-area transmission, examples of the : facilities required to incorporate a generating station at a new site are given below:

North Channel Area (4 x 881 MW CANDU) ¢ The radial transmission required is two : 500 kV single circuit lines (50 km) from the : new site to the existing Mississagi Transformer : : Station (near Sault Ste. Marie) on a newright- : of-way and, two 500 kV single circuit lines : (225 km) from the new site to the existing Hanmer Transformer Station at Sudbury on

| a new right-of-way.

¢ To accommodate the increased power flows |

on the existing bulk transmission system, due to the new station and the Manitoba Purchase,

new hydraulic developments and the purchase of non-utility generation in northern Ontario, : Hydro would require a new 500 kV single circuit ¢ Manitoba Purchase (1,100 km) line (210 km) from Sault Ste. Marie to Sudbury on existing right-of-way and two new 500 kV 2 single circuit lines (400 km) from Sudbury : - to Toronto on a new right-of-way. : The transmission approvals requested in : this application are for the requirements and : rationale for radial transmission. Specific routes for this radial transmission will be assessed : as part of the project specific environmental : : assessment for each generation development. : As a result, this environmental analysis only : addresses the radial transmission requirements : for supply options at the assumed reference sites given in Section 2.3 and the transmission : requirements for the Manitoba Purchase. Inter- area transmission will be dealt with in a separate :

planning and approval process.

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two> 2-16

The four options that require significant |

_ radial transmission are: © Darlington B (46 km)

¢ North Channel Site (550 km) ¢ Southwestern Ontario Site (200 km)

The requirements are described in : Table 2-7 . The distances given above in : brackets are the approximate lengths of new : transmission line involved. As indicated in Table 2-7, it is proposed that some of these 7

lines be located on multi-line rights-of-way. :

The locations of the new rights-of-way have 2 not been identified at this time. Route se- : lection studies are required to identify and select specific routes. :

The remaining sites require relatively short 7 lengths of new radial transmission line on : existing rights-of-way (i.e. generally less than : 2 km), or no new radial transmission at all. :

The amount of radial transmission required

varies little among Cases. The main difference . for the same load forecast is in the order and : timing of additions to the Bulk Transmission : System. In some Cases, particularly with lower : load growth, there are differences of up to 350 km in the total length of transmission : requirements. The amount of transmission :

: required increases with load.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PROCESS

To compare alternative demand/supply plans, Hydro examined both

natural and social characteristics of the “environment.”

Social considerations include socio-economic effects and broad social

considerations (e.g., equity issues).

- 3.1 General Assumptions : © The evaluation focuses on environmental

: changes associated with the median load fore- | : cast. Low load forecast and upper load forecast are examined as sensitivity conditions in

: Section 5.3.

7 ¢ Plan comparisons are based on an evaluation : of environmental effects associated with : demand management as well as all energy : : supply options over the study period, 3 2 3.2 Evaluation Method

1989-2014. Transmission considerations are

- limited to the radial transmission required

- to incorporate major new generation.

: ¢ Full fuel cycle effects are considered. Some |

effects (eg., from coal mining) will occur outside

- Ontario. Where possible, these will be noted, -

: uation. Other impacts during the fuel cycle (e.g.,

_ from uranium mining) could occur within Ontario

2 outside Ontario, or are beyond Hydro’s direct : : control, they will be regulated to meet the appro- : : priate environmental standards and legislation. : : ¢ Only effects associated with normal, routine

- operation are assessed. Provision to handle |

- emergency or accident conditions will be made

: in the detailed design for each plant/facility :

- and appropriate contingency planning will |

: be developed.

: @ Allnew generation and transmission projects : : will require review and approval under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. Siting and routing : considerations as well as site-specific effects and mitigation will be addressed in individual project environmental assessments. : More specific assumptions pertaining to

the natural and social environmental analyses

are detailed in Appendix A.

- The evaluation of environmental effects was : influenced by: 7 © the approaches used to prepare the envi- 7 ronmental analyses of the representative plans : "of the Demand/Supply Planning Strategy : _ but they are not dealt with in detail in this eval- : (Ontario Hydro, 1989); | e review of approaches used in similar planning : studies (BC Hydro,1989; Michigan Dept. 2 : but are not directly within the control of Ontario : Commerce, 1987; Northwest Power Planning : : Hydro. Itis assumed that where activities occur : Council, 1989); and

* experience with the environmental assessment

planning process.

Siting of generation and transmission facil- ities is subject to environmental assessment. : 7 Although there are differences between a F | general demand/supply plan and an assess- 7 ment for a specific project, many of the same :

, principles apply.

3-1

20

P25

20:

35:

Figure 3-1 Demand/Supply Plans

Demand/Supply Options Study

Demand/Supply Planning Strategy

Alternative Demand/Supply Plans

Environmental Analysis

_ Process ~

¢ Demand Management ¢ Non-utility Generation -e Hydraulic Generation

“Define Evaluation Criteria

e Purchases : Natural Environment ~

e Station Rehabilitation Social Environment

* Major Supply Cases _ eldentify Environmental Effects/Mitigation =

*Focus on Plan Differences * Discuss Environmental Advantages __ and Disadvantages of Alternative Plans

a Other Evaluations

Demand/Supply Plan

Government and Public Review

3=2

The evaluation process includes the |

following steps: : ¢ Develop a set of natural and social envi- 7 : ronmental criteria for both the generation : and transmission components of the plans. : : Test the criteria for appropriateness, successful : use elsewhere, measurability, etc. : * Evaluate the environmental implications : : of the alternative plans, using the criteria. 7 : * Consider mitigation/compensation to offset the potential environmental effects of the plans. : ¢ Determine the environmental advantages : and disadvantages of the alternative plans, : : and identify residual effects; : : ¢ Identify and comment on constraints and concerns (ie., sensitivity considerations) outside : Ontario Hydro’s control, such as regulations, 7 which might change these results. 7 * Document the findings and the evaluation

- process.

Figure 3-1 shows environmental analysis :

- process in relation to the overall planning :

: process.

' 3.3 Evaluation Criteria and Background | : Evaluation criteria were developed consistent : with the environment goal of the Corporate : Strategy. It states that “... Ontario Hydro will develop and manage its activities and facilities : in sucha way as to sustain the environmental : base”. Furthermore, the environmental direc- : : tive in the 1989 President’s Initiatives states that environmental concerns and their solu- 2 : tions will be integrated into Hydro’s planning : and decision-making processes. These envi- : : ronmental concerns will consider preventive measures, not just mitigative measures. The : general strategic principles in the : : Demand/Supply Planning Strategy also state, 7 “Ontario Hydro will take a leadership role :

- in protecting the environment and will encour-

age the social benefits associated with its

: activities.”

Evaluation criteria were selected that are : consistent with the concept of sustainable devel- : : opment - that is, that the needs of present : : generations (for electricity or any other mate- : : rials) must be met without compromising the | ability of future generations to meet their own :

- needs. This concept was first introduced by |

- Commission on Environmentand Development : - (UNEP,1987). It recognizes that economic : ' growth is necessary, but stresses that it must :

- be undertaken in harmony with sound envi- :

- ronmental objectives.

The Brundtland Commission recommends : - that the following key elements must be rec-

onciled to achieve sustainability in the energy

- sector:

: * Sufficient growth of energy supplies to meet :

- human needs;

- sures, such that waste of primary resources :

- ig minimized;

- inherent in energy sources; and

~ © Protection of the biosphere and prevention |

: of more localized forms of pollution.

The Brundtland Commission draws the :

- following general conclusions:

_ © Allenergy sources have environmental con- |

~ sequences, some of which are not dealt with .

: adequately.

_ © Choosing an energy strategy inevitably means

- choosing an environmental strategy,

_ © Less energy means fewer environmental prob-

~ lems; low energy futures are therefore more .

: beneficial than high energy futures.

Since all of these environmental objectives :

- are notcomplementary, tradeoffs must be made. :

3.3.1 Natural Environmental Criteria

The selection of the natural environment criteria

was based, in part, on the:

* natural environment evaluation of the rep- : resentative plans used in developing the Demand/Supply Planning Strategy undertaken : 2 the United Nations - sponsored Brundtland : in 1986 (Ontario Hydro 1986a); ie experience in identifying and assessing the

environmental impacts of site-specific gen- :

eration and transmission facilities; and

¢ knowledge of environmental assessment.

The selection of criteria was also tempered : by the need to develop, where possible, quan- : titative measures of environmental effects for : - comparison purposes. Since site-specific infor- 2 mation was not available, estimates were based : 2 on current construction and operation practices, : and emissions and other environmental effects for typical generation and transmission facilities. 2 : Detailed assessment of site-specific environ- : ~ mental effects will be carried out for individual : " projects. | The natural environmental criteria were : : selected and grouped into two broad categories : : to respond to sustainable development prin- : ciples relating to resource use and the pro- : duction of emissions, effluents and wastes. : ae Sik natural environmental criteria were : selected for this analysis of the plans. They : : are stated as follows: :

<Description of Environmental Analysis Process - Chapter Three> 3-3

1. Resource Use

¢ Non-Renewable Resources

This criterion will consider the extent to which : - renewable and non-renewable resources are - used in the alternative plans. The use of plen- - tiful, renewable and indigenous resources is preferred and is consistent with the concept of sustainable development, while use of non- : : renewable resources is not. The use of non- renewable resources, such as fuels (eg., coal, oil, natural gas and uranium) and limestone : - required for FGD to scrub SO, from coal plant flue gases, will be considered. The use of fuel 2 will be directly determined by the amount of : resource required to produce a unit of electrical energy. Resource per TWh requirements vary significantly among fuels, with uranium requir- 2

ing the least resource commitment per unit |

of energy produced.

¢ Land Use

Estimates will be made of the total land area requirements for coal and uranium mining, new generation sites, including transmission : lines, as well as land requirement for waste : 2 storage/ disposal and flooding for reservoirs. Opportunities to reduce future land area

requirements and/or offset potential losses

will be considered.

This criterion will also consider the extent : to which existing facilities are rehabilitated (ie., to make the most of existing facilities) ; _ river basin development is undertaken for : : future hydraulic stations; and existing rights- , of-way are used for transmission facilities. 2 : These measures serve to optimize use of exist- : , ing facilities and thereby reduce long-term :

- land use.

15

25

> 30

35

> 40

bales

25

30:

35:

¢ Water Use Estimates will be made and compared for the amount of water required for fuel mining and processing, and for cooling water use, including : evaporative losses. Cooling water flow rates are assumed to reflect the potential for entrain- ment/impingement of fish and other aquatic organisms. Evaporative losses, although typically : low (ie., less than one percent of cooling water : flows), provide a measure of consumptive water : use. Consumptive water use in the Great Lakes :

: is becoming an issue. : 2. Emissions /Effluents /Wastes

¢ Atmospheric Emissions Typical levels of sulphur dioxide (SOs), nitrogen oxide (NOx as NOs), total acid gas (SO, + NOx), carbon dioxide (CO.), trace elements, : particulates and radionuclide emissions will : be estimated and compared for all plans. Ontario Hydro’s total acid gas emissions | are regulated on a system-wide basis. These limits cannot be exceeded, regardless of the demand for electricity or the mix of generation options available. Acid gas limits step downward : over the study period, reaching their lowest 7 : level in 1994 at 215 gigagrams annually (Gg/a) : 2 (for total acid gas) and 175 Gg/a (for SOg). : No specific limit presently exists for NOx emis- 2 sions, although a recent international NOx : Protocol, calling for a freeze of NOx emissions to 1987 levels by 1994, has been endorsed by : the Canadian government. Ontario Hydro’s :

NOx emissions in 1987 were 62 Gg.

CO, emissions are not currently regulated. : Due to the growing concern over the greenhouse : effect and associated global warming, there : have been recent initiatives aimed at reducing : CO, emissions. A number of regulatory groups have proposed a 20% reduction in CO, emissions

: by 2005, using 1988 as the base year. A federal- : provincial task group is looking at the imphi- : cations of achieving a 20% reduction target. 2 The ability of alternative plans to meet this illustrative target will be addressed in this analysis.

Trace element emissions are small in com-

parison to SOs, NOx and CO, emissions. These |

emissions are currently regulated at the local

air quality level. Trace elements considered :

in this evaluation are listed in Appendix A.

Radionuclide emissions limits are regulated : : on a site-specific basis and must not exceed 2 Derived Emission Limits (DELs) set by the Atomic Energy Control Board. Hydro routinely limits these emissions to 1% of the DEL on :

: an average annual basis. Radionuclides con-

sidered in this analysis include tritium, noble

gases, lodine 131 (1,3;), and radioactive par- : ticulates. Total radionuclide emissions will be estimated for the plan period. Estimates : 2 of DELs will also be used to assess the ability - of each plan to meet regulatory limits on an :

annual basis.

Noise emissions will also be considered, but no quantitative estimates will be provided,

since levels are highly site dependent. Total emissions and margins below existing

and proposed regulations will be assessed and

compared.

¢ Aquatic Effluents

Estimates will be made of aquatic effluents (i.e., : 3.3.2 Social Environmental Criteria

thermal, trace elements, radionuclide) from

mining activities and generating stations and 2 associated facilities (e.g., waste management).

Water effluents are currently regulated to : meet prescribed water quality objectives. Radionuclide effluents are regulated by the : AECB, Radionuclide effluents measured include

tritium and gross beta.

