Table of Contents - Province of British Columbia

Transcription

APPLICATION FOR A PROJECT APPROVAL CERTIFICATE:
VANCOUVER ISLAND GENERATION PROJECT
Volume I
Prepared by:
Vancouver Island Energy Corporation
Vancouver, British Columbia
June, 2002
Levelton File: 401-0968
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Vancouver Island Energy Corporation (VIEC), a wholly owned subsidiary of BC Hydro, is
submitting this Application to the BC Environmental Assessment Office to obtain a Project
Approval Certificate for the Vancouver Island Generation Project (VIGP). VIEC proposes to
develop a $370 million power generation project based on advanced, combined-cycle gas
turbine technology capable of producing nominally 265 MW (increased to 295 MW with ductfiring) of electricity for delivery to the BC Hydro power grid. The plant will use state of the art
technology and be fuelled with natural gas to generate electricity at high efficiency and with
low emissions. The site proposed for the power plant is 10.1 ha in area and located at Duke
Point on property that VIEC has an option to purchase from Pope & Talbot Ltd. (Harmac
Pulp Operations).
PROJECT RATIONALE
The project is being developed to help meet domestic electricity demand on Vancouver
Island from the winter of 2004/2005 onward. Demand for electricity on Vancouver Island is
growing at a rate of 1.6% per annum. VIGP will also help to replace electricity that is
currently being delivered to Vancouver Island via submarine cables, some of which will be
decommissioned in stages between now and 2007. The majority of the electricity generated
by VIGP will be used to supply loads in Nanaimo and other communities in the region.
SITE SELECTION
Alternative areas and sites on Vancouver Island were identified and evaluated before
deciding on the proposed site for VIGP. The site selection process was conducted in three
phases that were designed to systematically and objectively consider land use and regional
planning, engineering, environmental, human health and socio-economic/cultural-heritage
factors. The site selection process endeavoured to find the project site that met engineering
and business requirements, offered socio-economic benefits to the community, while
minimizing or avoiding adverse impacts.
The site selection process considered candidate sites within a large area extending on the
east coast of Vancouver Island from near the northern limits of the Nanaimo Regional
District, inland from Qualicum Bay, 100 km south to near Crofton in the District of North
Cowichan. Seventeen sites underwent a screening level evaluation in Phase 1, of which
seven sites were short-listed for further analysis in Phase 2 using a multiple account
evaluation technique. The three highest rated sites progressed to Phase 3 for final site
selection.
After further evaluation of the suitability of the three highest rated sites, the Harmac site was
concluded to be the most suitable site. The Harmac site offers numerous attractive features,
including: adequate size (10.1 ha); heavy industrial zoning and compatible surrounding land
use; substantial distance from residential areas; reduced environmental values as a result of
past industrial development; and access to existing infrastructure for water supply,
wastewater treatment, natural gas supply, power transmission connection and road
transportation. Developed areas surround the site, with the mill’s effluent treatment system
APPLICATION FOR PROJECT APPROVAL CERTIFICATE
i
to the north, power transmission line and Wave Place to the south, Hooker Road to the west
and the Harmac Substation to the east.
PROJECT FACILITIES
VIGP includes a power plant and ancillary equipment with a nominal power output of 265
MW to 295 MW, upgrading of 9 km of existing BC Hydro power transmission line, a 440 m
long natural gas service line, and fresh water and wastewater pipelines within existing
developed areas connecting VIGP to existing infrastructure at the Harmac mill. The major
components of the proposed VIGP facilities are:
•
A natural gas fired combined cycle power plant with a nominal base power output of 265
MW without duct firing and a peak power output of 295 MW with duct firing, comprised of
the following major equipment:
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
a GE 7FA natural gas fired combustion turbine generator equipped with dry low NOx
(and low CO) emission combustors;
a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) with duct burners that will provide
additional heat input and steam generation during peak electricity demand periods;
a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) unit with an aqueous ammonia storage and
handling system to reduce NOX emissions to the atmosphere;
a single condensing steam turbine generator (STG);
a surface condenser, cooling water circuit and wet cooling tower to condense the
exhaust steam from the STG and vent this heat to the atmosphere;
a feedwater treatment system;
a wastewater collection system;
a small package sanitary sewage treatment unit and an effluent pipeline to tie-in to
the Harmac mill outfall;
electrical switchgear and equipment to step up the voltage to 138 kVolt; and
ancillary equipment, buildings and a 45.7 m tall exhaust stack.
•
A 440 m long, 219 mm diameter natural gas service line supplying the plant with natural
gas from Centra's existing Harmac lateral pipeline;
•
An 850 m long water supply pipeline within an existing right-of-way beside Wave Place
to transport raw water from the existing Harmac mill water reservoir to the plant;
•
A 325 m long pipeline within the VIGP and Harmac plant site areas to transport
wastewater from VIGP to the existing Harmac mill effluent treatment system, where it will
be combined with mill effluent, treated to meet existing effluent permit requirements,
then discharged to Northumberland Channel through an existing outfall;
•
An upgrade of the existing BC Hydro power transmission line that presently provides
power to industrial users in the Duke Point area, involving addition of a 3 km circuit from
the Harewood Tap at the mainline to the Harewood Substation and the upgrade of a 6
km portion of the circuit from the Harewood Substation to Harmac, all within existing
right-of-ways; and
•
Temporary construction space and works needed during construction and startup of the
project facilities. Laydown area for the VIGP plant will be located on the proposed plant
ii
site, while workspace for linear developments will be within existing right-of-ways, or on
already developed land.
VIGP proposes to obtain its water supply from Pope & Talbot Ltd. (Harmac) under their
existing water license. VIGP will use water Harmac is licensed to divert from the Nanaimo
River. No changes to the water intake works or water pipeline will be required. Potable water
for the plant will be processed from the raw water obtained from Harmac.
Cooling tower blowdown, boiler water blowdown and other miscellaneous process
wastewater will be treated in the Harmac mill effluent treatment plant and discharged
through the existing submerged outfall into Northumberland Channel. Wastewater from
sanitary facilities (sinks and toilets) will be treated in a packaged treatment unit and then
combined with the treated process effluent from the secondary effluent treatment plant.
CONSULTATION
A comprehensive consultation program was conducted for the preparation of this
Application. The objectives of the consultation program were achieved by:
•
•
•
•
identifying and proactively contacting a wide range of stakeholders potentially having
concerns about or interest in the proposed project;
providing project information to stakeholders since fall, 2001 through a variety of
means, including open houses, roundtable discussions, newspaper advertisements,
face to face meetings, responses to questions and information on BC Hydro’s web
page;
two-way dialogue with stakeholders to inform them about the project design and
potential effects, to listen to their concerns, and to discuss impact mitigation plans
and options;
incorporating feedback from stakeholders into the final project design.
VIGP is also pursuing a consultation program with the Snuneymuxw First Nation to identify
and address their project-related concerns. To date, contact has occurred through
meetings, telephone calls, letters and their participation in the archaeology and traditional
use studies. Discussions as to the form that formal consultation will take have been
initiated. First Nations, as part of the local community, were invited to participate in the
broad community consultation program.
