oakville generating station - environment... · 2020-05-15 · 7 oakville generating station ground...

Oakville Generating Station

Stakeholder Information Session

November 24th, 2009

Otello’s Banquet & Conference Centre

22

Welcome - Coco Calderhead,

Aboriginal & Community Relations, TransCanada


3

List of Residents’/Ratepayers’ Associations (Confirmed Attending)

Whiteoaks Lorne Park Community Association North-East Oakville Residents’ Association

Coronation Park Residents Association Residents’ Association North of Dundas

Miranet Sherwood Forrest Residents’ Association

Joshua Creek Residents’ Association Meadow Wood-Rattray Ratepayers’ Association

Clearview Oakville Community Alliance West River Residents’ Association

West Harbour Residents’ Association Southwest Central Oakville Residents’ Association

Sheridan Homelands Ratepayers’ Association West Kerr Village Residents’ Association

Trafalgar Chartwell Residents’ Association Birch Glen Residents’ Association

Chartwell Maple Grove Residents’Association Owenwood Residents’ Association

Oakville Lakeside Residents’ Association Benedet Woods Community Association

4


Objectives of this Information Session:

• provide a forum to present to local community associations the Environmental Assessment (EA) process, the Project facility design, and study results on air quality and human health;

• clarify pre-existing information and provide new information on the Project;

• present the commitments TransCanada has made;

• address the questions and concerns of local community associations;

• understand how to best communicate information to the public going forward and to establish an ongoing dialogue;

• identify ways to develop and build positive relationships in the community.

5

Agenda & Ground Rules - Jim Faught

Facilitator, LURA

5


6


Agenda

6:00 pm Refreshments/Light Dinner & Sign-In

7:00 pm Welcome & Objectives of the Information Session, (Coco Calderhead, TransCanada)

7:05 pm Overview of Agenda & Ground Rules (Jim Faught, LURA)

7:10 pm Environmental Assessment Process (Christine Cinnamon, TransCanada)

7:20 pm Question and Answer Period

7:25 pm OGS Facility Design (Terri Steeves, TransCanada)

7:40 pm Study Results: Air Quality (Chris Marson, SENES)

7:55 pm Study Results: Human Health (Dr. Harriet Phillips, SENES)

8:10 pm Question & Answer Period

9:10-9:25 pm Next Steps for Engagement with Community (Coco Calderhead & Jim Faught)

7


Ground Rules

• A third-party facilitator has been engaged to moderate this session. All

questions should be directed through the facilitator who will chair the Q & A.

• Please introduce yourself before your question or comment.

• Two questions with a maximum of 2 minutes per person to allow a chance

for all to be heard.

• No personal attacks – please show decorum and respect for each other’s

opinions.

• Please do not interrupt a speaker who has the floor. The person with the

microphone has the floor.

• One speaker or discussion at a time please.

• No speaker may speak a second time on a topic until all persons wishing to

speak on the topic have had a chance.

8

Environmental Assessment & Permitting Process -

Presented by Christine Cinnamon,

Environmental Manager, TransCanada


9

The “Guide”

• The Project follows the Ministry of the Environment’s Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects, March 2001 (pursuant to Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act)

• The most comprehensive assessment under the Guide for a natural gas electricity project is to produce an Environmental Review Report (ERR)

• The technical studies undertaken in support of the ERR are of the same scope and comprehensiveness as would be done for an individual EA

10

Status of Environmental Review Report

•TransCanada is currently finalizing the ERR and Supporting Documents to be available for public and agency review in January 2010.

•Information used in the ERR has been and continues to be provided to the Town and posted to the Town’s website.

•A Notice of Completion will be issued to all people on the project mailing list and published in local newspapers once the ERR is available.

•Hard copies of the documents will be available in designated locations and all documents will be available electronically.

•The Town, Region, Conservation Authority, and provincial and federal government agencies will be reviewing the documents simultaneously with the public.

11

Public Review

• Public will have the opportunity to provide feedback on our studies and results as presented in the ERR, normally during a 30 day review period which we have voluntarily extended to 75 days

• Financial support for an independent peer review has been offered to the Town of Oakville

• Should there be remaining issues, the public may request an elevation of the project to an Individual Environmental Assessment

• Other consultation and engagement activities are scheduled to occur on an ongoing basis and based on feedback received from the community

12

Timing

• March/April 2009 - Notice of Commencement of EA process

• April 14, 2009 - Open House #1 (Introduction to proposed OGS)

• June 22, 2009 - Open House #2 (Presentation of study results)

• November 2009 – Information Session

• January 2010 – submission of ERR to Ministry of the Environment (MOE), publish Notice of Completion triggering start of public review period