<Description of Environmental Analysis Process - Chapter Three> 3-4

Recent provincial initiatives under the : Municipal/Industrial Strategy for Abatement : (MISA) are stressing “virtual elimination” of toxic discharges to Ontario waterbodies. Discharge limits under MISA are being prepared : for specific application to Ontario Hydro. : Complementary to this provincial program :

- isan evolving federal policy aimed at attaining :

“zero discharge” for future industrial users |

: in the Great Lakes basin. Minimization of aquatic

effluents will be an important consideration | in assessing the acceptability of future generation

facilities.

¢ Solid Waste Production Estimates will be made of the quantities of :

- waste produced throughout the project life :

cycle (i.e., mining to waste disposal). These wastes include uranium and coal mining wastes, : ash, FGD wastes, and radioactive wastes (ie., : low level wastes and used fuel). :

Reducing the waste produced in the province :

via active 3R programs (ie., reduce, reuse, ;

recycle) isa fundamental part of the Ontario | government's environmental initiatives. A target

: of a50% reduction in solid waste production - : by 2000 has been recently proposed by the |

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE).

: Minimization of waste production will be an | - important consideration in assessing future

: plan acceptability.

For the purposes of this study, “community” : is broadly defined to include the local or regional : area potentially affected by generation and : transmission projects, as well as the population : of the province. Since only certain social effects : can be fully assessed prior to a site selection 7

- and approval, much of the discussion is qual- - - itative and descriptive rather than quantitative. :

: Detailed community impact studies will be 2 : undertaken, as part of project Environmental : Assessments, to address, mitigate and com- : pensate for social effects. Unlike many effects : : on the natural environment, province-wide : : standards do not exist to regulate social effects.

The selection of social criteria for this eval- :

- uation was influenced by:

: ¢ the 1987 social and economic evaluation _ of representative plans (Ontario Hydro,1987a) ' contained in the Demand/Supply Planning |

- Strategy; .

* project experience on environmental impact _ assessments and monitoring studies for gen- :

' eration projects;

' © generic studies of socio-economic impacts |

' of projects; and ' © literature reviews and research on social

' impact assessment.

The social criteria are consistent with the concept : of sustainable development in that an effort will : be made to avoid potential effects on the social : : structure ofadjacent communities, to comment : : on opportunities for mitigation and compensation

- and to discuss the question of the transfer of :

- benefits/risks to future generations.

- The seven social criteria selected to evaluate : the alternative plans fall under two broad cat- egories: socio-economic effects and broader : societal considerations. Regional employment : and development are considered to assess the : : balance of potential benefits and adverse effects 2 : in the area affected by the demand or supply : : option. The evaluation criteria are as follows:

1. Socio-Economic Effects

* Regional Employment

This criterion will focus, in the context of 2 regional labour supply and skills, on the employ- : ment opportunities afforded by construction |

and operation of proposed facilities.

¢ Regional Economic Development

Opportunities to develop existing regional : businesses and services will be discussed along : with the potential for new businesses and ser- "vices. Thiscriteria addresses the opportunities to develop the infrastructure and economic

- base ofa community to facilitate further eco- |

nomic development.

: Effects on the provincial economy are dealt : - with in Chapter 15 of the Plan Report.

* Local Community Impacts

This criterion will focus on how the size and |

service capacity of communities 1s affected

by the project activities and potential population : inflow. Many communities would require expan- sion of community or municipal facilities and:

_ services such as roads, and water and waste |

treatment facilities. 2. Societal Considerations ¢ Social Acceptance

Social acceptability of the plans will depend on the extent to which Ontario Hydro has

integrated changing social values into its plans. _ These values relate to environmental perfor- ~ mance; the maximum achievement of publicly- |

_ preferred options such as demand management, -

<Description of Environmental Analysis Process - Chapter Three> 3-5

- non-utility generation, hydraulic generation, : : and station rehabilitation; the choice of tech- : nologies; and siting.

Social acceptance is considered froma provin- cial, regional and local community perspective.

Social acceptance of the Demand/Supply : : Plans will be addressed more fully through 2 the Public Feedback Program, and the envi- : : ronmental assessment review process, both

of which will provide opportunities for public

input on the plans.

* Special/Sensitive Groups

Certain population groups may be more affected : by change than the rest of the population, : because of their cultural heritage, size, socio- economic status, or special interests. These groups will be identified and potential effects : will be discussed. ,

° Lifestyle Impacts

: This criterion will focus on the character of | the community, the stability of the population, | and lifestyle. Typically, younger, rapidly growing -

communities are more resilient to change than

older, more established communities, or com- : munities with a particular traditional lifestyle. : Effects on the broader community of the :

province will also be considered.

¢ Distribution of Risks and Benefits

This criterion will consider the distribution of benefits and risks of the alternative plans : among population groups, regions, and gen- erations. Generally, itis preferable that those : who bear the risks also share equitably in the

benefits.

: 20

1 25

20

5:

30

4,0 EVALUATION OF COMMON ELEMENTS IN

ALTERNATIVE PLANS

This section will focus on the potential environmental effects

of the components common to all the alternative plans.

Since little site-specific information is available for many of these

components, much of the discussion is generic in nature.

: The following components are common to : all the alternative plans: : : ¢ demand management : * non-utility generation : ¢ hydraulic generation : * station rehabilitation : ¢ Manitoba purchase

A summary of environmental effects and 2 mitigation associated with each of the common : : elements is presented in Appendix C.

| 4.1 Demand Management | 4.1.1 Natural Environment

: Resource Use : Generally, demand management options : : (ie., energy efficiency improvements and load | : shifting) have favourable environmental effects. , The focus of these programs is on using energy | more efficiently (e.g., commercial lighting | : improvements), thereby achieving more energy | : services for the same environmental effects : Dept. of Commerce, 1987; NPPC, 1989). of operation. In addition, successful demand : 7 management programs may defer the need : for additional new supply. However, the envi- : ronmental benefits achieved through deferral : of the need for new supply may be limited, . : if this deferral contributes to continued use : Emission /Effluents /Wastes

: of less efficient supply resources over the long -

term. Periodic replacement of older, less effi-

cient generating stations with newer, more : efficient plants has both system efficiency and : : environmental benefits, given that newer plants : : will have more comprehensive environmental

: controls and more energy efficient systems.

The success of demand management pro- : gramis in shifting load to off-peak times may | also produce environmental benefits by flat- :

: tening the daily demand peak and hence allow- ing the operation of more efficient and cleaner |

: energy sources.

Environmental characteristics of demand |

- management options have not been scrutinized — : as extensively as supply options. Most of their | potential environmental effects relate to the :

manufacture of demand management equip- - ment and to the disposal of inefficient equip- : ment. Preliminary estimates of these effects : indicate that they are negligible when compared : to the effects of producing the displaced power : through conventional generation (Michigan :

Measures to improve building or equipment | efficiency could lead to increased use of quan- © tities of certain non-renewable resources (eg.,

insulation, copper).

Insulation of homes and commercial buildings :

4-1

: can reduce opportunities for infiltration of : : fresh air. This may adversely affect indoor ? : air quality by increasing concentrations of : NOx, radon, formaldehyde, volatile organics, : and carbon monoxide. This potential air quality : concern can, however, be offset by restricting : : use of potentially harmful substances (mainly : : in new buildings or in renovations) and by : : upgrading ventilation systems (e.g., air exchang- : : ers) in parallel with new insulation programs.

- Programs to encourage weatherization promote _

- the use of these systems.

- Phasing out and disposal of less efficient | : appliances and equipment is an important : part of demand management. However, disposal : of less efficient appliances, like refrigerators, : : can create not only a significant waste disposal 2 : problem, but also a potential chlorofluoro- : : carbon (CFC) problem due to the escape of : CFCs from compressors and polyurethane insu- : : lation in refrigerators. Some programs will : require the management of environmentally : : sensitive materials. For example, a program : : to replace fluorescent ballasts requires the : : safe disposal of old PCB-contaminated ballasts. : : Although phased out equipment may not pose : a contaminant problem, it is not easily recycled,

- and therefore contributes to increases in waste

: quantities. : 4.1.2 Social Environment

- Socio-Economic Effects

: Conservation-related employment will be created : in communities across the province in many 2 : sectors, including trades required to install : : and maintain energy efficiency equipment; the | - material supply and manufacturing sectors; : : energy service specialists and the personnel : : required to develop and implement programs. 2

: Although total provincial employment may be :

higher and all communities will benefit, the : employment benefits created in any one locality 2 will not match the employment benefits of a major supply project.Because the effects of : demand management programs will be dis- : tributed across the province, there is little or : no opportunity for focused regional development. :

Without major construction activity, demand management programs are unlikely to create : significant direct local community impacts. : However, up-graded energy efficiency standards : : and building code amendments for new res- :

idential developments and conservation incen- :

tives may affect real estate markets, regional

planning and approvals, and inspection require- ments. This, in turn, may affect the type, cost, |

and pace of residential development.

Societal Considerations

Demand management through load shifting,

increased efficiency or incentives has potential

impacts on individuals and households. Load : shifting, through time-of-use rates, may induce : major changes in the ways energy is used by : customers. Residential customers, for example, : may change the pattern of their household 2 activities. Time of use, seasonal, and inter- : ruptible rates for industry may also result in : - changes to working hours. Increased use of : : night shift and weekend operations would affect 2 employees’ personal and family life. 2

Conservation, through the substitution of

: high-efficiency equipment, will have little or no impact on the lifestyles of Ontarians. The |

same is true of load shifting equipment such ;

as storage water heaters.

4-2

Depending on the structure and availability of incentive or assistance programs, special interests or sensitive groups may be adversely affected. For example, low-income customers may be affected by energy cost increases, acces- : sibility to conservation measures or variable rate structures. In addition, programs for elec- trically heated residences may be seen as inequitable by owners of homes with other heating equipment. Time-of-use rates may also : be perceived as inequitable by those who are : unable to take advantage of them. Potential inequities can be partially addressed by pro- - viding a broad range of programs with incentives :

structured so that all, or most, customers have :

an opportunity to benefit.

4.2 Non-Utility Generation (NUG)

General Considerations

- The smaller, localized nature of NUG projects, and the fact that they will be dispersed through- : out the province, suggests that many of the : environmental effects associated with these projects will be less than those for larger, more centralized, conventional generation options. 2 Figure 4-1 provides an estimate of the atmo- : spheric emissions for NUGs assumed over the study period. Although these emissions are only a small fraction of the total emissions - associated with each plan, emissions ona per : TWh basis may be quite similar to larger con- : : ventional generating stations. 7 Since NUGs have a relatively short con- :

struction schedule, and will be dispersed

2 throughout the province, they will produce : : limited regional employment and development, : and will have minimal adverse community : effects. |

rho

30

> 35

20:

5:

35

Figure 4-1 Annual Atmospheric Emissions From NUG (1989-2014)

12 Jee te S0> pis CO,

SO, & NOx * Gg and CO,*Tg a

0 ee

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96.9798 990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Note: 1. Assuming NUG mix of : 18.0 % Hydraulic 74.0 % Natural Gas 4.6 % Wood Waste 3.4 % MSW/Landfill Gas

Year

2 Se ee eS ee eee

2. NUG Emissions as % of Ontario Hydro Emissions (1989-2014)

CO,= 6% NO, = 17% $0,= 0.4%

<Evaluation of Common Elements in Alternative Plans - Chapter Four> 4-3

The dispersed nature of NUGs may also :

complicate the transmission required to incor- : 7 porate these facilities into the BES. Natural : and social environmental effects will vary, ? depending on the length of newline required : : and other project-specific factors. :

A variety of NUG projects are likely to be

: undertaken in Ontario. NUGs include: gas- fired cogeneration, municipal solid waste incin- : eration, wood waste burning, and small : hydraulic generation. Following are specific : natural and social environmental concerns :

: associated with each.

4.2.1 Gas-fired Cogeneration Most of the non-utility generation over the 7 - next 25 years is expected to be some type of : : gas-fired cogeneration. These gas-fired projects : 2 will produce air emissions (NOx, CO, COs), : noise, and have some measure of consumptive : : water use. NOx emissions can be controlled : with appropriate technologies such as steam : : injection. Waste disposal concerns should be minimal since gas burns efficiently. Ifa right- : : of-way does not already exist, there would be : effects associated with providing gas pipeline : : access to a site. |

Cogeneration projects can make industries _

: more energy efficient and hence, more com- petitive. To the extent that this allows industries : : to prosper, there may be indirect employment : and development benefits. However, the advan- : : tage of reduced energy costs from cogeneration : may not be sufficient to offset the cost of locating

: in northern or remote communities.

- 4.2.2 Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Some benefits may arise from increased | uses (eg., canoeing) couldalso be disrupted. |

: Municipal solid waste (MSW) facilities offer : an opportunity to both reduce local landfill : requirements and produce electricity. They : also provide a means of reducing incremental : methane emissions that could develop from : : decaying solid municipal wastes. Methane 1s :

4.9.3 Small Hydraulic Generation

' an extremely potent greenhouse gas, but can :

- also be burned to produce electricity.

However, MSW facilities have generally been : _ strongly opposed in urban areas because of : - perceived health risks. The potential release :

- of toxics (eg., dioxins) can result from the

: burning of plastics and other organic materials : in waste. These potential emissions can be : : effectively controlled through the installation : : and use of appropriate emission control equip- : ment. For example, Environment Canada’s : : National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation : Program found that lime and filter bag scrubbers :

~ reduced dioxins and furans to detection limits

: (Environment Canada, 1986).

- When these toxic materials are removed : - from flue gas, they generally end up in the : - ash produced by the incinerator. Prudent landfill:

' practices (eg., liners) will be required to ensure

: that leachate from any disposal site is controlled.

