Renseignements supplémentaires. Supplementary Information. Présentation d. Presentation from Ontario Power Generation Inc.

Transcription

1 Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel Commission d examen conjoint du projet de stockage dans des couches géologiques profondes PMD 13-P1.1H File / dossier : Date: Edocs: Supplementary Information Presentation from Ontario Power Generation Inc. On Atmospheric Environment: Air Quality In the Matter of Renseignements supplémentaires Présentation d Ontario Power Generation Inc. Sur L atmosphère : qualité de l air À l égard de Ontario Power Generation Inc. Ontario Power Generation Inc. Proposed Environmental Impact Statement for OPG s Deep Geological Repository (DGR) Project for Low and Intermediate Level Waste Étude proposée pour l énoncé des incidences environnementales pour l Installation de stockage de déchets radioactifs à faible et moyenne activité dans des couches géologiques profondes Joint Review Panel Commission d examen conjoint September 16 to October 12, 2013 Du 16 septembre au 12 octobre 2013

2 OPG s L&ILW DGR Joint Review Panel Hearing Atmospheric Environment: Air Quality September 25, 2013

3 Presentation ti Outline Approach to assessment of effects on air quality: Modelling Approaches to manage uncertainty In-design mitigation Results of the air quality assessment Follow-up monitoring Regulatory requirements Airborne radiological releases Conclusions 2

4 Air Quality Effects Assessment Approach Indicator compounds used for describing general air quality in Ontario were selected as indicators Existing air quality based on modelling of sources at Bruce nuclear site and regional monitoring Quantified air emissions from the Project Predicted air quality using dispersion models Assessed significance for all residual adverse effects Identified follow-up monitoring 3

5 Conservative Air Dispersion i Modelling AERMOD state-of-the-art regulatory model, which was extensively verified and calibrated AERMOD is Ontario regulatory default model Uncertainty managed by selecting local meteorology and conservative emissions, and using multiple simulations and maximum predictions Confident that modelling does not underestimate effects ec on air quality 4

6 Local Meteorology Increases Confidence Hourly data from tower on Bruce nuclear site Supplemented with regional Wiarton data Five years of data used ( ) 2009) 50 m Tower 5

7 Conservative Emissions i Selected as Inputs Site Preparation and Construction All sources assumed operating continuously Highest construction ti emissions i modelled Included emissions from mobile equipment Operations All sources assumed operating continuously Included d surface mobile emissions i 6

8 Conservatively Assessed Highest Predictions 43,824 hourly ypredictions August 14, 2006 June 26, 2008 ( meteorology) December 28, 2007 Highest hourly value used in the assessment June 21, 2009 September 13, 2009 June 29, 2005 June 17, 2007 September 12, 2009 October 28, 2005 September 7, 2009 April 25, 2007 March 26, 2006 August 12, 2008 June 23, 2008 June 13, 2006 June 29, 2007 November 4, 2007 May 31, 2005 Highest hourly NO 2 about 28% higher than value if outliers were discarded as allowed in Ontario September 15, 2006 modelling guidance November 27, 2006 April 28, 2005 May 30, 2005 July 31, 2009 May 20, 2008 October 15, 2008 Top 50 Hourly NO2 Predictions: Construction Phase EA Value Exclude under MOE guidelines Include under MOE guidelines hour NO2 (µg/m³)

9 Effects on Air Quality during Site Preparation and Construction 8 Effects Criteria Magnitude Geographic Extent Timing and Duration Frequency Degree of Irreversibility Overall Significance Effects Level High Medium Low Low Low Rationale 24-hour SPM, PM 10 and PM 2.5 exceed the selected ambient air criteria i Effect extends into the Local Study Area, but is restricted to a very small area in the immediate vicinity of the Bruce nuclear site fence Occurs during the site preparation and construction phase Conditions causing the effect occur less than 1% of the time Effect on air quality is immediately reversible once emissions cease May not be significant

10 Effects on Air Quality during Operations Effects Cit Criteriai Magnitude Geographic Extent Timing and Duration Frequency Degree of Irreversibility Overall Significance Effects Level Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Rationale 24-hour SPM, PM 10 and PM 2.5 do not exceed the selected ambient air criteria, but are greater than 50% of the criteria Effect extends into the Local Study Area. Occurs during the operations phase. Conditions causing the effect occur less than 10% of the time Effect on air quality is immediately reversible once emissions cease. Not significant 9

11 Mitigation Mitigation included in assessment: Construction equipment will meet Tier 2 emission standards, at a minimum Equipment to be maintained in good working order Watering of roadways Additional mitigation planned: Minimize drop heights of rock and other material Use vehicles meeting newest standards 10

12 Follow-up Monitoring i Monitoring of air quality indicators with high or medium magnitudes: To verify EA predictions Verify effectiveness of the mitigation If results indicate need, additional mitigation could include: Increased watering frequency Road surface improvements 11

13 Ontario Air Approvals Following receipt of site preparation p and construction licence, OPG will apply for an Environmental Compliance Approval from the Ministry of Environment OPG s application for approval will: Follow MOE guidance Consider all compounds with O.Reg.419/05 criteria Use MOE-approved meteorological data Consider those sources regulated under O.Reg.419/05 and the source exemption regulation (O.Reg.524/98) 12

14 Airborne Radiological i l Releases Preclosure safety assessment predicted doses from airborne radiological releases, which were assessed in the Radiation and Radioactivity TSD Resulting doses for workers were lower than existing dose limits and occupational targets at the Bruce nuclear site Resulting doses for members of the public were well below dose limits Resulting doses for non-human biota were much less than reference values published by Environment Canada and Health Canada 13

15 Conclusions No significant adverse effects to air quality Confident that the conservatism used in the assessment does not underestimate the potential effects of the DGR Project on air quality 14