VIGP consulted extensively with stakeholders, particularly in areas where there were
concerns about the potential effects of the proposed project. The project design was
modified over the course of the assessment process to include measures to mitigate to the
extent practical the issues that were raised.
Following acceptance of this Application, VIGP commits to proceeding with a program to
notify stakeholders and the general public about the Application and the proposed project.
VIGP will also continue to work during the review period, and thereafter, with local residents
and other stakeholders to resolve any issues that are of concern, and to enhance the
benefits expected from the project.
iii
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT
A comprehensive environmental impact assessment has been completed for VIGP, which
considered the potential effects of construction and operation of the proposed power plant,
natural gas pipeline, power transmission line upgrades and water/wastewater pipelines. The
environmental and health assessment contained in this Application considers a wide range
of issues and concerns about the effects of VIGP that were identified through consultation
with stakeholders and other means. The assessment addresses both direct and cumulative
effects of VIGP.
With the mitigation measures and monitoring activities included in the proposed project
design and construction plans, it is concluded that there will be no significant adverse
environmental impacts from construction and operation of VIGP. The assessment of
potential environmental impacts, as summarised in Tables S-1 and S-2, indicates all issues
are adequately mitigated by the commitments proposed in this Application. Some
supplemental mitigation measures are identified for the construction and start-up phases of
the project, which will enhance the proposed mitigation measures, should this be required in
response to monitoring information.
VIGP also proposes to implement the monitoring
programs outlined in this Table and described in this Application. A summary of the
commitments made to mitigate potential impacts and conduct environmental monitoring is
provided in Appendix L.
VIGP Plant Site and Natural Gas Service Line
Air Quality
The potential impact of VIGP on air quality in the Nanaimo region was quantified and
assessed for a 50 km by 50 km area centred at the plant site. This assessment considered
the maximum ambient pollutant concentrations from VIGP emissions, combined with
baseline ambient air quality for the area, and the maximum pollutant concentrations from
combined VIGP and Harmac mill emissions compared to the effect of Harmac emissions
alone. An assessment was also completed of long-range impacts of VIGP emissions on air
quality in the Georgia Basin, outside the Nanaimo region. This considered a study area 80
km in a north-south direction by 104 km in an east-west direction centred over the southern
tip of Gabriola Island, with the eastern part of the area extending to the Lower Fraser Valley
and the nearest areas of Washington State.
An analysis of ambient air quality data has shown that air quality in Nanaimo is good, with
the frequency of exceeding various objectives and standards ranging from low to none. The
air quality in Nanaimo is typical for the east coast of Vancouver Island, and cleaner than
larger urban centres with respect to particulate matter and other pollutants.
The impact of VIGP on the air quality in Nanaimo region and on the southern part of the
Georgia Basin was assessed comprehensively using the CALPUFF dispersion model and a
modelling protocol developed in agreement with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air
Protection. This model uses three-dimensional fields of meteorological parameters
generated by a combination of prognostic and diagnostic meteorological models. Two years
of hourly meteorological data (1995 and 2000-2001) were used to model air quality impacts
in the Nanaimo region. One year of meteorological data (2000-2001) was used to model
long-range air quality impacts.
iv
Some of the key findings from the air quality assessment are summarised below and show
that maximum ambient concentrations of NO2, PM2.5 (including primary and secondary
particulate matter), CO and SO2 in the project area with VIGP operating at maximum
emission rates will remain low compared to the most stringent federal and provincial ambient
air quality objectives. The maximum 24-h PM2.5 concentration from VIGP emissions is very
low. The maximum predicted concentrations shown for VIGP occur in the Duke Point
industrial area, within less than 100 m of the site fenceline. The maximum 1-h NO2
concentration from VIGP emissions combined with the background level decreases with
distance from 17% of the objective in the industrial area to lower values in residential areas,
varying from 12% of the objective in Nanaimo, to 13% of the objective in Cedar and 12% of
the objective on Gabriola Island. Ninety-eight percent of the 1-h NO2 concentrations
resulting from VIGP emissions in the 2-year modelling period are much less than the
maximum reported value, especially in residential communities, with values at less than 9.7
µg/m3 in the Duke Point industrial area, 0.9 µg/m3 in Nanaimo, 1.5 µg/m3 in Cedar and 0.7
µg/m3 on Gabriola Island. This same trend was observed for concentrations of all modelled
pollutants from VIGP, indicating that maximum predicted concentrations occur infrequently.
The detailed assessment of the effects of VIGP emissions completed for this application
indicates that VIGP will have a minimal impact on air quality in the Nanaimo region and that
maximum pollutant concentrations from VIGP and existing emission sources will remain well
below the most stringent federal and provincial objectives.
Pollutant
NO2
PM2.5 (primary)
PM2.5
(primary+secondary)
SO2
CO
Averaging
Period
1-hour
24-hour
annual
24-hour
annual
24-hour
annual
1-hour
24-hour
annual
1-hour
8-hour
Maximum
Concentration
VIGP Alone
µg/m3 and
(% of objective)
32.1
(8%)
12.7
(6.4%)
0.8
(1.3%)
1.1
(3.7%)
0.07
1.1
(3.7%)
0.08
3.4
(0.8%)
1.4
(0.9%)
0.09
(0.4%)
68.2
(0.5%)
32.
(0.6%)
Maximum
Concentration
VIGP Plus
Background
µg/m3 and
(% of objective)
67.4 (17%)
32
(16%)
11.8 (20%)
13.1 (44%)
4.5
13.1 (44%)
4.5
Ambient
Objective
µg/m3
400
200
60
30
30
450
150
25
14,300
5,500
When VIGP emissions were modelled in combination with the Harmac mill, the results show
that there is essentially no change in the maximum predicted concentrations of any of the
pollutants modelled when compared to the results for the Harmac mill alone. At higher
elevations in the region, maximum 1-h NO2 concentrations for the combined sources were
found to increase at worst by 10-15 µg/m3, or less than 10% of the federal objective. All
v
other emissions from VIGP result in no detectable change to ambient concentrations when
combined with emissions from the Harmac mill.
The potential impact of NOx and CO emissions from VIGP during start-up, partial load and
an upset in the operation of the SCR was assessed using data on emission rates during
these periods and methods acceptable to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.
The highest ambient 1-h NOx and CO concentrations during start-up conditions were
predicted to occur during a cold start and were less than 30% of the federal acceptable NO2
objective and 16% of the provincial CO Level A objective, respectively. Operation of VIGP
at 274 MW in an upset situation with the SCR not in operation was predicted to result in a
maximum ambient 1-h NO2 concentration of 70.9 µg/m3 from VIGP alone, and 106 µg/m3
when including the background NO2 concentration. Consequently, even with the SCR
temporarily out of service, the 1-h NO2 concentration (with background) remains less than
27% of the federal acceptable objective.
The maximum acidic deposition rates from both VIGP and the Harmac mill were determined
to be 0.056 kmol H+ equiv/ha/yr near the plant and 0.028 kmol H+ equiv/ha/yr elsewhere.
These levels are less than 33% of the most stringent guideline applied in Western Canada
for sensitive receiving environments. Based on predicted maximum acidic deposition rates,
data for the existing receiving environment and comparisons to existing guidelines, it is
concluded that emissions from VIGP will have an insignificant effect on acidic deposition
rates, and no significant effects on soils, surface waters or aquatic habitat in the region.