- requirements are expected to be stringent |

~ and expensive.

The delivery and stockpiling of MSW may

cause concerns about traffic, noise, and odour _ in the communities surrounding the plant. :

: Prudent processing of wastes, as well as buffering

: from surrounding communities, and adjacent : : households and businesses, will be important : : at MSW sites. As well, it is likely that other : special considerations will be needed for nearby

- residents.

employment and expansion of some municipal : services such as roads. Regional economic : development is not likely, and distribution |

of risks and benefits could be an important :

local issue.

: Small hydraulic developments are those with capacities of less than 10 MW. These are usually : developed on rivers that have existing control structures, or dams that are not currently used - for power generation purposes. Many of these : - structures were originally installed for flood control : 4.2.4 Wood Waste Burning Plants

purposes. Some were previously used for other |

industrial purposes (eg., grist mills). New dams

may be constructed at sites on smaller waterways

close to localized industry requiring electricity. : From a sustainable development and gov- :

ernment energy policy viewpoint, encourage- :

ment of small, private hydraulic development

_ isdesirable, since it makes use of an indigenous, |

renewable resource. Customer and public pref-

erence for further hydraulic development is :

also very high.

Redevelopment of existing control structures - and dam sites is expected to have few adverse : : Since MSW facilities will likely be sited close : to large urban areas, environmental control

environmental effects other than some short-

term, localized effects on water flows and sed- :

imentation patterns. Prudent planning of these

activities to periods of low river use will reduce

" any potential negative impacts.

Development of a new dam on a waterway

could have significant effects on resident | _ fish populations by disrupting spawning and migratory patterns. Other existing water :

4-4

Construction of the dam could also have some : temporary, localized effects on flows and tur- : bidity. However, careful construction planning should minimize long-term impacts. In par- ticular, blasting must be timed to avoid - : biologically sensitive periods (ie., spawning : seasons).

Since most small hydraulic facilities tend : to be operated as run-of-the-river (non-peaking) plants, there is limited reservoir storage. Water :

level fluctuations are minimal, with little impact

on flow patterns.

Since these plants will be developed in con- Junction with existing pulp and paper oper- : ations, most facilities will be sited in northern 7 Ontario, where the bulk of forestry activity : occurs. The plants can likely be accommodated - on existing kiln sites. : Wood burning requires some use of cooling : water, and produces atmospheric emissions : (CO, COs, NOx, particulates), as well as ash : _ residue, which requires disposal. Appropriate | stack emission controls, especially for partic- - ulates, and prudent waste management practices, 2 should minimize concerns. Burning wood waste : reduces methane emissions that would likely : : occur if such wastes were stockpiled and decayed. :

Methane promotes greenhouse warming. -

: Host industries could become more com- : : petitive, if energy savings are realized through 7 wood burning facilities. Construction of a wood : - waste facility in, or near, a community with high unemploymentand need for development : thay provide a significant local economic stim- 2 ulus. Social acceptance of this type of plant | : may be high due to its familiarity and existing : role in the regional economy. ?

20

= tab

20:

6:

35:

4.3 Hydraulic Generation

- 4.3.1 Natural Environment Hydraulic generation is a renewable, indigenous resource and, as such, is preferred from a 7 sustainable development perspective. There are an estimated 18 undeveloped hydraulic sites in the province which are considered to : be cost-effective for Hydro to develop (see Appendix B). Except for the Little Jackfish : project in northwestern Ontario and expansion of the Sir Adam Beck facility on the Niagara : River, the majority of these sites (i.e, 12) are within the Moose River drainage region or involve redevelopments of existing sites. The Action Plans include 11 of these undeveloped - or underdeveloped sites (see Chapter 18, Plan Report). Details of the Hydraulic Plan are discussed in Chapter 12 of the Plan Report. 7 Ontario Hydro’s proposal to use a river system approach to develop these sites has a number of environmental advantages. First, : an orderly and sequential development of sites on one river system will ensure that the devel- 2 opment of the hydraulic sites is compatible , with the other resource uses, mainly recreation, within the river basin. Second, in contrast to new developmentin a pristine watershed, the river system approach will tend to minimize the environmental damage, by taking advantage of existing infrastructure such as roads, rights- of-way, and construction camps. Ontario Hydro is pursuing approvals for a 30-year development : plan for the remaining potential in the Moose River Basin. Discussions have been initiated _ with interested government and public representatives.

Hydraulic developments, however, are not : without environmental effects. The major environmental change relates to reservoir creation and the related problems of land/habi- :

tat displacement, loss of riverine fish habitat, increased mercury levels in the reservoir, erosion/siltation

and problems.

Redevelopments, where there is little or no

incremental flooding required, will generally - have less environmental impact than new devel- | opments. Incremental flooding associated with the 18 sites included in the current alter- : native plans is estimated at about 8973 ha,

and is summarized on a site-specific basis in

: Appendix B. Concerns at Little Jackfish relate mainly to water quality issues (ie., erosion control and elevated mercury levels in fish). Potential :

environmental concerns associated with the Niagara River development include possible

water quality changes due to in-stream con- struction of the intake and powerhouse struc- tures, alteration of fish migration patterns and habitat, and potential disturbance of envi- ronmentally sensitive areas or rare wildlife : and plants. Issues in the Moose River Basin relate to potential effects on fisheries; effects :

associated with providing access (eg., increased

hunting pressure on local wildlife resources)

and developing aggregate resources; and down- stream effects in the James Bay estuary area. :

There are several mitigation measures which reduce the environmental impact of reservoir development. The primary one is the devel- : opment of a reservoir preparation plan which : will help to reduce mercury levels and maximize : opportunities for multiple use of reservoirs. : : Reforestation programs may also help to offset resource /habitat loss concerns associated with flooding. Site-specific effects and mitigation 2

4-5

associated with each proposed development | in the hydraulic program will be assessed in -

| project-specific EAs.

The only sizeable remaining resource in ©

the province, after the current 18 site programs, is about 3800 MW of capacity in the Hudson Bay Lowlands (ie., Albany, Severn, Attawapiscat and Winisk). At this time, development of

these hydraulic resources is costly, requires substantial flooding, and is likely to encounter : serious opposition from Native and naturalist interests. (Ontario Hydro, 1982).

Present government policies relating to :

hydraulic development could affect future devel- : opment of this renewable resource. Newly- :

approved Provincial Parks policies (MNR, 1988) : prohibit the development of hydraulic gen- eration facilities, including flooding from reser-

voirs, within approved park boundaries. This : _ provision will limit the ability of Hydro and

the private sector to pursue certain hydraulic sites. For example, the proposed Waterway Park on the Missinaibi River in northeastern 7 Ontario will preclude development of at least one site on the Moose River. :

4.3.2 Social Environment

Socio-Economic Effects

Orderly development of northern hydraulic sites should provide opportunity for regional employ- : mentand developmentin the north. Development, 7 redevelopmentor extension of sites in the Moose River Basin could provide up to 23,500 person- : years of employment over 30 years. Workers : could transfer from one site to the next, and : economic benefits in regional centres would 7 continue throughout the period. However, to : ensure that employment and development :

- opportunities are realized, a co-operative effort - by Hydro, construction trade unions, and the :

: provincial and federal governments would be :

- necessary.

- Development of individual northern : : hydraulic sites such as Little Jackfish may provide the opportunity for short-term construction : : employment. Again, realization of this benefit : : will require a co-operative effort by Hydro, : : trade unions, and governments to ensure that : : employment opportunities are available for : : local residents. There may be some short-term : : benefits for local retail employment, but few :

: long-term jobs. Any resulting “boom-bust” effect

: would require mitigation measures.

Northern hydraulic developments may have : - additional regional developmenteffects, such | " aselectrification of remote communities and |

- improved road access, which are prerequisites

- for economic development.

Communities in the vicinity of the northern : : projects generally lack the infrastructure and : 2 services to accommodate an influx of people, : : and the structure to manage a coordinated 2 response to changing community circumstances. : Even with self-contained workforce camps, some : effects will be felt on surrounding communities’ : retail and service sectors. These will be relatively : short-term for individual sites, but long-term : : in communities serving the Moose River Basin : development. In both instances, mitigation :

- and monitoring programs will be necessary.

A Niagara development will have limited 2 negative impact on the community and its : municipal services. Potential effects relate more : : to construction activity in an urban area, includ- :

ing traffic, noise, dust, etc., which may arise

from the construction of tunnels and the dis- - posal of excavated material as well as from |

- the construction of the generating facility.

The Niagara development construction work- : force will be supplied by a local and commuting : workforce. It will provide only short-term : : regional benefit. The development may be : of concern to tourism interests if construction :

or operation of the facilities is disruptive.

Smaller projects, such as Lake Gibson and | Big Chute, will provide short-term construction |

employment but will have limited regional :

development potential.

Societal Considerations Development of northern hydraulic sites will

- impacts on traditional land uses, lifestyles and livelihood, and participation in the employment and economic benefits of the developments. 2 Native people and others dependent on sub- : sistence, commercial, or recreational fishing, : : will be concerned about the effects on fish :

populations and the potential for mercury |

contamination of fish in flooded areas.

Hydraulic developments in recreation areas

may be of concern to cottagers, boaters, fish-

ermen, and other users if water flow or quality

are adversely affected.

Social acceptance of the Niagara devel- : opment will be improved by measures taken |

to prevent construction and operation from |

affecting the aesthetics of the area.

Northern hydraulic projects could result : in changes to the lifestyle of residents and : to the character of communities. Traditional : activities of Native people may be affected : by alteration of the environment and by changes : to employment patterns as a result of the pro-

- jects. For example, flooding and concerns about |

mercury levels in fish may result in changes

to traditional hunting, fishing, and dietary : : patterns. The character of communities ser- - vicing Moose River Basin projects is likely to

4-6

change as a result of the long-term development. - However, electrification of northern commu-

nities, or improved service will be of benefit -

to these communities.

Northern hydraulic developments have sig- : : nificant potential to adversely affect the com- : : munity, special interests, and lifestyles. These | effects may be balanced by potential employ- ment and economic development benefits. : : Special initiatives will ensure that those adversely : : affected share in the benefits. :

4.4 Station Rehabilitation

arouse Native concerns such as land claims, :

4.4.1 Natural Environment

Rehabilitation work at existing hydraulic stations is unlikely to have major environmental effects. Provided dam repair or replacement work is carefully scheduled to avoid biologically sensitive periods (e.g., fish spawning), effects are likely :

to be of short duration and very localized.

Providing access to some older dam-sites : could be difficult. Access road routing must : be undertaken in consultation with potentially : affected individuals. Anticipated upgrades at : the hydraulic stations themselves (e.g., runner 2 replacements) are likely to involve measures : that do not appreciably change flow patterns : in the affected rivers. A Class EA process has 2 : been established to review hydraulic station : modification projects. If anticipated effects : are judged to be significant, a full individual

EA may be necessary.

Retubing at nuclear stations, particularly in the 1990s, will require that lost power from : nuclear reactors is made up by increased use 7 of fossil stations. However, through Ontario : Hydro’s Acid Gas Control Program, appropriate control measures will be putin place to maintain

acid gas emission levels within regulatory limits.

20

25

30

35

40

6:

35:

Fossil station rehabilitation also has some poten- : : tial to affect the natural environment. Much : of the rehabilitation efforts will be aimed at : : restoring operating efficiency of these plants, : which will tend to reduce acid gas emissions and effluents over the long term. However, anumber of planned measures (e.g., installation of scrubbers) have the potential to significantly increase solid waste volumes produced, and may therefore require increased landfill storage space.

To reduce long-term waste disposal require- ments at these stations, efforts will be undertaken : to maximize re-use and recycling opportunities. For example, with some modification of the : : FGD process, scrubber waste from certain tech- : : nologies can be used for wallboard gypsum production. Production of synthetic FGD gyp- : sum could also result in reduced land distur- : 20 : bance associated with natural gypsum mining 2 : in southern Ontario. Fly ash has been used 2 extensively as a cement additive for mine backfill 2 and for hazardous liquid waste stabilization : purposes. Pending government regulations pertaining to the use of flyash and other com- bustion by-products for backfill material will affect future opportunities to use these wastes.

- 4.4.2 Social Environment Rehabilitation projects may offer some oppor- : tunities for local employment where new con- 4.5 Manitoba Purchase struction is required. Where substantial :

- engineering changes are needed, specialized, ©

skilled labour will be required. Employment : opportunities could provide an importantlocal : economic stimulus in areas where unemploy- :

ment levels are currently high. Construction

times associated with these activities will be : substantially less than those for full station : development, probably in the 3-5 year range. :

The communities around most existing sta- tions on the BES are stable and, in most : instances, have become accepted parts of the : community infrastructure. Rehabilitation pro- jects will be limited mainly to within the existing site boundaries and are not expected to have :

any significant long-term impact on nearby :

established communities. There may be some localized, short-term effects (e.g., noise, dust) associated with rehabilitation construction

activities. In some cases, rehabilitation projects : could provide an opportunity for dealing with : certain persistent problems related to station : operation (e.g., dust blowing off coal piles : or ash disposal areas). In many instances, reha- 2 bilitation projects are being undertaken to : maintain or upgrade a station’s energy pro- : ducing and/or environmental performance (e.g., installing FGD). Therefore, there should : be a net overall improvement in the environ- 2 : mental quality around the site over the long- :

' term.

Long-term firm purchases of hydraulic power 2 from neighbouring provinces, such as Manitoba, 2 are an alternative to building new supply facilities - in Ontario (Ontario Hydro, 1989a).