• January 2010 – Open House #3

• January – March 2010 – public provides comments and TransCanada addresses comments

• Summer/Fall 2010 - EA and permitting process complete

13


Question & Answer Period

14

Facility Design -

Presented by Terri Steeves,

Project Manager, OGS, TransCanada


15

Portfolio of Quality Assets

• 59,000 km of wholly owned natural gas pipeline

• Interests in an additional 7,800 km of natural gas pipeline

• 15 Billion cubic feet per day

• 370 Bcf of natural gas storage capacity

• 19 power plants

• 10,900 megawatts

• Crude oil pipeline under construction

TransCanada Corporation (TSX/NYSE: TRP)

16

Portlands Energy Centre, Toronto

• 550 MW natural gas combined cycle

• In-service since April 2009

• Located within 1 km of residential neighbourhood

• 450 metres from closest receptor (marina)

1 km radius

17

Halton Hills

• 683 MW Natural Gas Combined Cycle

• 280 metres from nearest resident

• In-service expected Q3 2010

• Intermediate duty

Insert HHGS photo

18

Power Facilities in New York City

• 80% of NYC peak demand must

be met by in-city capacity

• TransCanada 2,450 MW

Ravenswood Facility in Queen’s,

NY

• Roosevelt Island and

Queensbridge Housing Project

within 300 m of site

1 km radius

Power plants in NYC

19

Shoreham Power Station, West Sussex, UK

• 420 MW combined cycle

• Opened in Summer 2000

• Less than 200 metres from nearest residences

• Flexible operation – operating base load

1 km radius

20

Santan Generating Station, Phoenix, AZ

• 1,225 MW natural gas combined-cycle• Staged in-service 1974 -2006• Residentialcommunity adjacent to facilities (less than 200 metres)• Intermediate duty

1 km radius

21

Southwest GTA RFP

Key Mandatory Elements:

• Natural gas combined cycle

• 900 MW maximum, 750 MW minimum

• Commercial operation before December 31, 2013

• NOx and CO @ concentration less than 15 ppm

• Gas distribution services from Union/Enbridge

• Control of Site and Private Connection Line

• Must be sited within 2 km of designated transmission lines

Key Rated Criteria:

• Municipal Approvals

• Environmental Approvals

• Engineering procurement construction contract

• Equipment Secured

• Fuel Supply

22

Oakville GS – Facility Description

Combustion Gas Turbine (CGT) and Step Up Transformers

Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG)

Emissions Control Technology (SCRs)

Steam Turbine

Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower

Gas Insulated Switchyard

1

3

2

5

4

6

1

32

54

6

23

Flow diagram of the process

OGS is a natural gas fired

combined cycle facility

utilizing 2 industrial

combustion gas turbines

(CGTs). Each CGT is

connected to a heat

recovery steam generator

(HRSG). The HRSG

produces steam which is

provided to a single steam

turbine. This is known as

a 2x1 configuration.

Insert flow diagram from ERR

24

Oakville Generating Station – Optimal Site

• Compliant with RFP requirements

• Proximity to the transmission connection

• Proximity to gas connections• Zoning appropriate for power

generation • 15 acre site • Close to essential

infrastructure, including major roads, railways

• Water sourced from existing privately owned pipeline from Lake Ontario

• Utilizes an existing privately owned water discharge

25

Emission Reduction Technology at Oakville Generating Station

•Selected the most advanced gas turbine technology commercially available for OGS

•Higher power density

•Improved GHG environmental performance

•OGS will feature dry low emission technology on the CGTs and the duct burners and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCRs)

•Ontario Power Authority has stipulated emission standards 70% and 75% below MOE requirements for NOx and CO

•TransCanada has gone beyond the OPA requirements and commits to reducing NOx to 3.5 ppm - 93% below the respective MOE requirements

26

Oakville Generating Station - Schedule

ID Task Name2010 2011 201320122009

Q1Q3Q1Q2Q2 Q4 Q1Q1 Q3 Q2Q3Q1 Q4Q4Q2 Q3 Q4

1 OPA RFP Released

2 First Open House

4 Bid Submission to OPA

6 Submit ERR

11 Latest Commercial Operation Date

8

5

3 Second Open House

Successful Proponent Selected

EA Process Complete

9 Other Approvals

10 Construction

12 Public Consultation

7 Third Open House

2014

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

27

Air Quality - Presented by Chris Marson,

SENES Consultants Limited


28

What is an Air Quality Assessment?