Monitoring data and ozone climatology analysis indicates that Nanaimo is not prone to
episodes of high ground-level ozone concentrations in Summer from industrial, motor
vehicle, commercial and other regional emissions. Complex modelling of the effect of a NOx
emission source in the Lower Fraser Valley, that is larger than VIGP, estimated the
maximum increase in ground-level ozone concentration would be less than approximately 8
µg/m3 (4 ppb). As the modelled emission source was larger than VIGP and located in an
airshed that is susceptible to ozone formation in Summer conditions, this predicted ozone
concentration can be considered as a very conservative upper bound for the potential effect
of VIGP. As this upper bound is only 5% of the federal acceptable air quality objective, the
1-h ozone concentrations in Nanaimo are below the federal objective 97% of the time, and
the Nanaimo airshed is not prone to summer ozone episodes, it is concluded that VIGP
emissions will not have any significant affect on ground-level ozone concentrations in the
Nanaimo area.
Although the water vapour plume from the cooling tower and the stack will be visible at
times (more so in the winter than the summer) from various locations in the Nanaimo area,
the overall impact is expected to be minimal. The water vapour plumes from VIGP will be
similar in nature and general behaviour to the existing plumes from the Harmac mill and are
compatible with existing industrial development in the Duke Point area.
The potential impact of VIGP emissions on regional visibility was found from modelling
analysis to be sufficiently low that it would only marginally affect background levels. Of the
754 days modelled only 14 days showed a perceptible change in visibility conditions.
Modelling analysis of the worst-case effects of VIGP on air quality in the Georgia Basin
revealed that VIGP will have no measurable impact on air quality in the Lower Fraser Valley,
in the nearest areas of Washington State or in other similarly distant areas. The maximum
effect of VIGP in the Lower Fraser Valley is predicted to be less than 0.1% of the maximum
vi
measured 1-h NO2 concentration and 0.007% of the maximum measured 24-h PM2.5
concentration reported in 2000.
GHG Management
BC Hydro has committed to offsetting 50% of the GHG emissions from both VIGP and the
Island Cogeneration Project in Campbell River (where BC Hydro is the power purchaser) in
the period through 2010.
Noise
A stringent operational noise specification has been developed for VIGP to control the noise
emissions from the facility. Equipment will be designed to collectively meet this noise
specification, and, once achieving commercial operation, 24-h noise tests will be completed
to verify that the plant is complying with the noise specification.
Twenty-four hour noise measurements were made at residential locations in Cedar and on
Gabriola Island closest to the proposed VIGP plant site. Predictions were made of the noise
levels at these same locations with VIGP in operation and meeting the plant noise
specification. The predicted noise effects of VIGP were compared to measured night-time
background noise levels at the monitoring sites to establish if VIGP would have an impact
on environmental noise. The combined noise level with VIGP in operation is predicted to be
less than 3 dBA above the night-time background level, and will not normally be noticeable.
The proposed mitigation measures are expected to minimise noise during construction and
avoid residual noise impacts from operation of the proposed VIGP project.
Hydrology and Stormwater Run-off
During the construction phase of the project, a stormwater management plan will be
implemented to mitigate impacts from the site runoff. This plan will include collection of runoff from the construction area and routing of this water through a settling pond, which will
remove sediment and provide a control point for minor hydrocarbon spills. The pond will
discharge to the same natural drainage areas that existed prior to site development. The
discharge will flow overland and percolate into the soil as it moves northwest through a treed
area.
After construction of VIGP has been completed, the settling pond will be converted to a
stormwater detention pond for use throughout the operating life of the plant. The planned
mitigation measures will keep off-site storm-water run-off from the plant site near current
levels, while ensuring that sediment that may be present in the on-site stormwater flows to
the detention pond are properly treated before discharge.
Wastewater Discharge
Wastewater from VIGP will consist largely of cooling water and boiler blowdown (90-94% of
the volume) and smaller amounts of wastewater from feedwater treatment and floor
drainage from process and building areas. The process water will be largely uncontaminated
cooling water containing low concentrations of suspended and dissolved solids, chlorine
used for control of bacterial and algae growth and compounds present in the raw water. The
process water will flow to the Harmac effluent treatment system where it will be combined
with mill effluent prior to treatment and discharged in accordance with Harmac’s effluent
permit.
vii
The process wastewater from VIGP will have low concentrations of contaminants and
generally be similar to sources of low strength effluent from Harmac’s boiler water treatment
system, blowdown from boilers and cooling water flows. The wastewater flow from VIGP
amounts to only 0.5-0.7% of the mean wastewater flow from Harmac and 0.3-0.5% of the
allowable discharge under the permit. The water temperature will be 13-28°C, which is
lower than the temperature of the mill wastewater going to the treatment system. The VIGP
wastewater will have no adverse effect on the performance of Harmac’s effluent treatment
system, and no measurable impact on the quality or temperature of wastewater discharged
from the Harmac’s outfall. It is concluded that the VIGP will result in a very small increase in
the volume of wastewater discharge from Harmac and no significant impact on the
concentration of chemicals discharged and, hence, no significant impact on receiving waters
or aquatic habitat.
Fish, Wildlife and Vegetation
Although construction and operation of the proposed power plant and the natural gas
service line will have short-term effects during construction and result in some loss of
habitat, the affected area is small and the potential impacts will be minimized using the
proven mitigation and monitoring measures. The plant site has been extensively disturbed
by past industrial development. The short natural gas service line will be built within existing
disturbed right-of-ways over much of its length, minimizing habitat loss and environmental
effects.
Terrain and Soils
Residual effects on the local terrain and soils are expected to be negligible as a result of the
existing gentle site grades and the limited extent of on-site soils. No large cuts are
anticipated as part of the proposed development. The implementation of the proposed
stormwater management plan will mitigate impacts of stormwater run-off.
Archaeological Resources
The archaeological impact assessment for the plant site determined that much of the
proposed VIGP plant site has no archaeological site potential. Monitoring of the portion of
the plant site that is presently covered with stored rock will be conducted by the project
archaeologist to examine the surface of the sandstone bedrock after this material has been
removed.
Health Impact Assessment
An analysis of the risk to human health from emissions of criteria and non-criteria pollutants
from the VIGP power plant was undertaken using methods developed in consultation with
the Vancouver Island Health Authority, based on methods used by Health Canada for the
health effects of PM10 and PM2.5, and by the US EPA and the California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment for the health effects of criteria and non-criteria
chemical pollutants.
The acute and chronic lifetime cancer risk associated with the maximum predicted ambient
pollutant concentrations with VIGP operating at peak power output was determined to be
less than 1 additional case per million population for a 70-year lifetime exposure. This level
is widely accepted in Canada and the US as indicating there will be no significant cancer
health risk. A detailed analysis of the potential for acute and chronic non-cancer health
viii
effects from VIGP emissions was also conducted and found that such hazards were very
low compared to health based guidelines and would result in a negligible risk to public
health.