4-7

Any environmental effects in Ontario result- ing from the Manitoba purchase would be | related to transmission incorporation. The |

Manitoba Purchase would require up to 1,100 :

km of new right-of-way in Ontario, which would | occupy a total area of about 9,000 ha. :

Establishing a new transmission right-of- : way from the Manitoba border to the Sault : Ste. Marie area would displace timberland, : infringe on several Forest Management 2 Agreementareas, and may affect mineral and aggregate deposits. |

Routing could affect cottaging , hunting and fishing activities, especially commercial :

: fly-in operations. Many relatively unspoiled | scenic river valleys and other natural areas : will also be affected.

Other concerns include rural residential development, which exists in significant con- : centrations in some areas, and the issue of increased access into remote areas.

Access is an important resource management : issue in northern Ontario. Increased access : for transmission line construction and main- tenance is seen as a benefit by some, and an 2 unwanted intrusion by others. These impacts : can be mitigated by routing transmission facil- : ities to avoid or reduce disruption and dis- :

: placement, and by implementing impact management programs such as application - of site restoration guidelines.

Most of the socio-economic concerns and | environmental considerations which may arise

from the Manitoba purchase will occur in that -

: province, and will be reviewed in Manitoba. —

5.0 EVALUATION OF DIFFERENCES AMONG MAJOR SUPPLY CASES

Before dealing with environmental differences among

major supply Cases, it is useful to review

the typical environmental effects and potential mitigation associated

with the major supply options.

| 5.1 Typical Environmental Effects - and Mitigation Associated with - Major Supply Options

Environmental effects associated with trans- : mission incorporation for these major supply : - Cases are also discussed briefly. Summary tables

showing typical effects and mitigation for each 3

- supply option appear in Appendix C. 3 5.1.1 Fossil Fuel Options : 9.1.1.1 Conventional Steam Cycle (CSC)

Coal

There are potential natural and social envi-

ronmental effects throughout the entire fuel | : phurization (FGD), flue gas conditioning (FGC), |

: cycle for a conventional steam cycle (CSC)

- coal generating station. The largest effects

on the natural environment will be those asso-

- ciated with coal extraction (e.g., coal mining |

and transport); air emissions (Table 5-1) from

| coal combustion (e.g., SO, NOx, COs, par-

ticulates); cooling water use; and waste disposal

: (i.e., coal ash and scrubber by-products).

Atmospheric emissions, SO. and NOx, can _ adversely affect air and water quality, vegetation - and human health, both in the vicinity and |

: downwind of a CSC plant.

Increasingly, CO. emissions are being linked :

: to global warming trends.

Cooling water use can impinge/entrain : 7 fish and other aquatic life in the adjacent aquatic : : environment. Waste disposal can produce nui- : sance fugitive dust emissions or leachate effects on nearby water sources. Other potential effects : relate to increased land displacement for coal extraction, generation, transmission, and waste - disposal facilities, : Many of these potential effects can be 2 reduced or eliminated through mitigation pro- : grams. Air emission concerns can be reduced : 7 by burning low-sulphur coal (eg., Western : 3 Canadian coal) and/or installing equipment : 3 to control acid gas and particulate emissions :

(e.g., electrostatic precipitators, flue gas desul- :

or selective catalytic reduction (SCR)). Prudent : _ handling, storage, and recycling/re-use of wastes : can significantly reduce waste management : concerns. Wherever possible, existing sites : and rights-of-way will be used to minimize 2 land consumption/expropriation. Extensive : ~ environmental monitoring will be carried out

in the vicinity of stations to ensure that reg- |

ulatory standards are met.

CSC coal generation can also produce social

_ and community effects. The most prominent : possible effects are those related, directly or : - indirectly, to employment, regional devel-

5-1

> 30

: opment, and local community effects. : Development of a large CSC facility often ; : increases employment and spending in the : local host community and surrounding region. Frequently these economic benefits offset the adverse effects of community disruption (e.g., : negative effects on social networks and infras-

. | tructure). This is especially true in northern

7 ee

25

or remote communities. Community impact monitoring programs. : and impact management agreements are devel- oped in consultation with host communities to manage the potential socio-economic impacts of a large industrial facility like a coal-fired generating station. Local lifestyles may be : affected if there are real or perceived effects on the natural environment. Public acceptance : - of CSC facilities, as identified through Ontario _ Hydro’s public attitude research, is linked to concern about this technology’s contribution : - to acid rain, and long-term environmental 7 degradation associated with global warming. : : Special interest groups, local residents and businesses may be concerned about changes : to the local economic base, health and safety : risks, and distribution of costs and benefits.

a Gl Be Integrated Gasification - Combined Cycle (IGCC) Gasification is the burning or “cooking” of : coal to produce a combustible material known as syngas. Coal-derived syngas is low in sulphur : : content; moreover, the sulphur can be effectively and cheaply removed. IGCC plants can use : high-sulphur coal, provided the coal has low moisture content. | | The process takes place in a gasifier, which is essentially an oven where temperature and pressure are used to drive syngas off the coal. : Gasifiers integrated with other systems are

referred to as integrated gasification combined ? cycle (IGCC) systems. The term “combined :

cycle” refers to the ability to generate electrical

energy from syngas simultaneously in two ways;

first, by burning the syngas to drive a combustion

turbine and second, by producing steam from :

‘the hot syngas and CTU exhaust gases to drive : a steam turbine.

An IGCC facility can be constructed in a : “phased” or “unphased” manner. Phasing con- struction offers the ability to increase plant size in line with demand and spread out capital investments. There are three phases: 1) com-

bustion turbine, burning natural gas; 2) com- :

bined cycle; 3) coal gasification, a step taken if price increases make natural gas uncom- petitive. Each phase can be constructed in two to four years.

Many of the potential natural and socio- economic environmental effects associated with an IGCC station will be similar to those :

: for a conventional steam cycle plant, but :

will be of a lesser magnitude. Natural envi- | ronmental effects will be associated with coal : extraction (e.g., coal mining and transport), 2 air emissions from gasified coal combustion :

: (e.g., NOx, particulates), cooling water use, - : and waste disposal.

Relative to conventional steam cycle tech- : nology, IGCC SO, and COs, emissions will be : proportionally lower, while NOx emissions : may be slightly higher (Table 5-1). NOx emis- : sions are controlled in the gas turbine via : steam/water injection and combustion control. : As combustion units increase in size, they oper-

: ate at higher temperatures. Asa result, NOx |

emissions may increase. Multi-nozzle combustors

: with increased steam injection, or SCR, can :

be used to reduce NOx emissions and at the | same time improve turbine reliability (EPRI,

5-2

Table 5-1

Option Number Description ; 1 : 4x800 MW US Coal CSC/FGD/SCR

2 4x500 MW US Coal CSC/FGD/SCR 3 4x500 MW WC Coal CSC/SCR

4 2x150 MW Oil CTU

5 2x150 MW Gas CTU

6 2x660 MW CC/SCR — Intermediate 7 2x660 MW CC - Peaking

8 4x660 MW Phased IGCC*

9 4x660 MW Unphased IGCC/SCR

Environmental Performance of Fossil Options (g/kWh)

Solid SO, NOx CO, Wastes 1.6 0.25-0.31 860 95 1.6 0.25-0.31 860 95 2.3 0.25-0.31 910 48 1.6 0.88 860 0 0 0.87 605 0 0 0.25-0.31 430 0 0 0.62 425 0 0.52 0.30-0.53 905 31 0.47 0.25-0.31 805 28

* Data shown for CTU and CC phases are similar to Option 5 and 7 respectively.

Source; Ontario Hydro, 1989d

| 1988). Baseload IGCC will likely require SCR. : : Although the IGCC technology does not require :

- removal of SOs, it may require control of H.S |

produced as a by-product of the gasification

: process.

: Since a large proportion of electrical energy : generated by an IGCC plant is produced using : : air-cooled gas turbines, cooling water require- : ments will be lower than those for a CSC plant. : : As with a CSC facility, there will be land 2 : displacement concerns related to coal extrac- : 2 tion, generating sites, transmission corridors, : : and waste disposal. Compared to a CSC using : 7 unscrubbed coal, waste disposal requirements : 2 will be similar; compared to a CSC station : with FGD, IGCC waste disposal requirements . will be significantly less (Table 5-1). Prudent : : handling, storage, and recycling/re-use of wastes , : can significantly reduce waste management : concerns. For example, elemental sulphur : removed during the gasification process can

5-3

be sold to the chemical industry. The slag removed from the combustor chamber consists of a non-hazardous, inert “glassy” material, : : which is easy to handle and can be used for : construction purposes (Ferguson, 1989). :

The main socio-economic effects of an IGCC : facility are related to employment and regional development. Given its phased, modular nature 2 (1.e., station modules could be built elsewhere : and transported to the construction site), peak construction workforce requirements are likely : to be lower for an IGCC facility than for a comparably-sized CSC facility. However, the : phased construction program for IGCC may : provide employment opportunities over a longer

period of time, thereby leading to additional |

regional economic development.

Since an IGCC facility contains elements : of a chemical plant, there will likely be health,

safety and odour (eg., HS emissions associated

: 290

30

35

40

oe 39

35

: with gasification) concerns. People living or : : working near these facilities may feel they : : bear more risks than others living or working 2 : further away. However, clean coal technologies, : : such as IGCC, produce relatively low emission : : levels and are hence favoured over conventional : CSC facilities, even if the latter have scrubbers.

- 5.1.1.3 Combined Cycle (CC) Relative to CSC or IGCC, the potential natural and social environmental effects of Combined 2 5.1.1.4 Combustion Turbine Units (CTU)

Cycle generation are moderate. The largest : effects are associated with gas extraction (e.g., production, pipeline transport, and gas storage) and air emissions from natural gas combustion : (e.g., NOx, GOo, and carbon monoxide). :

Combined Cycle generation burns natural

gas very efficiently. Asa result, acid gas emissions, : particularly SO, and CO, emissions are lower : 2 than those for both CSC (with SCR) and IGCC : (Table 5-1). NOx emissions may be slightly : higher. These potential adverse effects can : be mitigated by controlling NOx emissions : (e.g., steam injection, urea injection, selective : catalytic reduction) and extensive monitoring. Waste disposal concerns are minimal. There : will be concerns about land required for gas extraction, generating sites, transmission, and : gas transportation corridors. :

From a sustainable development viewpoint,

resources is not encouraged. Natural gas is more efficiently used in residential heating than in generating electricity. This is one reason : : why gas-fired generation is used for peaking : , purposes primarily. : Combined Cycle generation can also produce 2 7 social and economic effects. The dominant potential effects are those related, directly or indirectly, to increased employment and :

regional development. These can be addressed with community impact monitoring and impact management agreements. There also may be : local lifestyles effects, especially for people : in the vicinity of the facility, if there are real : or perceived effects on the natural environment. : Public reaction to these effects, however, may :

| be moderated by their preference for natural : gas-fired generation.

The potential natural and social environmental : effects associated with Combustion Turbine Units are similar to those for Combined Cycle. : CTU generation has the ability to burn a variety

of refined fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, diesel : : fuel). CTUs are mainly used for peaking pur- :

poses, but operate at relatively low efficiencies : compared to CC or IGCC. Natural gas will : likely be the preferred fuel for CTUs. Among : the fossil options, CTUs produce the least : natural environmental effects. The largest effects are those associated with long-term use of : natural gas, fossil fuel extraction (e.g., pipeline : transport and gas storage), air emissions from : fossil fuel combustion (e.g., NOx, and carbon monoxide) and noise. :

Oil-fired CTUs produce more SO, and CO, |

- emissions than gas-fired units. NOx emissions 3 : for both are considerably higher than for CSC

long-term use of scarce, non-renewable (with SCR), CC or IGCC (Table 5-1). These :

potential effects can be mitigated by controlling : combustion emissions (e.g., steam injection)

and through monitoring. Due to the low height

at which these combustion emissions are :

- released, ambient air quality criteria may be -

a concern, particularly in heavily industrialized areas where the airshed is already extensively : utilized. On-site noise levels could also be :

5-4

: increased. However, CTU silencer design should : minimize any offsite disturbance. Some land : will be displaced for fuel extraction, generating : sites, transmission corridors, and fuel trans- : port. Waste management concerns will be minimal. Land use concerns will be reduced : : if CTUs are placed mainly on existing generat- : ing station sites.

Je GIGS, particularly those on existing sites, : will have modest effects on the social envi- :

_ ronment. Principal concerns are likely to be :

- impacts on air quality, health, and recreation. : Beneficial effects will include employment : and regional development opportunities. Socio- : : economic effects would likely be more significant : in northern or remote communities. These effects can be mitigated or enhanced through : emission controls, community impact moni- : : toring and impact management programs, and : initiatives for local hiring.

5.1.2 Nuclear Options

The potential effects of nuclear power on : the natural environmentare primarily related : : to uranium mining, radionuclide releases, cool- : ing water use, and the management of radio- : : active wastes. | Typical radionuclide releases from a nuclear : plant may include tritium, noble gases, iodine (I)3;), and radioactive particulates. Radioactive : releases may occur in cooling water systems or air exhaust/ventilation systems, as a result 2 of inadvertent discharges and spills, and during : 2 transport of contaminated materials. These : potential releases are managed through a series 2 of preventive, mitigative, monitoring, and con- : : trol measures built into the design and operation : of each nuclear generating station. These

include emergency reactor shutdown, con-

_ If approved, site selection will start in the »

Ket)

tainment (e.g. vacuum building), continuous - filtering of air/exhaust systems. Additional | protection is provided through designation :

of a 1 km exclusion zone.