• Well developed methods using solid science and following MOE

regulatory requirements (O.Reg.419/05 – Air Pollution – Local Air

Quality) and MOE guidelines:

• Procedure for Preparing an Emission Summary and Dispersion

Modelling Report (Procedure document)

• Air Dispersion Modelling Guide for Ontario (ADMGO)

• Guideline for the Implementation of Air Standards in Ontario

(GIASO)

• Cornerstone of O.Reg. 419/05 is to assess potential impacts on air

quality by calculating maximum concentration that occurs at any

location using highest possible emission rate and modelling under the

worst meteorological conditions and compare to MOE

standards/guideline. For all other conditions the actual impact will

be less.

29

What is an Air Quality Assessment? ..2

Basic method

• Determine existing conditions

• Develop worst case emissions

• Model and determine maximum concentrations

• Compare to applicable standards/guidelines

30

Existing Conditions – Clarkson Airshed Study

Study had four parts

• Part I – Scoping of study

• Part II – Six monitoring stations for 18 months

• Part III – Air Dispersion Modelling

• Part IV – Expert Review

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates (PM2.5) were found to be the most elevated

Modelling showed that for concentrations of NOx and PM2.5:

• 50-70% are due to vehicular traffic;

• 25-35% are due to local industrial sources; and

• 15-60% are due to long range transport from outside the study area.

Monitoring showed that during periods of elevated levels of PM2.5 ~50% is long range

transport from US

31

Air Emissions – Natural Gas Combustion

• Over 80% of the material exiting the stack consists of warm air and the remainder are products of combustion of natural gas

• Of the products of combustion, more than 99.95% is carbon dioxide and water

• There are other compounds emitted in much smaller quantities (less than 0.05%)

CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2Omethane oxygen carbon dioxide water

Composition of Air:Air consists of ~80% nitrogen (N2) and 20% oxygen (O2)

32

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

• CO2 is a greenhouse gas

• Natural gas produces less CO2 than coal by more than 60% based on the comparison of emissions for the generation of the same quantity of electricity

• The effects of greenhouse gas emissions are on a global basis (not local)

• Every natural gas project displaces coal fired generation and also acts as a backup for the renewable (for when there is insufficient wind or sunlight)

33

Air Dispersion Assessment Methodology

• The non-greenhouse gas emissions from any facility are assessed based on their impacts on local air quality

• All other conditions will create less effect than the worst-case conditions

• Methodology includes:

• the generation of an emission inventory that includes all on- site sources

• Use of MOE approved air dispersion model to determine maximum potential impact on local air quality

34

Air Dispersion Assessment Methodology ..2

Contaminants considered

• Conventional Air Contaminants (CACs)

• Nitrogen oxides (NOx);

• Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5);

• Carbon monoxide (CO);

• Sulphur dioxide (SO2); and

• Ammonia (NH3)

• Trace Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

• Trace Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

• Trace Metals

35


Existing levels of contaminants determined from:

• Air quality data from six Clarkson Airshed Study Part II monitoring stations for the year 2004

• Conservative since two stations are adjacent to the QEW, three are near industrial sources and one is residential

• 90th percentile of daily average of all stations used to represent hourly and daily background

• 70th percentile of daily averages used for annual background

Definition of Percentile:Sort of all the data into descending order. The 90th percentileis the value that for 90% of the time, the actual concentration is less than that value.

36


Emissions

• Maximum emission scenarios (5) chosen to match time averaging periods for all criteria for each contaminant

• Startup, shutdown, 3.5 ppm NOx

• Selective Catalytic Reduction (Ammonia (NH3) slip)

• Duct burners

• Auxiliary boiler

• Standby emergency diesel generator

37


Modelling

• undertaken as per O.Reg. 419/05, ADMGO, ESDM Procedure, ACME format

• Used MOE regulatory approved model AERMOD

• Grid spacing;

• Building downwash;

• Terrain; and

• 5 years of approved representative meteorology from Pearson International Airport (about 20 km north-north-east of site)

38


AERMOD modelling:

• Used grid spacing of receptors specified in O.Reg.419/05 results in ~1,900 receptor locations

• Evaluation involves:

• worst single hour (1 hour out of 43,800 hours)

• worst single day (1 day out of 1,825 days)

Modelling results provided to Human Health Risk Assessment

39

Air Dispersion Modelling Results

Summary of Maximum Incremental Modelling Results for Conventional Air Contaminants as Percentage of Criteria

5% 30% 8% 3% 2% 0.02% 0.07% 0.20% 6%

40

Air Dispersion Modelling Results ..2

VOCs

• Acrolein 2% of ½ hr and 24 hr criteria

• Formaldehyde at 0.3% of 24 hr criteria

• Rest < 0.01% of applicable criteria

PAHs

• All <0.05% of applicable criteria

Metals

• Cadmium 1.5% of 24 hr and 0.5% of annual criteria

• Rest <0.1% of applicable criteria

41


NOx Annual Incremental Concentrations Maximum Scenario

Environment Canada Annual MAL 100 µg/m3

Estimated Background 20 µg/m3

42


Location of Selected Receptors

43


Frequency Percentiles of 24 hour Average Incremental NO2Concentration at Selected Receptors (µg/m3)