Potential health impacts associated with the predicted small increase in ambient PM10 and
PM2.5 concentrations above the measured baseline concentration were estimated for VIGP
using the maximum predicted ambient concentration with VIGP operating at peak power
output. This predicted maximum concentration was added to measured daily ambient
concentrations for 1998-2001 to calculate human exposure. The methodology used for the
analysis is the same health-based technique applied recently in Canada in support of the
development of national ambient air quality objectives for particulate matter. The analysis
shows that VIGP emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 will have negligible health impacts in all
areas, including Nanaimo, Cedar, Gabriola Island and elsewhere, compared to current
exposure. The analysis also shows that the baseline heath risk at ambient PM10 and PM2.5
concentrations measured in recent years is low compare to other communities and to other
sources of health risk.
Power Transmission Line
An environmental impact assessment of the power transmission line upgrades for VIGP was
undertaken to ascertain the nature and extent of potential environmental impacts from the
construction and operation, and to develop mitigation and monitoring plans for avoiding or
reducing impacts to an acceptable level.
The environmental assessment considered soils and terrain, aquatic resources, wildlife,
vegetation, visual resources, parks and recreation and land use.
Given that the
transmission line requirements for the VIGP can be fully accommodated within the existing
B.C. Hydro right-of-way, it is concluded that environmental impacts will be low in magnitude
with the spatial extent limited to the existing transmission corridor.
Mitigation and monitoring measures will be implemented so the project will have no
significant environmental impacts. Planned mitigation measures of note are as follows:
• Protection of riparian vegetation, particularly at the Chase River, Beck Creek and the
Nanaimo River by specific tower placement, including the location of the temporary
bypass line.
• Protection of identified sensitive ecosystems by perimeter fencing, including pond areas.
• Protection of bald eagle, turkey vulture and red-tailed hawk nest sites by monitoring
during construction and possibly implementing a construction timing restriction.
• Protection of migratory waterfowl in the Nanaimo estuary area by employing a horizontal
conductor configuration in the seasonally flooded farm fields.
• Protection of rare plant species (bog birds-foot trefoil and green-sheathed sedge) and
red-listed plant communities (mature Douglas-fir – Salal and Douglas-fir – Garry Oak –
Oniongrass) by avoidance of clearing where practical.
• Reduction of visual impacts by careful tower placement at Chase River Park.
• Facilitating the continued recreational enjoyment of the area by the general public by
coordinating efforts with local recreational groups and the City of Nanaimo.
• Undertake environmental monitoring during construction to ensure the identified
mitigation measures are properly implemented.
ix
•
avoidance of known archaeological sites, including an adequate buffer area, and
monitoring of selected areas identified in the archaeological impact assessment.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
VIGP will have an overall project cost of approximately $370 million, with expenditures in
British Columbia expected to be approximately $70 million. Final design and construction
will take 24 months to complete, with commercial operation planned to begin by November
2004. The project will create approximately 239 person-years of employment during
construction of the power plant, the power line, the natural gas pipeline, and the water
pipelines. Direct, indirect and induced employment will total 599-708 person years over the
construction period, generating $36.4 to $40.6 million in household income (see summary
below).
Operation of the VIGP facilities will create employment for 20 full time operating and support
staff at the power plant, with additional temporary employment during major maintenance
work. This will generate $2.3 million per year in employment income (wages and benefits).
Natural gas and to a lesser degree other supplies will be purchased at a cost of about $100
million per year.
Construction
Project Cost
Employment and Income:
Direct Effects of Plant
Indirect Effects
Induced Effects
Total
Government Revenues
Personal Income Taxes
Federal:
Provincial
Total
Provincial Sales Tax
Operation
Operating Staff
Operating Expenditures:
Wages and Benefits
Natural gas and supplies
Government Revenues
Personal Income Taxes
Federal:
Provincial
Total
Provincial Excise and Sales Tax
Property Tax
Capital Taxes
Corporate Income Tax
Federal
Provincial
Total: $370 million
Spent in BC: $70 million
Employment
Household Income
235 Person-years
$20.0 million
282 Person-years
$13.3 million
82-191 Person-years
$3.-$7 million
599 to 708 Person-years
$36.4 to 40.6 million
$8 to 8.9 million
$3.3 to $3.7 million
$11.3 to 12.6 million
$3.75 million
20 full time
$2.3 million per year
$100 million per year
(excludes spin-off benefits)
(excludes taxes from indirect & induced employment)
$440,000 per year
$205,000 per year
$645,000 per year
$5 million per year
$1.5 million per year
$9.9 million (present value) over the project life.
$6.6 million (present value) over the project life.
x
Although agreements have not been arranged, VIEC is proceeding on the basis that
construction workers will be paid in accordance with current Allied Hydro Council
Agreements and that conditions in these agreements will be typical for project employment.
It is estimated that more than half of the manual craft jobs can be filled from the local and
regional study areas, provided that qualified trade persons are available.
Government revenues resulting from construction and operation of VIGP are summarised
above, and include sales tax, capital tax, property tax and Federal and Provincial income
taxes. These taxes will be to the benefit of local, provincial and federal levels of government.
In addition, GE Canada Power Systems, the planned supplier of the gas turbine equipment,
has committed $14 million in industrial benefits in British Columbia over an eight-year
period. The program will consist of a combination of any of the following activities: sourcing,
marketing assistance, supplier development, investment and financing.
The assessment of potential social impacts to the community considered employment,
population, housing, traffic and transportation, emergency services, human health and
health care, education, utility infrastructure, land use, visual resources, tourism, recreation,
local businesses/industry, culture/heritage and quality of life. VIGP has responded with
additional attention to the concerns expressed by local residents about environmental noise,
visibility and air quality by conducting field studies and rigorous assessments of potential
impacts. The studies indicated that there would be no significant adverse effects of the
project on human health or quality of life from plant emissions, noise, deliveries of ammonia
or other aspects of the project.
From the analysis, it is concluded that there will be benefits, and no significant adverse
social impacts from the project. There is sufficient accommodation in the regional area to
respond to the influx of workers during construction. The existing community services are
expected to be capable of responding to the needs of the VIGP without difficulty. There is
sufficient existing capacity for health care services, social services, fire services, recreational
services and educational services to accommodate the potential needs of workers during
construction and operation.
FIRST NATIONS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The proposed VIGP plant, natural gas service line and power transmission line upgrades
are proposed within Snuneymuxw (formerly known as the Nanaimo Band) core territory. The
Snuneymuxw First Nation, with a population of approximately 1,350 people, has six
reserves within a 10-km radius of the project site. The transmission line upgrades would
cross two of the reserves. VIEC has pursued a consultation program with the Snuneymuxw
and discussions are ongoing to determine the format of the formal consultation program. A
number of issues have been identified at a preliminary level and the means through which
these have been addressed are identified in the Application.