Stringent waste container design and : shipment regulations are utilized to prevent - potential releases during transport of radio- : : active materials. :

Radionuclide emissions are regulated by the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) : and must not exceed a site-specific Derived : Emission Limit (DEL). Ontario Hydro monitors - and controls its emissions, on an annual average

basis, to within 1% of the Derived Emission -

Limit set by AECB.

Annual tritium and noble gas releases are the principal emissions that must be controlled : to meet DEL targets. In 1988, tritium releases : at Pickering NGS accounted for just over 1% : of the DEL (1.12%) while noble gas releases "were about 0.15% of the DEL. Only trace | : amounts of I;,, and radioactive particulates : were released, accounting for less than 0.02% 2

of the DEL.

Tritium is a mildly radioactive beta emitter : with a half-life of 12.5 years. To reduce the _ risk of radiation exposure, a Tritium Removal , Facility (TRF) has been constructed at the Darlington NGS site to recover tritium from : trittum-contaminated heavy water from all exist- : ing Hydro reactors. Noble gases are chemically

inert and are not retained in the body for :

long periods of time.

Deep geologic disposal of high level radioac- : - tive wastes (ie., used fuel) is the focus of work being carried out by Atomic Energy of Canada : Ltd. (AECL). This disposal concept will be reviewed by a Federal Environmental

_ Assessment Review Panel, starting in 1991.

25

35

late 1990s. In the meantime, used fuel wastes are being well managed at existing generating stations. The higher volume of low and inter- : mediate level radioactive wastes are managed centrally, using licensed incineration and storage facilities at the Bruce Nuclear Power Development (BNPD). Significant quantities of wastes are also produced during uranium mining activities and are subject to environmental regulations. Conventional (non-radiological) effects of nuclear generation relate to cooling water use, emissions from construction/operations : machinery and operational refuse. : : Expansion of the nuclear program will : require increased heavy water production, result- ing in increases in low level hydrogen sulphide : (H)S) and sulphur dioxide (SO) emissions : at BNPD. Preventive monitoring and mitigative : measures (eg., flare stacks) are undertaken : to control H,S emission levels. : 5.2 Evaluation of Case Differences : There are significant land requirements for uranium mining, uranium tailings disposal, : generating site development, used fuel/low 2 : level radwaste disposal/storage and transmission : CSC, CANDU units, etc.). While the environ- : : incorporation. : - Mostof the socio-economic effects and broad societal considerations related to nuclear gen- eration are similar to those of any large power generation project, but with additional issues associated with nuclear-related health and safety concerns. Some people may choose to change their lifestyles because of their perception of risk; in extreme cases this could prompt them to move to a new community. Public : acceptance of nuclear facilities will depend : on attitudes at local, regional and provincial 7 levels. Potential socio-economic impacts will 7 be addressed through community impact mon- : 7 itoring and impact agreements. :

5.1.3 Transmission Requirements

The land requirement for rights-of-way is the

major transmission-related environmental con- : cern. 3

The overall environmental impact of a trans- : mission line will vary with its length and the :

: types and amounts of resources and land uses

encountered. While some land uses such as | timber production are displaced by a trans- :

: mission right-of-way, others such as agricultural

crop production may continue with some | modifications and inefficiencies. Many impacts | can be mitigated by selecting routes that avoid

important environmental features, natural

resources and land uses. Typically, transmission : facilities occupy only avery small percentage of the total ROW area (eg., less than one per- cent), leaving large areas available for other :

compatible uses.

As described in Section 2, each alternative : Case considers different combinations of sup- ply technologies (ie., combinations of CTUs, |

mental effects of each of these supply com- |

ponents are described in some detail above, | this section focuses on the differences in : environmental effects, natural and social, : among the major supply Cases under the me- : dian load forecast. :

For the natural environment, estimates of : resource use and emissions/effluents/waste : production were derived by applying the criteria : outlined in Section 3.3.1 to develop a series : of emission/use factors (see Appendix A). : These factors are used to equate total or fuel- : specific energy production in a particular Case 7 with a resulting environmental effect. This :

- effect is assumed to be directly proportional | : to the amount of emission released or resource .

Table 5-2. Cumulative Effects 1989 — 2014: Natural Environment

(Median Load)

Criterion A. Resource Use Non-Renewables: Fuel 1. Coal 2. Oil 3. Gas 4. Uranium Non-Renewables: Other 1. Limestone (for FGD) Water Use 1. Water (Generation Related) 2. Water (Life Cycle) Land Use 1.Land (Generation Related) 2.Land (Life Cycle) B. Emissions / Effluents / Wastes Atmospheric Emissions 1. $0, 2. NOx 3. Total Acid Gas (SO,+ NOx) 4.C0, 5. Radionuclides 6. Trace Elements 7. Particulates Aquatic Effluents 1. Thermal Discharge 2. Radionuclides 3. Uranium Mining Effluent 4. Coal Mining Effluent Wastes 1. Coal Ash 2. FGD Wastes 3. Used Nuclear Fuel 4. Low Level Radioactive Waste 5. Uranium Mine Tailings 6. Total Wastes

23 22 15 131.0 176.0 228.0 0.3 0.8 1.7 0.0 30.0 252.0 57.0 55.0 53.0 2.6 3.6 42 567.0 595.0 541.0 1.57 1.55 1.54 17.2 15.3 15.4 59.0 60.0 63.0 2.0 2.6 3.0 0.5 0.6 0.8 73) 3.2 3.8 325.0 419.0 523.0 TS he 6.9 17.0 23.0 30.0 6.5 8.7 11.0 24.7 24.3 24.0 44 42 41 8.4 8.1 77 0.5 0.7 0.8 12.5 16.8 22.4 4.8 6.7 79 57.5 59.3 o29 23.0 22.1 oh2 36.2 34.9 33.3 53.7 58.4 63.7

Case

24

255.0 2.4 327.0 51.0

5

530.0 1.51

15.5 66.0

3.1 0.8 3.9

590.0

6.8 34.0 12.4

23.7 4.0 75 0.9

24.7 10.8 51.4 20.6 32.4 67.9

26

341.0 3.5 519.0 46.0

10.8

504.0 1.50

15.8 72.0

3.2 1.0 4.2 815.0 6.0 48.0 17.3

23.0 3.6 6.8 1.3

31.8 20.6 46.6 18.6 29.3 81.8

Units

Tg GI Gms Gg

Tg

Gm3

Tm3

Ha103 Ha103

Tg

Tg Ci10s Gg Mg104

Tje106 Ci10s Tg Tg

Tg Tg Gg Gg Tg Tg

I= /

> 40

35:

generation will determine the amount of land disturbed for coal mining, levels of acid gas emissions, and ash/FGD waste volumes. : Estimates for all the Cases are summarized in Table 5-2 and Figures 5-1 to 5-7. For : 7 the most part, these estimates provide infor- mation on cumulative resource use and : : emissions/effluents/ wastes for the entire study period, 1989 to 2014. In a number of | Cases (Figures 5-4 and 5-5), annual esti- mates are provided to illustrate certain impli- : cations (e.g., compliance with acid gas emission : : regulations). : In addition to estimates for all Cases, a : series of indices (Figures 5-8 to 5-17) are developed for each natural environment cri- : terion group, to evaluate the normalized per- formance (ona per TWh basis) of each Case : over the study period. These estimates are utilized to assess the relative natural environ- mental implications of each alternative Case : and provide a basis for comparing the Cases. : Social criteria are applied less quantitatively. , Judgments on potential impacts are largely based on past experience at Hydro and other large industrial development projects in Ontario. : The implications of changes in load growth, assumed planning period, proposed regulatory : changes (e.g., CO emission limits, zero dis- charge, waste reduction targets), and siting : on Case performance are discussed in Section 5.3. Opportunities for avoiding or mitigating

- potential environmental effects of alternative

Cases are addressed in Section 6.0.

5.91 Case 23

used. For example, the amount of coal-fired :

5.2.1.1 Natural Environmental Impacts

Resource Use Case 23 is characterized by the heavy reliance : on nuclear generation, and as such, has the lowest consumption of non-renewable coal, oil and gas resources among the alternative : Cases (Figure 5-1). Uranium use is higher [10-23%] than for all other Cases. The fact that uranium use is not significantly different : among Cases reflects the continued reliance

- inal Cases on the existing nuclear component, |

up to and including Darlington, to supply a

large portion of the system load during this ;

study period.Normalized coal use declines over the study period (Figure 5-8), while natural : gas and oil use are negligible. Uranium use : increases slightly over the study period. 2

Life cycle (mining to waste disposal) water : use (Figure 5-2) for this Case is slightly higher : [up to 4%] than that for all other alterna- : tive Cases, while cooling water requirements 7 are noticeably higher [6-12 %] than fossil- based Cases and marginally higher [2-5 %] 3 than Case 15 and the other nuclear-based Case (Case 22). The higher water requirements of : Cases 22 and 23 reflect the higher cooling water flows associated with nuclear, versus fossil : generating stations. Life cycle requirements become more similar with the inclusion of : water use for both uranium and coal mining.

Normalized water use decreases over the plan- ©

: ning period (Figure 5-8).

Life cycle land displacement (Figure 5-3)

: associated with this Case is the lowest among the alternative Cases, reflecting lower mining _ and waste disposal requirements for the nuclear

5-8

Figure 5-1 Non—Renewable Resource Use-Median Load Forecast

Coal Consumption — Cumulative (1989-2014) Natural Gas Consumption — Cumulative (1989-2014) 600 500 400 E 300 200 4 100 0 Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15 Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15 Limestone Required For FGD — Cumulative (1989-2014) 12 10 | | coe 4 a 0 Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15 Uranium Consumption — Cumulative (1989-2014) Oil Consumption — Cumulative (1989-2014) 60 4.0 50 ; 3.5 ; 3.0 _| 40 2.5 + & 30 ® 20 20 1.5 1.0 10 1 0.5 0 0.0 Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15 Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five> 5-9

Figure 5-2 Water Use—Mining and Generation—Median Load Forecast

Coal Mining — Cumulative (1989-2014) Uranium Mine Effluent — Cumulative (1989-2014) : 1400 9,000 Re: 1200 6,000 ane 7,000 Ves «= 1000 a : E = 6,000 g 3 4 Cc = 5 800 & 5,000 ; S 2 E 600 E 4,000 : o 5 2 : i= : 2 = 3,000 | : S 400 > pe: 2,000 ; 200 4 1,000 al 0 0 : Coal Mine Drainage Acid Mine Drainage Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15 Generation — Cumulative (1989-2014) Total Life Cycle Water Use 600 1600 | 1400 ; 500 ie 1200 ong *% é 10 . no es = 1000 ES s : 2 300 aH 800 ee 2 a = E E 600 S 200 : 400 | : 100 200 ag 0 less than 1% cooling water 0 Cooling Water Evaporative losses Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15

W@e Case 24 30 GBB Case 26 MMH Case 22 WBE Case 23 Ms Case 15 35 40

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five> 5= 16

Figure 5-3 Land Use—Median Load Forecast

Total Land Used — Generation — Cumulative (1989-2014)

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

HA

8,000

6,000 7%

4,000

2,000

0 Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15 2

Total Land Used — Life Cycle — Cumulative (1989-2014)

80,000

2

- 70,000 ; 60,000 i 50,000 : ! 40,000 : 30,000 : 20,000 2 10,000 | :

z |

Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15

HA

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five> 5-11

35

&

Ci (Millions)

Ci

3.50

3.00

2.50

Figure 5-4 Atmospheric Emissions (Radionuclides)-Median Load Forecast

Cumulative (1989 — 2014)

Tritium

Cumulative (1989 — 2014)

Noble Gases

lodine 131

Particulates

4.47x109 2.5x109

200 180 160 140

120 100

Ci (Thousands)

11.49 4.20

0.14

Mean Yearly Values

Tritium DEL

Noble Gas DEL

Tritium Noble Gases Mean Yearly Values Particule DEL lodine DEL Fé

‘

lodine 131 Particulates

Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15

5-12

option. Generation-related land displacement is the highest among all the Cases. This higher _ land use is related to a comparatively higher |

- need for additional new generating sites and |

' associated transmission. Normalized land use

declines throughout the planning period, :

- (Figure 5-8).

. Emissions /Effluents /Wastes

: Heaviest reliance on nuclear generation

: results in this Case having the lowest acid gas (SO, + NOx), COs, particulate and trace ele- : ment emissions among the alternative Cases (Figure 5-5). Normalized emissions for these :

"parameters decrease steadily over the planning :

- period (Figure 5-9).

It should be noted, however, that all Cases : meet current regulatory limits for SO, NOx : 2 and total acid gas (SO) + NOx) emissions, | : for the median load and upper load forecasts, : - Socio-Economic Effects

over the study period.

However, since acid gas emissions for this _ Case are the lowest among the alternative Cases, _

_ there is additional margin with respect to reg-

ulatory limits (Figure 5-5).

Aquatic effluent levels (including thermal : _ discharges) are marginally higher for Case

- 23 than for the other Cases (Figure 5-6).

Normalized values increase slightly over the :

study period (Figure 5-9).

