BRUCE POWER
|
|
IDRA BRUCE POWER |
Notes from Eugene Bourgeois on the Bruce Newbuild Workshop #4 (November 6 , 2007)
About 50 people in attendance, including Jennifer Clark of CEAA, someone from EMO office, mayor of Kincardine and a number of others, Bruce County head of planning, Slobodan Janovich (?) And ? Clark of CNSC, someone from AECL, Chris Munn and someone else from public health, Ian Mitchell of MOE. Saugeen representatives (4), Ziggy Kleinau, some fisheries volunteer groups, ratepayers organisations, Marie Wilson of OPG, and numerous Bruce Power employees. Hosted by Golder and Ass. Duncan Moffat of Golder began. He announced that by the end of October all the field work had been completed for the EIS. It should be ready in draft form by the spring of 2008, with a period of public consultation afterwards. The purpose of the Newbuild is to assist the Province in its perceived requirement of an extra 3,000 MW of nuclear power, once the Bruce rebuilds are complete. The Newbuild is multi-purpose, or rather, allows for multi-purpose options. At the moment, 6,200 MW for this site has been approved. Adding the Newbuild option of up to 4,000 MW (depending on design system chosen) allows Bruce Power to maximise its options: it can continue to furnish 6,200 MW to the province if it chooses to rebuild Bruce B at the end of its life, it can add to the 6,200 MW of power already approved with another 4300MW. All the questions submitted at this workshop, and their answers, will be posted on Bruce Power's web site. The point of this exercise is that Bruce Power is actually looking at operating 12 reactors on site for the long term. Bruce Power's current lease expires in 2018, with a right to extension for 25 years. Ultimately, the Province owns the reactors. Question: Is the Province responsible for construction costs and design, in the event that the Bruce Power consortium abandons or is evicted from its operation? This question was asked in a round-about way, but not adequately and succinctly answered. At the moment, there are 5 design systems being considered, and each design system has its own bounding plant envelope that is relative to its design. As an example, the Areva reactor uses uranium enriched to 4.5% U235 while the AECL reactor designs use natural uranium as low as .7% U235. Spent fuel is defined as the level of fuel consisting of U235 that is below the minimum required for that reactor to produce a fissionable response. [At lunch, I asked Slobodan of the CNSC to explain why spent fuel is spent fuel, because many people locally believe that spent fuel is something that is simply too hot for the reactor to handle. He explained that spent fuel is spent because the U235 has fallen below a threshold level, and not because the remaining fuel is not fissionable. It is, for all intents and purpose, waste and in no way reasonably reusable. Also at lunch, I suggested that a glossary of terms be offered, sort of like a Wikapoedia, relating to nuclear matters for ease of use by novices trying to understand these complex things.] The heavy water designs require the use of large volumes of water to cool the reaction process. For each 1000 MW of power, the reactor requires 50 cu. m/sec for intake and discharge. The water, taken from the bottom of Lake Huron, enters the system at around 11C and leaves at 21C. This was deemed to be non-intrusive into the water system because: 1), most of the warm water stays near the shoreline (ie Inverhuron) and 2), when considered as intrusion on the lake as a whole, is primarily a non-event. The mixing zone of the discharge is in the area of kms to eliminate the thermal and current gradients. In each case, the systems are designed (as if this itself a benefit) such that both the intake and discharge are as low as possible (shades of ALARA). The discharge is at the surface, to benefit from heat dissipation to air, while intake is from the bottom of the Lake. Used fuel is stored in pools for a maximum of 20 years , although at present they are moved to dry storage after 10 years. If the new NWMO plans for a deep geological repository for high level wastes is approved, then storage will be for 20 years to minimise handling of this waste material. While heavy water reactor systems can operate continuously, light water systems need to be shut down periodically for 3 weeks for refueling, usually 1/3 of the reactor supply of fuel. The reference project for the Newbuild is the AECL reactor with water intake and gas switchyard, because this project represents the maximum impact effects. All significant features (such as storage) are about 50 m below grade. These generation 3 reactors are "safer" (my quotations) than existing reactors. If, I wondered, the waste water from cooling is problematic to the Lake, even if only locally, why wouldn't this waste heat be given to Baie du Dore residents, who