The proponent has also committed to work with the First Nation to enhance employment
and economic development opportunities associated with VIGP. The means through which
this will be achieved will be determined in consultation with the Snuneymuxw. VIEC will
continue to work with the Snuneymuxw through the Application Review period to address
concerns raised.
xi
Table S- 1
Summary of Assessment, Mitigation and Monitoring for VIGP Power Plant and Associated Site Construction
Issue
Scope
AIR QUALITY
Nitrogen Dioxide
Sulphur Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide
PM10 Particulate Matter
Volatile Organic Compounds
Ammonia
VISIBILITY
Stack Plume Colouration
Cooling Tower Water Vapour Plume
NOISE
Construction & Traffic Noise
Impact Assessment Indicators
Magnitude
Duration
Direction
Potential Adverse Impact
Probability
Significance
Potential Supplemental
Mitigation Planned*
Monitoring Proposed
Sub-Regional
Sub-Regional
Sub-Regional
Sub-Regional
Sub-Regional
Sub-Regional
Very low
Very low
Very low
Very low
Very low
Very low
Long-term
Long-term
Long-term
Long-term
Long-term
Long-term
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not Significant
None
None
None
None
None
None
Continuous monitoring of NO, NO2,
CO, oxygen and ammonia in stack.
Continuous monitoring of NO, NO2
and ozone at two ambient stations in
the Nanaimo area.
Sub-Regional
Sub-Regional
Nil-Low
Low
Long-term
Long-term
Negative-Neutral
Negative
Unlikely
Likely
Not significant
Not significant
None
None
None
None
Local
Low-medium
Medium-term
Negative
Likely
Not significant
Operating Noise
Local
Low
Long-term
Negative
Unlikely
Not significant
GREENHOUSE GAS
MANAGEMENT
HYDROLOGY & STORM
RUNOFF
Construction
Operation
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE &
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
WATER SUPPLY
Global
Low
Long-term
Negative
Unlikely
Not significant
Will respond to mitigate noise
complaints.
Will further mitigate noise if out of
compliance with noise specification.
None
Compliance with construction noise
guidelines.
Will verify compliance with off-site
noise specification after commercial.
Report progress through regular
means of public communication.
Local
Local
Low-Nil
Nil
Medium-term
Long-term
Negative
Negative-neutral
Unlikely
Unlikely
Not significant
Not significant
None
None
Environmental monitoring.
According to Permit.
According to Harmac’s Effluent
Permit.
VIGP will monitor own use. Harmac’s
license conditions will apply.
Monitoring by professional biologist.
Local
Nil
Long-term
Negative-neutral
Unlikely
Not significant
None
Regional
Nil
Long-term
Neutral
Unlikely
Not significant
None
VEGETATION
Local
Low
Long-term
Negative
Likely
Not significant
WILDLIFE
Local
Low
Long-term
Negative
Likely
Not significant
AQUATIC RESOURCES
Local
Nil
Long-term
Neutral
Unlikely
Not significant
Local
Local
Sub-regional
Local
Low
Nil
Low
Nil
Long-term
Long-term
Long-term
Long-term
Neutral
Neutral
Negative
Neutral
Likely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not Significant
Placement of nesting boxes if
remove large trees.
Test and adapt blasting to mitigate
effects on eagles, if in sensitive
period.
Prior to construction around Pond
#1, trap and relocate wildlife.
None
None
None
None
Long-term
Long-term
Long-term
Long-term
Long-term
Long-term
Long-term
Short-term
Long-term
Long-term
Negative
Negative-Neutral
Neutral
Negative
Negative
Neutral
Neutral
Negative-Neutral
Negative-Neutral
Negative-Neutral
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Likely
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not Significant
Not significant
Not Significant
Not significant
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
TERRAIN AND SOILS
ARCHAEOLOGY
WASTE MANAGEMENT
LAND USE
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Air quality
Ozone & Secondary PM10
Long-range emission transport
Acid Rain Impacts
Visibility
Noise
Water Resources
Stormwater run-off during const’n.
Wastewater
Wildlife
*
Sub-regional
Sub-regional
Regional
Sub-regional
Regional
Local
Regional
Local
Local
Local
Low
Nil to Very Low
Nil
Nil
Nil to Very Low
Nil
Nil to Low
Nil to Low
Nil
Low
None
Monitor removal of rock on site.
None
None
See Air Quality above.
See Air Quality above.
None
None
None
See Noise above.
See Water Supply above.
See Hydrology above.
See Wastewater issue above.
None
Supplemental to the mitigation committed to in the appropriate section of the Application, on which the impact assessment is based.
xii
Table S- 2
Summary of Assessment, Mitigation and Monitoring for the Power Transmission Line Upgrades
and Natural Gas Service Line
Issue
Impact Assessment Indicators
Potential Adverse Impact
Potential Supplemental
Mitigation Planned*
Monitoring Proposed
Salvage merchantable timber.
Environmental monitoring during
construction.
construction.
construction.
None
Scope
Magnitude
Duration
Direction
Probability
Significance
VEGETATION
Local
Low
Long-term
Negative
Likely
Not significant
None
WILDLIFE
Local
Low
Short-term
Negative
Likely
Not significant
None
AQUATIC RESOURCES
Local
Nil-Low
Short-term
Neutral
Unlikely
Not significant
None
SOILS
Local
Low
Negative
Likely
Not significant
None
VISUAL
PARKS AND RECREATION
LAND USE
ARCHAEOLOGY
Local
Local
Local
Local
Low
Low
Low
Nil
Mediumterm
Long-term
Long-term
Long-term
Long-term
Negative-Neutral
Positive
Neutral
Neutral
Likely
Likely
Likely
Unlikely
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
None
None
None
SOIL AND TERRAIN
Local
Low
Negative
Likely
Not significant
None
VEGETATION
Local
Low
Mediumterm
Long-term
Negative
Likely
Not significant
None
WILDLIFE
Local
Low
Short-term
Negative
Likely
Not significant
None
AQUATIC RESOURCES
Local
Nil
Short-term
Negative-Neutral
Unlikely
Not significant
None
WATER QUALITY
Local
Low
Short-term
Negative
Likely
Not significant
None
ARCHAEOLOGY
Local
Nil
Long-term
Neutral
Unlikely
Not significant
None
Neutral
Likely
Not
Significant
None
Power Transmission Line
If archaeological resources are
found during construction, VIEC
will consult with Archaeology
Branch and First Nations and
mitigate as required.
None
None
None
construction.
Natural Gas Service Line
construction.
Salvage merchantable timber.
construction.
construction.
construction.
construction.
None
Water Supply and Wastewater Service Connections to Harmac
ALL ISSUES
*
Local
Nil-Low
Short-term
construction.
Supplemental to the mitigation committed to in the appropriate section of the Application, on which the impact assessment is based.
xiii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................ i
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xxxii
LIST OF PLATES............................................................................................................ xxxix
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................xlii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................... l
1.
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1-1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
2.
APPLICANT NAME AND CONTACT .............................................................................1-1
GENERAL BACKGROUND .........................................................................................1-2
PROJECT OVERVIEW ..............................................................................................1-4
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................1-4
PROJECT TEAM AND RESPONSIBILITIES ...................................................................1-5
PROJECT RATIONALE AND SITE SELECTION.......................................................2-1
2.1 PROJECT RATIONALE .............................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Project Objective............................................................................................2-1
2.1.2 Background and Status..................................................................................2-1
2.2 SITE SELECTION.....................................................................................................2-2
2.2.1 Methodology ..................................................................................................2-3
2.2.1.1
Phase 1 ................................................................................................2-3
2.2.1.2
Phase 2.................................................................................................2-5
2.2.1.3
Phase 3.................................................................................................2-5
2.2.2 Phase 1 Site Selection Results ......................................................................2-6
2.2.3 Phase 2 Site Selection Results ......................................................................2-9
2.2.4 Phase 3 Site Selection Results ....................................................................2-12
3.