Total waste production’ levels are lowest : for this Case, although radioactive wastes - are higher [10-23 %] than all other Cases :

: (Figure 5-7). Normalized, total waste production

_ rates decrease for this Case over the study

: period (Figure 5-9). _ High waste production in all Cases reflects

_ the continued system reliance on existing gen- _

~ eration sources (particularly older fossil units)

during the study period. The addition of Flue :

be 13

Gas Desulphurization and increased use of : low-sulphur coal at existing coal-fired stations |

add significantly to waste inventories in this —

period. Opportunities to reduce this growing |

cling and reuse programs (e.g., commit to |

Annual radionuclide emission levels for :

| all Cases (Figure 5-4) remain well within reg-

(i.e., 1% of Derived Emission Limits). Total radionuclide emissions and effluents are higher [10-23 %] than for other Cases due to greater :

_ waste inventory through aggressive waste recy-

_ production of FGD gypsum) are being pursued. {

_ ulatory requirements and corporate targets

dependence on new nuclear units. Normalized =

radionuclide emissions/effluents increase :

slightly over the study period (Figure 5-9). |

5.2.1.2 Social Environmental Impacts

Regional Employment

Case 23, with the highest nuclear component, , : _ will have a high level of employment in the

construction and operation of four new stations. ;

These projects will require a highly skilled

: workforce over a 16-18 year construction period. : The level of local and regional employment : _ will depend on the availability of skilled workers

and initiatives for local hiring and training. : _

Significant indirect employment will also :

be created in businesses supplying the pro-

out the area.

Regional Economic Development - Inorder to maximize the regional development : benefits of this Case, special initiatives will : likely be required in most areas. These initiatives

- could include agreements with trade unions —

: jectand in the retail and service sectors through- |

and the provincial and federal governments to increase local hiring, provide training, or : to assist local businesses in competing for project : : contracts. Construction camps, if required, : | may reduce opportunities for investment and indirect employment in surrounding commu- : nities. However, some benefits will result from the building, operation, and purchasing asso-

: ciated with such camps.

Nuclear projects provide the opportu- | : nity for industrial development using waste -

: heat energy.

E Local Community Impacts

With this Case, there will be a large influx of project workers and others required for indirect employment in retail, service and project-related businesses. This influx will likely require the expansion of municipal facilities and services. : | Population growth and expansion of facilities

: and services may be considered benefits in

communities seeking economic growth and 2 diversification. However, the pace and timing of change may result in adverse effects in some : areas. A comprehensive community impact management program, supported by a com- : munity impact agreement, will be undertaken : - Distribution of Risks and Benefits : Those who perceive that they are exposed to 7

- to mitigate any adverse impacts. | Societal Considerations

- Social Acceptance

The social acceptance of the Cases will depend : : on the choice and mix of technologies and : ; will be a function of perceived health and : ts safety risks and the public’s familiarity with

| : a particular technology.

: Special/Sensitive Groups

) _ The inclusion of four nuclear facilities in this — : Case will be of particular concern to envi- |

ronmental and nuclear interests, The safety of nuclear facilities and the management of : nuclear waste will be the main concerns. Special attention will have to be paid to issues such : as employment and economic opportunities for Native and other local people. Local pref- erences and lifestyles will also be considered in the construction and operation activities.

Lifestyle Impacts

Case 23 is unlikely to lead to significant changes |

in lifestyle for the majority of Ontarians. - However, some people may choose to change | - their lifestyle because of their perception of |

risk and in extreme cases this could prompt : them to move to a new community. :

The lifestyle of residents in less developed areas of the province may change because of the influx of new residents, changing employ- ment patterns (1.e., construction employment :

- ys. traditional occupations), increased availability

of goods and services, and changing municipal : services. These changes can be positive or negative and will be particularly significant : for Native people who have followed a traditional

way of life.

_ risks at any stage of the fuel cycle or from - : transportation of nuclear materials, but do - not perceive a compensating benefit, may con- re

sider that situation inequitable. Concerns about | the sharing of risks and benefits from nuclear : facilities may be raised by: those living near : the site and those living away from that site;

: those living near nuclear material transportation ~ routes and those living away from those routes; - and those concerned about future generations

having responsibility for long-term management —

of nuclear waste.

5-14

Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15

Tg

Gg

900 800

700

600

500

400

300

Figure 5-5 Atmospheric Emisssions (Conventional)—Median Load Forecast

S0,, NO,, Total Acid Gas — Cumulative (1989-2014)

—

Acid Gas

C02 Emissions — Cumulative (1989-2014)

Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15

Trace Elements — Cumulative (1989-2014)

Lil

Case 22 Case 23

Case 24 Case 26 Case 15

Gg

Mg (Thousands)

180

160

140 120

100

120

40

20

S0,, NOx, Total Acid Gas — Average Yearly Emissions

Acid Gas

CO, Average Yearly Emissions

Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15

Particulate Emissions — Cumulative (1989-2014)

Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15

5-15

Figure 5-6 Water Effluents—Median Load Forecast

Water Effluents Uranium Mining — Cumulative (1989-2014) Acid In Coal Mine Drainage — Cumulative (1989-2014) 0.25 12 0.20 ie 8 al 0.15 3 & 6 0.10 4 0.05 0) 0 0 Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15 Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15 Thermal Discharge 30 25 20 OG i Ss S 15 8 S 10 (= 5 0

Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15

Radionuclides — Gross & — Cumulative (1989-2014) Radionuclides Tritium — Cumulative (1989-2014)

Ci

Ci x106

Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15 Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five> 5 - 16

Tg

Figure 5-7 Waste Production—Median Load Forecast

Life Cycle Wastes — Cumulative (1989-2014)

Case 24

Case 26

Case 22 Case 23 Case 15

Uranium Mining — Cumulative (1989-2014)

Case 24

Case 26

Case22 Case 23 Case 15

Tg

Fossil Wastes — Cumulative (1989-2014)

35

30

Radioactive Wastes — Cumulative (1989-2014)

Used Fuel Low Level Waste

MM Case 24 MB Case 26 73 H@ Case 22 WH Case 23

GM Case 15

5-17

5.2.2 Case 22 | 5.2.2.1 Natural Environmental Impacts

Q Resource Use iE Like Case 23, Case 22 is characterized by : significant reliance on nuclear generation, : and, as such, has significantly lower consumption : of non-renewable coal, oil and gas resources ig (Figure 5-1). Uranium use is marginally higher : than for Case 15 and the two fossil Cases, but : | slightly less [5%] than for Case 23. Normalized : coal use decreases over the study period (Figure 5-10), while natural gas and oil use are negligible. Uranium use increases slightly | during the planning period. Life cycle water use (Figure 5-2) for this Case is similar to that of all other alternative Cases. However, cooling water requirements : are marginally higher [3-10%] than those for : | Case 15 and the two fossil Cases, but only : : slightly less [2%] than the.requirements for : Case 23. The higher requirements of Cases 2 22 and 23 reflect the higher cooling water : flows associated with nuclear generation, versus 2 fossil generating stations. Normalized water : use decreases slightly over the planning period : = (Figure 5-10). : Life cycle land displacement (Figure 5-3) : associated with this Case is lower than Case : 15 and the two fossil Cases, reflecting lower : mining and waste disposal requirements for : | : the nuclear option. Generation-related land : | displacement, excluding mining, is lowest among : | all Cases, including Case 23. Case 22’s better : | rating, in comparison to Case 23, is related : to reduced demand for new generating sites | and associated transmission. Normalized land : : use declines throughout the planning period, : (Figure 5-10). :

- Emissions /Effluents /Wastes Reliance on nuclear generation results in this : Case having relatively low acid gas, COs, par- : : ticulate and trace element emissions (Figure : : 5-5). Normalized emissions for these parameters :

decrease steadily over the planning period | (Figure 5-11). :

As noted earlier, all Cases meet regulatory limits for SOs, NOx and total acid gas (SO + NOx) emissions, for the median load and upper load forecasts, over the study period : (Figure 5-5). However, since acid gas emissions :

: for Case 22 are comparatively low, there is :

significant margin with respect to current reg- ulatory limits.

Aquatic effluent levels (Figure 5-6) are 2 slightly less [1%] than for Case 23 and slightly © higher [2-6 % ] than those for the other remain- : ing Cases. Like Case 23, normalized water : use decreases slightly over the planning period : (Figure 5-10). :

Total waste production levels (Figure 5-7) 2 are slightly higher than Case 23, but significantly ? less than those for the remaining three Cases, : particularly fossil-based Cases. Normalized waste production decreases over the planning period : (Figure 5-11). :

Annual radionuclide emission levels for : all Cases remain well within regulatory require- 2 ments and corporate targets (ie., 1% of Derived : Emission Limits). Total radionuclide emis- | sions/effluents and radioactive waste production : are marginally higher for Case 22, versus all : other Cases except Case 23, due to dependence : on new nuclear units. Normalized radionuclide : emissions/effluents and wastes increase over :

the study period (Figure 5-11).

5-18

Soe

Sa

2 A cl a Seale Pet

HA/TWh

Figure 5-8 Case 23—-Resource Use Indices—Median Load Forecast

Coal

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 0123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Year

Oil

GI/TWh x 10 : Oo ~ TS; ee) o

89-90. 91-92 93 94 95 96 97-98 990.1 2 34 5 6 7 89 WN DM Year

Land Use*

800

500 Leg Sh SS ; 400 300 200 100 3 0 T T

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 123 45 67 8 9 1011 12 13 14 Year

Gm3/TWh

Millions m3 / TWh

400

200

hire ieta

aise ais

ae Phd

Gas

=

«

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990123 4567 89 11213 |

Note: No gas used for this case. | 7

BS

'

Year 4 4

Uranium

Pe i] ° oi See

89/90) 91) 92°93 94°95 9697 98:90 Oy 2eesi sdb Gey toed (Det Y io leat Year

Water Use a

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 12345678 9 1011213 4: Year a

* Includes all Ontario Hydro—owned property prior to 1989

5-19

Figure 5-9 Case 23—-Emission/Effluent/Waste Indices—Median Load Forecast

Radionuclide — Water Radionuclide — Air 1200 2000 1800 1000 1600 800 1400 1200 ae = 600 z 1000 (I > © 800 400 600 200 400 200 0 0 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96-97 9899012345 67 8 9 WN 12 B14 89 90 91 92 93 9495 969798990123 456789 NBM: ‘ Year : Vear ; Air Emissions 2.5 — S02 NOx 2.0 — C02 = Acid Gas = ———s = 15 Trace no am N fa) S 10 25 > 0.5 0 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 990 1 23 45 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Year Total Waste Thermal Discharge 18 6000 16 5000 14 ; Oey: 4000 i= s 2e e 10 = 2 3000 ole Ls} 3 é fs) o> 6 2000 = 4 1000 2 0 0 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 990123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 89 90 91 92 93 94.95 96 9798990 1234567 8 9 011 2134: Year Year :

| <Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five> | 5 - 20

Gg/Twh

GI/TWH x10°5

HA/TWH

Figure 5-10 Case 22—Resource Use Indices—Median Load Forecast

Coal

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97:98 990 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14

120 _

100

80

60

40

20

800

700

Year Oil tae et ade at a LO le clon, wtteals ut aft ch; ohare) aah 89-90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 990 123 45 67 8 9 1011 12 13 14 Year

Total Life Cycle Land Use

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 Year

Gm3/TWH

m3/TWH (Millions)

0.45 0.40 0.35

0.30

400

wo a o

w So Oo

nN ol Oo

ined Oo o

—_ o Oo

os o —)

uo o

0

89°90 91 92 93.94 95 96 97 98 990 123 45 67 89 11112 13 4: Year :

Uranium

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96.9798 9901234567 a ee Year ;

Water Use

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96.97 98 9901234567 89 WN ME Year :

5 - 21

Figure 5-11 Case 22 — Emission/Effluent/Waste Indices—Median Load Forecast

Radionuclide — Water

1000 800 =5 = 600 5 400 200 0

89°90 91 92 93 9495 969798990123 45 67'8 9 011 1213-14 Year

Air Emissions

25

usd o

= uo

al Oo

Gg/TWh (CO7_Tg/TWh)

ad wo

89 90.91 92 93 94 95.96.9798 990 123 4 5 6 7 8B 9 10 11°12 13 14 Year

Total Waste

Mg/TWh S

>

NR

oOo

“Knit Vom ln do ht eG ad,” Lee tk me Ti 1 cee Tr 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96.97 98.990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 Year

TJoules/TWh

Radionuclide — Air

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 969798990123 4567 8 9 10111213 14 : Year :

$09 Acid Gas C02 NOx

Trace Elements

Thermal Discharge

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 12345678 9 10111213 4 : Year :

5-22

| 5.2.2.2 Social Environmental Impacts | Socio-Economic Effects

- Regional Employment

Gase™22; with its large nuclear component, : will also have a high level of employment in : : the construction and operation of three stations. These projects will require a highly skilled : workforce over a 10-12 year construction period. : The level of local and regional employment : will depend on the availability of skilled workers : : and initiatives for local hiring and training. : : Significant indirect employment could be cre- :

2 ated in businesses supplying the project and :

. in the retail and service sector.

Because of the smaller scale and shorter : 2 duration of construction with CTU and CTU/CC : : projects, relatively less employment is generated : : than for other facilities. There is also likely :

- to be limited indirect employment created.

- Regional Economic Development

: In order to maximize the regional development : : benefits of most of these projects, special ini- : tiatives will be required in most areas. These : : initiatives could include agreements with trade : : unions and the provincial and federal gov- : : ernments to increase local hiring, to provide : : training, or to assist local businesses in com- : : peting for project contracts. However, the estab- :

- lishment of construction camps for any of :

_ these facilities may reduce opportunities for

- investment and indirect employment in sur- | - rounding communities.Nuclear projects provide :

- the opportunity for industrial development :

- using waste heat energy.