are right beside the reactor (and who had no one present at this workshop)? I raised this possibility at the workgroup later and Slobodan of CNSC said that 30C was not warm enough for radiant heating. The AECL girl added that she would just love to see 30C at Douglas Point where she works and Terry Brown suggested that Bruce Power might use some of this heat. I pointed out to Slobodan that Vieman, in Germany, has developed a heat pump that can extract this heat usefully for space heating at these tempreatures. At the moment, there are about 3,700 employees, with a projected 3,000 to be added during construction at peak. Traffic became the issue of the moment and I asked what do we do about gridlock? This was sidestepped then, but it kept coming back during the workshop. Environmental Assessment We learned that an EA is a planning tool to assist in planning before action is taken. I asked, since all the choices being considered for the addition of 3,000MW of power for the Province (and, I assumed, not just for Bruce Power) whether comparative site analyses were being considered in this process for this additional power by this consultant. The answer was short and swift: no. Nonetheless, there are many things to consider, such as abiotic factors and ecosystems. In each of these cases, this project will consider the negative effects and how these can be mitigated. In addition, because there are two projects proceeding simultaneously, this project will be looking at the combined effects of the DGR and Newbuild. At this point, we learned that this panel is not quite an independent panel of this project, but a joint panel of the CNSC and the CEAA. (Talk about independence.) Becaues this panel will be making representations to the Minister of the Environment about things nuclear, it was thought prudent to add panel members from the CNSC to be able to assist, I suppose, other panelists in making their directives to the Minister. (Doesn't this beg the question of why there is a panel review at all?) Both the Ministry of the Environment and the CNSC will create this panel: the MOE will appoint panelists and the Pres. of the CNSC will recommend some panelists. A typical panel (from Jennifer Clark, CEAA) consists of 3-5 members. Larry Kramer, mayor of Kincardine, claimed that this panel approach is the most comprehensive possible under Canadian law. I need to question, in my comments (so that they are posted, if they are posted) whether the Provincial EA is more comprehensive. (I did do so at lunch and Slobodan presented a vigorous, but unaccepted, view that the 45 days for review and questions with no reasonable possibility of cross-examination was superior.) For the purposes of this EIS, the Cty of Bruce is the study area. This projects does not expect direct effects at this regional scale, but there is the (remote) possibility that it could have cumulative effects. The local study area (that sometimes seems to include us and at other times does not, instead referring only to the site boundaries) is the most important study area. Golder presented the view that the area above the Algonquin Strandline (the land on top of the hill) was the most significant and the land below the strandline was marginal. I asked why Inverhuron was developed as an industrial and commercial site, complete with designated lots, if this was so. It seemed to me that historically, Inverhuron, as a hamlet, was far more significant than the land above the strandline, which was only agricultural, rather than multi-industrial. This was glossed over by Golder who did not want to hear these arguments about the significance of Inverhuron. Historical facts were by and large considered to be those within the last 30 years and these would be addressed in greatest detail. One of the participants commented that the lake water temperature this year has not yet flipped and is still at 61F (16C) at depths of up to 200m. Could this be further impacted by the discharge? There were a number of general problems (infrastructure, education, medical, etc.) that Golder tried to slough off to the respective authorities, but these authorities continued to question why it was their responsibility. Finally, Golder informed us that VEC's are important. I think they have honestly placed the importance of VEC's! Last. I had two further questions which I did not raise: Is it important to identify issues relating to VEC's or is it important to resolve the issues relating to these VEC's? If the Municipality cannot fund the extra infrastructure costs, does it have the option of not issuing building permits that allow for construction, instead of charging its ratepayers twice: first for the infrastructure charges, and secondly for the additional rates in electricity charges that all subscribers will pay?Bruce Power spends $37 million on Steam Generator Recycling project
revised 2010 Aug 2