PROJECT FACILITIES AND DESIGN........................................................................3-1
3.1 PROJECT COMPONENTS .........................................................................................3-1
3.2 POWER PLANT DESIGN ...........................................................................................3-5
3.2.1 General Description and Layout.....................................................................3-5
3.2.2 Material and Energy Balances .......................................................................3-8
3.2.2.1
Water Balance ......................................................................................3-8
3.2.2.2
Energy Balance.....................................................................................3-9
3.2.3 Description and Specifications of Major Plant Equipment ..............................3-9
3.2.3.1
Gas Combustion Turbine Generator .....................................................3-9
3.2.3.2
Heat Recovery Steam Generator .......................................................3-13
3.2.3.3
Steam Turbine Generator ...................................................................3-13
3.2.3.4
Cooling Water System and Cooling Tower ..........................................3-14
xiv
3.2.3.5
Water Supply and Feedwater Treatment.............................................3-14
3.2.3.6
Switchyard ..........................................................................................3-15
3.2.3.7
Plant Auxiliaries ..................................................................................3-15
3.2.3.8
Geotechnical Design ...........................................................................3-16
3.2.3.9
Office and Support Facilities ...............................................................3-17
3.2.4 Proposed Environmental Controls and Monitoring .......................................3-17
3.2.4.1
Emission Controls ...............................................................................3-17
3.2.4.2
Wastewater and Site Runoff Handling and Discharge .........................3-19
3.2.4.3
Noise Control ......................................................................................3-20
3.2.4.4
Waste Management (Conformance with Waste Management Plan)....3-21
3.2.4.5
Environmental Management During Operation....................................3-22
3.2.4.6
Emergency Response Plan.................................................................3-22
3.2.5 Plant Security ..............................................................................................3-23
3.3 ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE ..........................................................................3-23
3.3.1 General Description and Location................................................................3-23
3.3.2 Transmission Line Design............................................................................3-25
3.4 NATURAL GAS SUPPLY .........................................................................................3-26
3.4.1 General Description and Location................................................................3-26
3.4.2 Natural Gas Specifications...........................................................................3-27
3.4.3 Pipeline Design............................................................................................3-29
3.5 CONSTRUCTION PLANS.........................................................................................3-29
3.5.1 Construction Management...........................................................................3-29
3.5.2 Site Preparation and Construction Areas .....................................................3-29
3.5.3 Environmental Management During Construction ........................................3-30
3.5.4 Schedule .....................................................................................................3-30
3.5.5 Workforce Estimates....................................................................................3-30
3.5.6 Construction Related Traffic ........................................................................3-30
3.5.7 Capital and Operating Costs........................................................................3-31
3.6 ACCESS AND TRAFFIC PLAN..................................................................................3-31
4.
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE FOR THE POWER PLANT ......................................4-1
4.1 STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES .....................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Air Quality ......................................................................................................4-1
4.1.2 Water Supply and Water Quality....................................................................4-1
4.1.3 Noise .............................................................................................................4-1
4.1.4 Vegetation, Wildlife and Aquatic Life..............................................................4-1
4.1.5 Terrain and Soils............................................................................................4-2
4.1.6 Archaeological Resources .............................................................................4-2
4.2 PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND NATURAL HAZARDS ................................................4-2
4.2.1 Physiography.................................................................................................4-2
4.2.2 Geology .........................................................................................................4-3
4.2.3 Natural Hazards.............................................................................................4-3
4.2.3.1
General .................................................................................................4-3
4.2.3.2
Earthquake............................................................................................4-3
4.2.3.3
Flooding ................................................................................................4-4
4.2.3.4
Erosion..................................................................................................4-4
4.2.3.5
Landslide and Avalanche ......................................................................4-4
4.3 AIR QUALITY ..........................................................................................................4-5
4.3.1 Meteorology and Climatology of the Airshed..................................................4-5
4.3.2 Local and Regional Emissions .......................................................................4-7
xv
4.3.2.1
Point Sources........................................................................................4-8
4.3.2.2
Area Sources ......................................................................................4-12
4.3.2.3
Mobile Sources ...................................................................................4-13
4.3.3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY ..........................................................................................4-14
4.3.3.1
Air Quality Objectives and Standards ..................................................4-14
4.3.3.2
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring ............................................................4-17
4.3.3.3
Ambient Air Quality Assessment for Nanaimo .....................................4-17
4.3.3.4
Comparison of Ambient Air Quality for Nanaimo with Other Areas ......4-25
4.3.3.5
Nanaimo Air Quality in 2002................................................................4-25
4.3.3.6
Summary of Ambient Air Quality in Nanaimo.......................................4-26
4.3.4 Predicted Ambient Concentrations from Harmac Emissions ........................4-30
4.3.4.1
PM10 and PM2.5 Particulate Matter .......................................................4-31
4.3.4.2
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) .........................................................................4-31
4.3.4.3
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) ........................................................................4-38
4.3.4.4
Results Summary................................................................................4-38
4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE .......................................................................................4-42
4.4.1 Monitoring Methods .....................................................................................4-42
4.4.2 Measured Noise Levels ...............................................................................4-44
4.5 AQUATIC LIFE, WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION ............................................................4-48
4.5.1 General Setting............................................................................................4-48
4.5.2 Methodology ................................................................................................4-48
4.5.2.1
Identification and Review of Environmental Data ................................4-48
4.5.2.2
Fieldwork ............................................................................................4-49
4.5.3 Aquatic Resources.......................................................................................4-49
4.5.3.1
Background Information ......................................................................4-50
4.5.3.2
Survey Methodology ...........................................................................4-50
4.5.3.3
Biophysical Results .............................................................................4-51
4.5.3.4
Fish and Amphibian Collection Assessment........................................4-58
4.5.4 Wildlife Habitat.............................................................................................4-59
4.5.4.1
4.5.4.2
Species Ratings ..................................................................................4-67
4.5.4.3
Select Accounts of Red/Blue/Yellow Raptor Species Potentially on
the Study Site......................................................................................4-68
4.5.4.4
Select Accounts of Red/Blue/Yellow Amphibian Species Potentially
Occurring on the Study Site ................................................................4-71
4.5.4.5
Select Accounts of Red/Blue/Yellow Mammal Potentially Occurring
on the Study Site.................................................................................4-72
4.5.4.6
Inventory Results and Discussion .......................................................4-73
4.5.5 Vegetation ...................................................................................................4-78
4.5.5.1
Biogeoclimatic Zone............................................................................4-78
4.5.5.2
Vegetative Communities .....................................................................4-80
4.5.6 Vegetation Communities..............................................................................4-85
4.5.6.1
Methodology .......................................................................................4-85
4.5.6.2
Moist coniferous forests (Fc-mo) - Quadrat #1 ....................................4-87
4.5.6.3
Riparian (Ri) - Quadrat #5 ...................................................................4-88
4.5.6.4
Wetlands (We) ....................................................................................4-89
4.5.6.5
Oldfield (Of).........................................................................................4-89
4.5.6.6
Non-vegetated (Nv).............................................................................4-92
4.5.6.7
Urban (Ur) ...........................................................................................4-92
4.5.7 Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants and Plant Communities...................4-92
xvi
4.5.7.1
Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants ...............................................4-92
4.5.7.2
Rare and Endangered Plant Communities ..........................................4-93
4.5.7.3
Culturally Significant Observations......................................................4-93
4.6 W ATER SUPPLY RESOURCES ................................................................................4-94
4.6.1 Water Supply Systems.................................................................................4-94
4.6.2 Water Users.................................................................................................4-97
4.6.3 Water Usage................................................................................................4-97
4.6.4 Water Quality...............................................................................................4-99
4.7 HYDROLOGY AND STORMWATER RUN-OFF ..........................................................4-102
4.7.1 Hydrometeorology .....................................................................................4-102
4.7.2 Run-off From the Proposed Site ................................................................4-103
4.7.3 Discharges to Surface Waters ...................................................................4-104
4.8 MARINE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT......................................................................4-107
4.8.1 Northumberland Channel...........................................................................4-108
4.8.1.1
Physical Oceanography and Plume Dispersion.................................4-112
4.8.1.2
Habitat Types and Biota ....................................................................4-113
4.8.1.3
General Environmental Conditions and Confounding Influences .......4-119
4.8.1.4
Historic and Current Trends ..............................................................4-121
4.8.2 Nanaimo River Estuary ..............................................................................4-121
4.8.2.1
Physical Oceanography ....................................................................4-122
4.8.2.2
Habitat Classification and Description ...............................................4-122
4.8.2.3
Confounding Influences ....................................................................4-123
4.8.2.4
Historic and Current Trends ..............................................................4-123
4.8.3 Summary ...................................................................................................4-124
4.9 GROUNDWATER .................................................................................................4-124
4.10 SOILS AND TERRAIN ...........................................................................................4-125
4.11 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ..............................................................................4-126
5.