The smaller scale and shorter duration | - of construction with CTU and CTU/CC pro- | - jects would provide little opportunity for |

- regional development. The exception would |

5 = 23

be alarge CTU/IGCC project. A phased con- struction program may provide employment opportunities over a longer period of time : and therefore encourage additional regional

- economic development.

Local Community Impacts

The differences in local community impacts |

will depend on the type of generation facility,

and the resultant municipal infrastructure |

requirements. Location of nuclear facilities 7

in less developed areas of the province will : create significant effects. Even with initiatives | to encourage local hiring and the use of a :

- construction camp, there would be an influx :

municipal facilities and services. A compre- =

_ hensive community impact management pro- |

these effects.

: gram, supported by a community impact =

- agreement, will be undertaken to mitigate {

Local community impacts for projects in =

more developed areas would tend to be mod- :

erate because of the availability of a large local i

and regional workforce and the existing infras- |

tructure. Acommunity impact agreement will =

be undertaken to manage or mitigate adverse |

effects.

Local community impacts for CTU and

- CTU/CC projects are likely to be minor. Local :

road damage and noise. In addition, if CTUs

_ are built and converted to CC in stages, resulting — ~ in lower peak construction activity, then the d effects on communities may be lessened. There = is likely to be little or no in-migration of project :

_ workers. However, there may be pressure on _ temporary accommodation facilities if project

| workers commute. Impact agreements to offset

specific project effects may be required. ; Societal Considerations

| Social Acceptance

) The social acceptance of Case 22, with its reliance on nuclear generation, will also be influenced ; by the public’s perception of risk. The fossil :

components of this Case are likely to be more

socially acceptable if they are converted to

CC units.

Special/Sensitive Groups

The inclusion of three nuclear facilities in : this Case will be of particular concern to envi- : ronmental and nuclear interests. The safety of nuclear facilities and the management of nuclear waste will be the main focus of concern. : Project EAs will deal with site specific effects and will address in detail issues such as employ- :

ment and economic opportunities for Native and other local people.

Fossil components of Case 22, although less than with other alternatives, are likely : to be of concern to environmentalandrecre- 5.2.3 Case 15 ation interests and to resource industries, such : as agriculture and forestry, potentially affected : by acid and greenhouse gases and ozone levels. The increased reliance on gas or oil for CTUs, : particularly if they are not converted to CC and IGCC, will be of concern to environmental, : : 5.2.3.1 Natural Environmental Impacts

conservation, and energy interest groups.

Lifestyle Impacts

Case 22 is unlikely to lead to significant changes : in lifestyle for the majority of Ontarians. | However, some people may choose to change -

- their lifestyle because of their perception of _ risk and in extreme instances this could prompt _

them to move to a new community. The lifestyle of residents in smaller com- :

- munities would likely change with the influx _ ; of new residents, changing employment pat- : terns (ie., construction employment vs. tra- :

- ditional occupations), increased availability :

of goods and services, and changing munici- | pal services. These changes can be positive | or negative and will be particularly significant :

- for Native people who have followed a tradi-

tional way of life.

Distribution of Risks and Benefits - Those who perceive that they are exposed to |

risks, but who do not receive a compensating benefit, may consider that situation inequitable. : Concerns about the sharing of risks and benefits from nuclear facilities may be raised by: those : living near a site and those living away from : that site; those living near nuclear material : transportation routes and those living away :

- from those routes; and those concerned about | ' future generations having responsibility for :

long-term management of nuclear waste.

Case 15 represents a “middle ground” among the alternative Cases, with intermediate levels : of resource use and emissions/effluents and waste production anda balancing of the social effects of nuclear and fossil projects. :

- Resource Use

Non-renewable resource use is slightly higher 2 than in the nuclear-based Cases and lower |

than in the fossil-based Cases (Figure 5-1). :

- Normalized coal use declines over time, while |

5. - 24

Figure 5-12 Case 15 -— Resource Use Indices—Median Load Forecast

Coal

Gg/TWh al no ww > CUS - a | oc oO (— 2 oe — Wes le, , — oe —~ ee — Se — }

Gm3/TWh

HA/TWh

89.90 91 92 93 94 95 96.97 98 990 123 4.5 6 7 8B 9 10 11 12 13 14 Year

Gas

0.35

0.30 0.25 1 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05

0

89 90 91 92 93 94.95 96 97 98 990 123 45 67 8 9 1011 12 28 14 Year

Land Use

800

700 600 500 400 300 200 100

0

89 90 91 92 93 94.95 96 97 98.990 123 4 5 67 8 9 1011 12 13 14 Year

GI/TWh

Millions m3/TWh

Oil

400 7

350

300

250

Dat eee ae me

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 : Year ;

Uranium

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 123 4 5 67 8 9 1011 12 13 14 Year

Water Use

400

350

250

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 990123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-11 12 13 14 Year ;

5 = 25

: ciated transmission, but shows a decline by | the year 2014. | : Life cycle water use is only slightly higher : | [2 %] than in the fossil-based Cases and slightly lower [1-2%] than in the two nuclear-based

, Regional Employment

use of oil and gas is minimal until the latter : : part of the study period (Figure 5-12). Uranium : use increases slightly over the study period : "(Figure 5-12). : Total life cycle land use is noticeably less ; [4-16%] than for the fossil-based Cases and marginally higher [5-7%] than for the two Q nuclear-based Cases. Normalized land use fluctu- : : ates throughout the study period (Figure 5-12) : in response to additions of new sites and asso-

: Cases. Normalized water use (Figure 5-12) : declines slightly over the study period.

: Emissions/Effluents/Wastes

; higher than in the nuclear-based Cases and |

: Acid gas emissions (SO, NOx) are marginally

, marginally lower than in those for fossil based : Cases (Figure 5-5). Differences in COs, par- ticulate and trace element emissions tend to | be more significant. Normalized atmospheric : | emissions decline steadily over the study period (Figure 5-13). | t Aquatic effluents, primarily thermal dis- E charge from generation (Figure 5-6), are slightly : i lower [2-3 %] than for nuclear-based Cases : : and slightly [1-4%] higher than for fossil-based : F Cases. Effluents from uranium mining and : coal mining are intermediate, relative to nuclear : j and fossil based Cases. Normalized effluent i levels increase slightly over the planning period : (Figure 5.13). | Radionuclide emissions/ effluents (Figures 5-4 and 5-6) are marginally [5-9%] lower than : the nuclear-based Cases and noticeably higher : : : also provide a significant boost to a regional

[4-14 %] than for fossil-based Cases. Normalized radionuclide values increase slightly over the. 2 period (Figure 5-13).

Life cycle waste production (Figure 5-7) is higher [10-19%] than for the two nuclear- based Cases and lower [8-33%] than the fossil-

based Cases. Significant differences in :

fossil-derived wastes are apparent. Normalized :

: waste production (Figure 5-13) declines over

the study period.

: 5.2.3.2 Social Environment Impacts

Socio-Economic Effects

: Case 15 provides an intermediate level of | employment in comparison to the alternative Cases. Location ofa facility in a less well-devel-

oped area of the province would likely result in more indirect employment because of the 7 development of local businesses, both project- related and in the retail and service sector. :

: A facility located in more densely populated 2

areas of the province would be able to draw |

: mainly ona local and commuting workforce, : while a station in more remote and less pop-

ulated areas would require the in-migration — of project and other workers.

Both IGCC and nuclear developments will create significant employment benefits. CTU : projects will provide only limited employment. :

Regional Economic Development The nuclear facilities in Case 15 would provide |

: the opportunity for significant regional devel- 7

- economy.

5 - 26

Ci/TWh (Thousands)

Tg/TWh)

Gg/TWh (C02

Mg/TWh (Thousands)

Figure 5-13 Case 15—-Emission/Effluent/Waste Indices—Median Load Forecast

Radionuclide — Water

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98.990 123 4 5 6 7 BY 10 11 12 13 14 Year

Air Emissions

2.5

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 990 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B Y 10 11 12 13 14 Year

Total Waste

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798 990 123 45 67 8 9 1011 12 13 14 Year

Ci/TWh 2 fo)

TJoules/TWh

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

Radionuclide — Air

* C09

89.90.91 92°93 94 95 96:97:98 990 1234 5 67 89 1111213 4: Year :

S02. Acid Gas

NO

Trace

Thermal Discharge

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 1234567 8 9 011213 he Year :

5 - 27

= project could require about twice as many |

‘ in the potential for moderate community | : impacts depending on where it is located. A | - community impact agreement would be |

Case 15 also provides the opportunity for

heat-energy developmentin conjunction with |

the operation of nuclear facilities.

_ be required to maximize regional development _ _ benefits.

Local Community Impacts

The main potential for community impacts | from the development of nuclear facilities will be areas of the province which have a less well-developed community infrastructure to support the in-migration of workers and their families and the growth in the retail and service sector. A comprehensive community impact management program, supported by a community impact agreement, will be under-

taken to mitigate these effects. Local community impacts for projects in

more developed areas would tend to be mod- erate because of the availability of a large local and regional workforce and the existing com- | Lifestyle Impacts

munity infrastructure. A community impact :

agreement will be undertaken to deal with |

adverse effects.

: person-years of employmentasa CTU, resulting

- undertaken to manage effects.

- Societal Considerations

- Social Acceptance

The social acceptance of Case 15 will be influenced by its nuclear component. However, the mix of technologies in this Case may enhance its social acceptability. IGCC facilities are likely people with a traditional way of life.

- to be favourably received asa fossil alternative

because of the reduction in emissions.

Asin other Cases, special initiatives would : Special/Sensitive Groups

The development of nuclear facilities in Case

: 15 will be of concern to environmental and | : nuclear energy interests. Again, key issues will be nuclear safety and the management of

nuclear waste.

Development in the North would require special attention to the interests of Native ; and other northern residents, particularly with 2 respect to local employment and regional eco- nomic development. :

Fossil components of Case 15 may be of concern to environmental and recreational :

interests and resource industries potentially :

affected by acid and greenhouse gases and 2 : ozone levels. An IGCC facility will likely be :

more acceptable than a conventional steam | cycle facility in this regard.

Implementation of Case 15 will not likely result :

in significant changes in lifestyle for the majority

Case 15 includes an IGCC facility. An IGCC of Ontarians. However, those in the vicinity

of nuclear facilities and those particularly | concerned about nuclear safety may expe- rience a change in their daily lives or perception : of their community because of their percep- tion of risk.

The lifestyle of residents in smaller, more

remote communities is likely to change. These - : changes will result from the influx of new _ residents, changing employment patterns —

- (ie. construction employments. traditional -

occupations), increased availability of goods : and services, and changing municipal services. : These changes can be positive or negative and will be particularly significant for Native

5 - 28

GI/TWh x10°5

HA/TWh

Figure 5-14 Case 24-Resource Use Indices—Median Load Forecast

800

700

Coal

Gm3/TWh

89 90 91 92 93 94.95 9697 98 990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Year

Oil

eet, = 0

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 969798990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 Year

Land Use

400

350

300

250

200

(Millions) m3/TWh

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 990 123 4 5 6 7 B Y 10 11 12 13 14 Year

Gas

a =. 4

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98:99 0 1 2 3 45 6 Teonad 10111213 4: Year :

Uranium

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96:97 98990 12345678 9 101112 13 43 Year d

Water Use

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990123 4567 89 WN: Year :

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five> 5= 29

| |

.

: residents. Fe : Distribution of Risks and Benefits

: concerns about the equity of the exposure

| transportation, but who do not receive a com- : pensating benefit, may consider the situation ! : inequitable. Concerns about the sharing of :

risks and benefits among current and future generations may be raised in relation to the

: long-term management of nuclear waste and

in relation to reduction in the reserves of : fossil resources and the long-term effects of :

. greenhouse gases. i 5.2.4 Case 24 5.2.4.1 Natural Environmental Impacts

- Resource Use

: This Case has the second highest use of coal, : , oiland gas resources among the Cases (Figure 5-1). Uranium use is second lowest. Normalized : coal use fluctuates over time (Figure 5-14) : but is slightly lower in 2014 than it was at the : - gures 5-4 and 5-6) are lower [9-23%] than

start of the planning period. Normalized oil

: and gas use increase significantly in the latter : - but slightly higher [4%] than in Case 26. : : Normalized values do not change significantly

: part of the planning period. Life cycle land requirements (Figure 5-3)

| for this Case are higher, compared to all other Cases except Case 26. Normalized land require- ments vary throughout the planning period, responding mainly to additions of new sites and associated transmission, but do not change :

| markedly by 2014.

Development of an IGCC facility may result | | : in modest changes to the lifestyle of surrounding

+ of communities or groups to nuclear risks. | : Those who perceive that they are exposed to : risks at any stage of the fuel cycle or from |

Life cycle water use is less than for all Cases : except Case 26 and declines over the planning |

period (Figure 5-14).

: Emissions/Effluents /Wastes . As with other Cases, Case 15 may give rise to -

Emissions/ effluents and waste production levels :

: for Case 24 are higher than those experienced :

in all other Cases except Case 26. Except under : the lower load forecast, CO, emissions for : this Case cannot meet a 20% reduction, if , required by 2005 (Figure 5-5). Normalized : acid gas emissions (Figure 5-15) decline over time. However COs, emissions increase slightly over the planning period. :

Life cycle waste production (Figure 5-7)

is significantly higher than in all Cases except :

Case 26. The increased reliance on coal-fired | generation significantly inflates the amount :

: of ash/FGD wastes produced. Normalized waste : - production increases slightly over the planning — : period (Figure 5-15). :

Aquatic effluents (Figure 5-6) related to |

2 generation for Case 24 are marginally lower : : than for all Cases except Case 26. Uranium - mining and coal mining effluents for this Case |

are lower and higher, respectively, than in | all Cases except Case 26. Normalized effluent 2 levels decline only slightly over the study period 2 (Figure 5-5). 2

Radionuclide emissions/effluents (Fi- :

in the Cases with additional nuclear generation, -

over the planning period, Figure 5-15.