Location

Concentrations at Frequency Percentiles

Maximum

(100th)98th 95th 90th 50th

RMax 9.8 2.1 0.1 0.004 0.00

R1 5.0 2.1 1.6 1.1 0.05

R2 5.0 2.1 1.5 1.0 0.06

R3 4.6 1.7 1.0 0.4 0.02

S 3.6 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.05

Note: Assumed�background�(90th percentile�of�monitored�NO2 data)�=�26�μg/m3

44


Note: Assumed�background�(90th percentile�of�monitored�NO2 data)�=�26�μg/m3

Sorted NO2 24 Hr Average Incremental Concentrations Including Background at Maximum Locationg

45

Comparison of OGS Emissions to Clarkson Airshed Study (2004) Emissions

OGS emissions are small in comparison to existing sources within the Clarkson Airshed

46


In summary, the proposed OGS will readily meet all applicable federal and provincial criteria for all contaminants modelled under the corresponding maximum emission scenario

47

Human Health Risk Assessment - Presented by Dr. Harriet Phillips,

SENES Consultants Limited

48

What is a Human Health Risk Assessment?

• Methodology using sound science and professional knowledge to determine if a particular chemical poses a risk to human health

• Helps scientists and regulators identify serious health hazards and determine ways to reduce exposure so there is no identifiable health risk

• Human health risk assessments do not provide information as to whether exposure to a chemical causes a current health problem; these linkages are obtained from epidemiological studies

4949

• Relied heavily on information from the Air Quality Assessment• Used maximum concentration location (all other locations will

be lower) and three closest residential receptors• Used five (5) different emission scenarios

• Followed procedures outlined by regulatory agencies such as the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), Environment Canada, Health Canada, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)

Overview

5050

Gaseous Air Pollutants • CO, NH3, NO2, SO2

Trace Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)• 12 compounds

Trace Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)• 19 compounds

Trace Metals• 14 metals

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5, PM10)

Chemicals of Concern (COC)

5151

Receptor Locations

5252

• Assessed possibility of short-term (1 hour, 8 hour, 24 hour) and long-term (annual) adverse human health outcomes

• Exposures based on predicted maximum concentration and at 3 closest residential locations

• Cautious assumptions to ensure risks were not underestimated (likely over-estimated exposure)

Exposure Assessment

53

Air Quality Standards Versus Health- Based Values

Gaseous�Air�Pollutant�

Averaging�Time�

Air�Quality�Standard�(μg/m3)�

Health�Based�Value

(μg/m3)�

NOx�

1�hour� 400� 200�(WHO)�

Annual� 200� 40�(WHO)�

SOx� 24�hour� 275� 20�(WHO)�

PM2.5� 24�hour� 30� 7�(California�Air�Resources�

Board)�

5454

Pathways Considered

55

Results of Gaseous Pollutants at Maximum Concentration Location

55

HQ = Predicted Concentration/Health-Based Value

* - Based on worst daytime hour of meteorology – only occurs if testing of generator at same time as the worst 1-hour meteorological condition, conservatively assuming all NOx is as NO2

**

*

*

56

NOx Concentrations from OGS at Closest Residential Receptor Location (R1)

56

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Mod

elled�24

�hr�Average�NOx�Co

ncen

tration�at�R1�(μg/m3)

Day�of�Year

Annual Health Based Value – 40 µg/m3

57

Total 24-hour NOx Concentrations at Closest Residential Receptor Location (R1)

57

Annual Health Based Value – 40 µg/m3

58

PM2.5 Concentrations from OGS at Closest Residential Receptor Location (R1)

58

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

24�Hr�Average�PM2.5�Co

ncen

tration�(μg/m3)

Days�of�Year

24-hour Health-Based Value – 7 µg/m3

59

Total Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations at Closest Receptor Location (R1)

59

60

Results for Non-Cancer Causing Chemicals at Maximum Concentration Location

60

61

Results for Cancer Causing Chemicals at Maximum Concentration Location

61

6262

Conclusion of HHRA

• No respiratory effects are expected from gaseous pollutants (NOx, SOx CO and NH3) emitted from OGS

• Predicted incremental PM2.5 concentrations from OGS are not discernable from background and are NOT expected to result in any measurable change in risk to people

• No increased risk of cancer or non-cancer effects expected in community as a result of OGS

63


Question & Answer Period