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE FOR THE POWER TRANSMISSION LINE ..............5-1
5.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..............................................5-1
5.2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................5-3
5.3 IDENTIFICATION AND REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA .............................................5-3
5.4 FIELDWORK ..............................................................................................................5-3
5.5 SOILS AND TERRAIN ..................................................................................................5-4
5.6 AQUATIC RESOURCES ...............................................................................................5-5
5.6.1 Introduction and Methodology ..........................................................................5-5
5.6.2 Description of Fisheries and Fisheries Habitat..................................................5-7
5.6.2.1
Holden Creek Wetland ..........................................................................5-7
5.6.2.2
Holden Creek ........................................................................................5-8
5.6.2.3
Unnamed Holden Creek Tributary.........................................................5-9
5.6.2.4
York Creek ..........................................................................................5-10
5.6.2.5
Nanaimo River ....................................................................................5-11
5.6.2.6
Unnamed Nanaimo River Tributary .....................................................5-13
5.6.2.7
Beck Creek .........................................................................................5-15
5.6.2.8
Wexford Creek ....................................................................................5-16
5.6.2.9
Chase River ........................................................................................5-17
5.6.2.10 Unnamed Wexford Creek Tributary .....................................................5-20
5.7 W ILDLIFE HABITAT................................................................................................5-21
5.7.1 Identification and Review of Environmental Data .........................................5-21
5.7.2 Fieldwork .....................................................................................................5-21
xvii
5.7.3 Description of Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...................................................5-22
5.7.3.1
5.7.3.2
Species Ratings ..................................................................................5-40
5.7.3.3
Select Accounts of Red/Blue/Yellow Raptor Species Potentially
Occurring at the Study Site .................................................................5-41
5.7.3.4
Select Accounts of Red/Blue/Yellow Amphibian Species Potentially
5.7.3.5
Select Accounts of Red/Blue/Yellow Mammal Species Potentially
5.7.4 Inventory Results and Discussion ................................................................5-46
5.7.4.1
Bird Inventory......................................................................................5-46
5.7.4.2
Amphibian Survey ...............................................................................5-50
5.7.4.3
Small Mammal Survey ........................................................................5-53
5.7.4.4
Incidental Sightings and Large Mammal Survey..................................5-55
5.8 VEGETATION ...........................................................................................................5-57
5.8.1 Biogeoclimatic Zonation .................................................................................5-57
5.8.2 Methodology...................................................................................................5-57
5.8.3 Ecosystem Units.............................................................................................5-57
5.8.3.1
Shrub - herb (SH)...............................................................................5-62
5.8.3.2
Old Field (OF) .....................................................................................5-62
5.8.3.3
Cladina – Wallace’s selaginella (SC)..................................................5-63
5.8.3.4
Herbaceous Seeps (HS) .....................................................................5-63
5.8.3.5
Fescue – Camas (FC) .........................................................................5-64
5.8.3.6
Riparian – Tall Shrub (TS)...................................................................5-65
5.8.3.7
Marsh wetland (MW) ...........................................................................5-66
5.8.3.8
Spirea – Sedge wetland (SS) ..............................................................5-67
5.8.3.9
Estuarine Marsh (EM) .........................................................................5-69
5.8.3.10 Douglas-fir – Garry oak – Alaska oniongrass (DO)..............................5-70
5.8.3.11 Douglas-fir – Salal (DS).......................................................................5-70
5.8.4 Map Legend ...................................................................................................5-71
5.8.4.1
Ecosection and Biogeoclimatic Unit Label ...........................................5-72
5.8.4.2
Ecosystem Label.................................................................................5-72
5.8.4.3
Site Modifiers ......................................................................................5-73
5.8.4.4
Structural Stages and Structural Stage Modifier ..................................5-73
5.8.4.5
Ecosystem units..................................................................................5-74
5.8.4.6
Sparsely Vegetated and Non-vegetated Units.....................................5-75
5.8.5 Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory.......................................................................5-75
5.8.6 Rare Elements ...............................................................................................5-76
5.8.7 Sensitive Ecosystems ....................................................................................5-76
5.9 VISUAL RESOURCES................................................................................................5-77
5.9.1 Methodology and Information Sources ...........................................................5-77
5.9.2 Existing Setting ..............................................................................................5-77
5.9.3 Visual Nature of Transmission Line ................................................................5-78
5.10 PARKS AND RECREATION ......................................................................................5-80
5.10.1 Methodology and Information Services ........................................................5-80
5.10.2 Existing Setting............................................................................................5-80
5.10.3 Trans Canada Trail ......................................................................................5-82
5.11 LAND USE ............................................................................................................5-85
5.11.1 Introduction..................................................................................................5-85
5.11.2 City of Nanaimo Land ..................................................................................5-85
xviii
5.11.2.1 Planned Use .......................................................................................5-85
5.11.2.2 Actual Use ..........................................................................................5-88
5.11.3 Regional District of Nanaimo Lands .............................................................5-88
5.11.3.1 Planned Use .......................................................................................5-88
5.11.3.2 Actual Use ..........................................................................................5-88
6.