5 - 30

Figure 5-15 Case 24 — Emission/Effluent/Waste Indices—Median Load Forecast

Radionuclide — Water

1800 1600 1400 oO 3 1200 o a 3 < 1000 <= Ee = 2 800 Pa) 600 400 200 0 Aleaalt hae cathe call tea le eile alae taal cto mea erie oii worl tag cane ae aE) 0 89/906 91 $2.93: 94 95-96 97 98-99 0 1. 273-4 5 Ge 7 .8¢ 9-10 11 12 13 14 Year Air Emissions 25 2.0 == = 15 = aly (o>) © = 1.0 = oO 0.5 0 89 90 91 92 93 94:95 96 97 98990 123 4 5 6 7 8B 9 10 11 12 13 14 Year Total Waste 18 6000 16 5000 14 12 4000 = = 10 e = % 3000 mo 4 o 8 S 2 § 2000 4 1000 2

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 990 123 45 67 8 9 10011 12 13 14 Year

Radionuclide — Air

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798 99012345678 9 011 Year

S07 Acid Gas

COz

NOx

Trace

Thermal Discharge

12 13 14:

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97:98. 9901234567 89 1011 12139 We

Year

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five> 5-31

' oped areas of the province where special - _ initiatives will be required to realize the regional |

5.2.4.2 Social Environmental Impacts

Socio-Economic Effects

' Regional Employment Case 24 will provide a higher level of employ- ment than Case 26, which has a greater emphasis : on fossil generation. However, it will result : in less employment than that for the other ~ Cases previously discussed. A conventional coal facility creates more employment in con- - struction and operation than CTU/CC/IGCC : : facilities of comparable size and will therefore ' create a significant employment benefit. : Location of generation facilities in less devel- : oped areas of the province would likely result : in more indirect employment, both project-

: related and in retail and service business.

- Regional Economic Development . Aswith other Cases, the major regional devel-

» opment opportunities will occur in less devel- -

_ development benefit.

A conventional coal facility offers a somewhat |

: greater regional development opportunity than

- acomparable CTU/CC/IGCC facility because

- ofitslarger scale, longer construction schedule and higher employment requirements. While : a conventional coal facility could provide a : significant boost to the regional economy, the phased construction of the IGCC facilities 2

" may sustain the regional development oppor- |

" tunity over a longer period.

: Local Community Impacts

: The main potential for community impacts -

: will occur as a result of the influx of project - : and other workers, which will in turn require -

* expansion of municipal services and facilities.

A comprehensive community impact manage- : ment program, supported by a community : impact agreement, will be undertaken to mit- : : igate these effects.

Case 24 includes an IGCC facility. Even : allowing for the workers required for coal : and waste handling facilities, an IGCC project : would have more moderate community effects : than a CSC. A community impact agreement

: would be undertaken.

Societal Considerations

Social Acceptance Because of its nuclear component, the social acceptance of this Case will be influenced by : perceptions of risk. Issues such as safety and

: waste management will affect social acceptability.

The social acceptance of this Case will also :

be influenced by the public’s perception of 7

conventional coal generation, particularly their perception of acid gas and greenhouse effects. : The IGCC component may be perceived as : cleaner and therefore may be more socially

| acceptable.

Special/Sensitive Groups

- The inclusion of nuclear facilities in Case 24 :

will be of concern to environmental and nuclear : energy interests. Again, key issues will be safety : and the management of nuclear waste. ?

Development in the north would require : special attention to the interests of Native :

and other northern residents, particularly with

: respect to local employment and regional eco-

- nomic development.

Fossil components of Case 24 will be of 7 concern to environmental and recreational : interests and to resource industries potentially : affected by acid rain, greenhouse gases and

ozone levels.

5 - 32

Figure 5-16 Case 26 — Resource Use Indices—Median Load Forecast

Coal

120 0.8

07

100 0.6

80 0.5 60 : 0.4 0.3

40 0.2 20 0.1 0 0

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 Year

Gg/TWh Gm3/TWh

Oil

800 0.016

700 0.014 600 0.012 500 0.010 = = 0.008 eS 300 0.006 200 0.004 100 0.002 0 0

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Year

GI/TWh x 105 = Ss

Land Use

HA/TWh > nN w > ao fop) ~ oO oO o o oOo i! oO Co oOo to} o oOo Cc So Millions m3/TWh Gila pepe Sales SEES oOo oO oOo &. oOo oO oOo

Oo

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98990 123 45 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 Year

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five> 5 - 33

99 90 91 92 93 94 95 969798990123 45678 9 ON 12134: Year

Uranium

89 90.91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 1234567 89 WIZ BME

Water Use

89.90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798 9901234567 89 1011 12:13 4 E Year :

+ significant for Native people with a traditional

EE

- Lifestyle Impacts 4 Implementation of Case 24 will not likely result : in significant changes in lifestyle for the majority : - of Ontarians. However, those in the vicinity 2 : of nuclear facilities and those particularly con- cerned about nuclear safety may experience ; a change in their daily lives or in the perception : | of their community because of their perception : : of risk. The lifestyle of residents in less developed : : communities could be changed asa result of the in-migration of new residents, changing : employment patterns, increased availabi- : lity of goods and services, and changing ; municipal services. These changes can be pos- : itive or negative and will be particularly

way of life.

4 Distribution of Risks and Benefits

+ As with other Cases, Case 24 may give rise to :

+ of communities or groups to nuclear risks.

= pensating benefit, may consider the situation —

‘ concerns about the equity of the exposure -

- Those who perceive that they are exposed to : ' risks at any stage of the fuel cycle or from : = transportation, but who do notreceive acom- ~

inequitable. Concerns about the sharing of : risks and benefits among current and future : generations may be raised in relation to the : long-term management of nuclear waste, and * Emissions /Effluents/Wastes in relation to reductions in the reserves of fossil resources and the long-term effects of : : higher than for the other Cases (Figure 5-5). ; : Normalized acid gas emissions decline until about 2000 and then remain stable to the end : of the planning period (Figure 5-17). CO,

- greenhouse gases.

5.2.5 Case 26

5.2.5.1 Natural Environmental Impacts

Resource Use

The fossil fuel dominance in this Case con-

tributes to it having the highest level of non- : renewable resource use (Figure 5-1). Coal :

_ use increases steadily over the planning period

(Figure 5-16), while oil and gas.use increase : drastically in the latter part of the planning period. Uranium use is lowest among Cases and normalized use declines over the planning : period (Figure 5-16). :

Life cycle land use requirements (Fi- gure 5-3) are highest of all Cases, mainly : due to higher comparative land requirements :

_ related to mining and waste disposal activities. - _ As with all other Cases, normalized land use | varies significantly over time.in response to -

site and transmission additions. However, land : use requirements decrease by the end of the : planning period (Figure 5-16). :

Life cycle water use is lowest for Case 26, : reflecting the lower cooling water requirements of fossil generation, versus nuclear generation, : and lower uranium mining activity. Normalized : water use values decrease over the course of 2 the planning period (Figure 5-16). :

Heaviest reliance on fossil-based generation : results in acid gas emissions for Case 26 being |

: emissions (Figure 5-5) are highest for this :

5 - 34

Figure 5-17 Case 26 — Emission/Effluent/Waste Indices—Median Load Forecast

Radionuclide—Water

1000 1800 900 1600 aii 800 1400 109 1200 600 <= ; < 1000 e 500 = 3S < 800 400 600 300 4 400 200 4 100 200 0 0 89 90 91 92 93 94.95 96.97 98990123 45 67 8 9 011 12 2B 14 Year Air Emissions 25 2.0 a E is Lrg N oO S = 1.0 o oO 0.5 0 89 90 91 92 93 94.95 96 9798990 123 45 67 8 9 1M 1213 14 Year Total waste 25 6000 5000 20 . 4000 a= 15 s = % 3000 — Ss 10 | s — 2000 54 1000 0 =) Pe GOW er Saabs Gans aa ot 0 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 Year

Radionuclide—Air

89 90.91 92°93 94 95.96 97 98°99 0-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1-12 8 ie Year

S09 ACID GAS CO NOx TRACE

Thermal Discharge

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 123 45 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14

Pee PE IE Te A a Te ee ee ee ee ee ee) Se a a ee PR ape Pee ae

Year

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five> 5 - 35

as ee ee

sion levels in 2005 cannot be met by this Case “under any of the load forecasts. Normalized _ CO, emissions increase slightly over the planning period (Figure 5-17).

gure 5-6), while uranium and coal mining

eration. Normalized values decline over the planning period (Figure 5-17).

Waste production levels (Figure 5-7) are

duction increases over the planning period |

(Figure 5-17). | (5.2.5.2 Social Environmental Impacts

Socio Economic Effects

Regional Employment

Case 26 is likely to create the least construction : ‘employment of the alternative Cases. IGCC : plants create about one third less employment than nuclear plants of equivalent size. The employment created by conventional coal facil- : ‘ities will be important particularly in areas where there are higher levels of unemployment. : The level of local employment will depend on special initiatives for local hiring and training. In some areas of the province, even with local : initiatives, there will likely be a need for in-

migration of project workers. Location of facil- :

ities in less developed areas would likely result :

in more indirect employment, in both project-

related and retail and service businesses.

Case. A proposed 20% reduction in CO, emis- |

Aquatic effluents from generation are | the lowest among the alternative Cases (Fi-

effluents are lowest and highest respectively among Cases. Normalized effluents decline : Slightly over the study period, (Figure 5-17). | Radionuclide emissions/effluents/wastes 2 _ (Figures 5-4, 5-6 and 5-7) are lowest for this Case, due to the reduced use of nuclear gen- - IGCC facility,

The development of a CTU/CC facility -

_ will create relatively few jobs. CTUs can be : served by local and commuting workers and are not likely to result in significant indirect employment. |

Regional Economic Development

As with other Cases, the major regional devel- :

opment opportunities will occur in less devel- oped areas of the province, where special initiatives will be required to realize the regional development benefit. Case 26 provides oppor- tunities for regional development with two

conventional coal facilities in addition to an :

A conventional coal facility offers somewhat

_ greater regional development opportunity than —

highest for Case 26. Normalized waste pro- a comparable CTU/CC/IGCC facility because |

of its larger scale, longer construction schedule |

- and higher employment requirements. While : a conventional coal facility could provide a significant boost to the regional economy, the : phased construction of IGCC facilities may : sustain the regional development opportunity 7

- over a longer period.

Local Community Impacts

The influx of project and other workers with : the development of a fossil station may require expansion of municipal services and facilities in some communities. A comprehensive com- : munity impact management program, with a community impact agreement, will be under- taken to mitigate these effects. Relative to : CSC facilities, fewer community impacts will : occur with an IGCC in an area where there : is access to a local and commuting workforce. However, a community impact management program may be needed to mitigate some of

these effects.

5 - 36

Figure 5-18 Atmospheric Emissions—Median Load Forecast

Total Acid Gas Production/Year Median

450 450 400 400 250 350 300 300 250 250

= ~ Acid Gas Emission Limits oS a 150 150 100 100

50 50

0 0

89 90 $1 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 0 Ades A Bare BS) Wl 421344 Year

Total CO7 Production/Year Median

Proposed CO Emission Limit foOR

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 Year

Total Acid Gas Production/Year Upper

Acid Gas Emission Limits

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99012345678 9 ong 4 Year )

Total CO9 Production/Year Upper

89 90 91.92 93 94 95 96 9798990 123 4 5 67 8 9 1011 12 13 14 Year

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five> 5 - 37

Seta nee eee eee ee

eer ees seessnersenes

Shy

Figure 5-18 Atmospheric Emissions—Median Load Forecast

Total NO, Production/year Median

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 123 45 67 8 9 1011 12 13 14 Year

Total S02 Production/Year Median

450 400

$09 Emission Limit

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 Year

Total NO, Production/Year Upper

100

NO, Protocol Target

Gg

89 90 91°92 93 94°95 96 97.98 990 123 4 5 6 7 B92: Year :

Total SO Production/Year Upper

450 400

250

$09 Emission Limit

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 989901234567 8 9 1011 12:13 14 : Year :

Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23

Case 15

5 - 38

Table 5-3 Siting Requirements for Load Growth Cases

Load Forecast Case 23 Existing Sites Used:

Lower 2 Median 1 Upper 4 New Sites Used:

Lower 2 Median 3 Upper 4 Total Sites Used:

Lower 4 Median 4 Upper 8

Number of Illustrative Sites Used

Case 29

Case.15 Case 24 Case 26 2 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 7 8 8 8 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 6 7 Ii 7 10 11 11 11

: Societal Considerations

: Social Acceptance

: The social acceptance of Case 26 will be

- influenced by public perception of the risks : associated with the use of fossil technologies : and the appropriateness of using finite fossil :

- resources for energy production. The use of |

2 scrubbers and IGCC technology may raise social

2 acceptability, but this could be offset by green- :

- house concerns.

? Special/Sensitive Groups

- The exclusive reliance on fossil fuels for new

: supply in Case 26 will be of concern to envi- :

3 ronmental and recreational interests, and

- resource industries potentially