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE FOR THE NATURAL GAS SERVICE LINE .............6-1
6.1 ROUTE SELECTION....................................................................................................6-1
6.1.1 Route One........................................................................................................6-1
6.1.2 Route Two........................................................................................................6-1
6.1.3 Preferred Route................................................................................................6-1
6.2 VEGETATION .............................................................................................................6-3
6.2.1 Methodology.....................................................................................................6-3
6.2.1.1
Office Study ..........................................................................................6-3
6.2.1.2
Field Program .......................................................................................6-3
6.2.2 Biogeoclimatic Zone .........................................................................................6-4
6.2.3 Vegetation Plant Communities .........................................................................6-6
6.2.3.1
Moist conifer-dominated forests (Co).....................................................6-6
6.2.3.2
Riparian (Ri)..........................................................................................6-6
6.2.3.3
Disturbed (Di)........................................................................................6-6
6.2.3.4
Non-vegetated (Nv)...............................................................................6-6
6.2.4 Sensitive Ecosystems ......................................................................................6-6
6.2.5 Rare Vascular Plants and Rare Plant Communities..........................................6-8
6.2.6 Record Trees ...................................................................................................6-8
6.3 W ILDLIFE ..................................................................................................................6-9
6.3.1 Methodology.....................................................................................................6-9
6.3.1.1
Office Study ..........................................................................................6-9
6.3.1.2
Field Program .......................................................................................6-9
6.3.2 Mammals..........................................................................................................6-9
6.3.3 Birds...............................................................................................................6-10
6.3.4 Herpetiles .......................................................................................................6-12
6.3.5 Rare Vertebrates ............................................................................................6-12
6.4 AQUATIC RESOURCES .............................................................................................6-18
6.4.1 Methodology...................................................................................................6-18
6.4.1.1
Office Study ........................................................................................6-18
6.4.1.2
Field Survey ........................................................................................6-18
6.4.2 Results ...........................................................................................................6-18
7.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL, CULTURAL AND HERITAGE SETTING.................................7-1
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
8.
STUDY AREAS ........................................................................................................7-1
ETHNOGRAPHIC AND HISTORIC CONTEXT ................................................................7-1
TRADITIONAL USE STUDY .......................................................................................7-2
OVERVIEW OF KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................7-2
EXPECTED SITE TYPES ...........................................................................................7-3
FIRST NATIONS SETTING ........................................................................................8-1
8.1 REGIONAL AND AREA OVERVIEW .............................................................................8-1
8.2 SNUNEYMUXW FIRST NATION SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE........................................8-2
8.2.1 Band Population and Proximity to Project Site ..................................................8-2
8.2.2 Age ...................................................................................................................8-3
xix
8.2.3 Education..........................................................................................................8-4
8.2.4 Employment ......................................................................................................8-5
9.
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND ISSUES SCOPING FOR THE VIGP
PLANT SITE...............................................................................................................9-1
9.1 ISSUES IDENTIFICATION PROCESS AND ASSESSMENT MATRIX ......................................9-1
9.2 STUDY AREAS FOR ASSESSMENT ..............................................................................9-4
9.2.1 Air Quality.........................................................................................................9-4
9.2.2 Water Supply and Water Quality ......................................................................9-4
9.2.3 Noise................................................................................................................9-4
9.2.4 Vegetation, Wildlife and Aquatic Life ................................................................9-5
9.2.5 Terrain and Soils ..............................................................................................9-5
9.2.6 Archaeological Resources................................................................................9-5
9.3 CATEGORIES AND SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS .............................................................9-6
10. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, MITIGATION AND MONITORING –
EFFECTS OF EMISSIONS FROM PLANT SITE......................................................10-1
10.1 REVIEW OF EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AND EMISSION LEVELS FOR
COMBINED CYCLE POWER PLANTS ......................................................................10-1
10.1.1 Nitrogen Oxides...........................................................................................10-1
10.1.2 Combustion Controls ...................................................................................10-1
10.1.2.1 Gas Turbine Technology .....................................................................10-1
10.1.2.2 Supplemental Firing ............................................................................10-2
10.1.3 Post Combustion Add-on Technology..........................................................10-2
10.1.3.1 Selective Catalytic Reduction ..............................................................10-3
10.1.3.2 SCONOx.............................................................................................10-4
10.1.3.3 Other Post-Combustion NOx Reducing Technologies .........................10-6
10.1.4 Carbon Monoxide ........................................................................................10-7
10.1.5 Particulate Matter.........................................................................................10-8
10.1.6 Volatile Organic Compounds .......................................................................10-9
10.2 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED TO REGULATED EMISSION LEVELS .............................10-9
10.2.1 Proposed Gas Turbine Equipment Emission Characteristics .......................10-9
10.2.2 BC Gas Turbine Emission Regulation........................................................10-10
10.2.3 CCME Guidelines ......................................................................................10-11
10.2.4 CEPA National Emission Guidelines for New Thermal Power Plants .........10-11
10.2.5 US Jurisdictions.........................................................................................10-12
10.2.5.1 NOx...................................................................................................10-13
10.2.5.2 CO ....................................................................................................10-15
10.2.5.3 Volatile Organic Compounds.............................................................10-15
10.2.5.4 Particulate Matter ..............................................................................10-16
10.2.5.5 SOx...................................................................................................10-16
10.2.5.6 Ammonia...........................................................................................10-17
10.2.6 Conclusions from BACT Review ................................................................10-17
10.3 AIR QUALITY ......................................................................................................10-25
10.3.1 Methods.....................................................................................................10-25
10.3.1.1 Assessment of Baseline Air Quality...................................................10-25
10.3.1.2 Impact Assessment...........................................................................10-25
10.3.2 Emissions ..................................................................................................10-27
10.3.2.1 Operational Emissions ......................................................................10-27
10.3.2.2 Modelled Emissions ..........................................................................10-31
xx
10.3.2.3 Start-up and Partial Load Assessment ..............................................10-34
10.3.2.4 Water Emissions ...............................................................................10-37
10.3.3 Assessment of Local Impacts ....................................................................10-38
10.3.3.1 VIGP Alone .......................................................................................10-38
10.3.3.2 VIGP and Harmac Combined ............................................................10-56
10.3.3.3 Ground-Level Ozone.........................................................................10-66
10.3.3.4 Acidic Deposition Effects of VIGP .....................................................10-70
10.3.3.5 Non-criteria Pollutants from VIGP .....................................................10-75
10.3.3.6 Start-up, Partial Load and Upset Operating Conditions .....................10-77
10.3.4 Assessment of Long-Range Impacts to Air Quality from VIGP Alone.........10-82
10.3.4.1 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) .....................................................................10-82
10.3.4.2 PM2.5 Particulate Matter.....................................................................10-82
10.3.5 Impact Mitigation........................................................................................10-88
10.3.6 Residual Effects.........................................................................................10-88
10.3.7 Ambient and Emissions Monitoring............................................................10-88
10.4 PLUME VISIBILITY AND FOGGING .........................................................................10-91
10.4.1 Methods.....................................................................................................10-91
10.4.1.1 Brown Plume.....................................................................................10-91
10.4.1.2 Water Vapour Plume.........................................................................10-93
10.4.2 Stack Plume Visibility Modelling Results and Assessment.........................10-93
10.4.3 Stack Water Vapour Plume Modelling Results and Assessment................10-94
10.4.4 Cooling Tower Plume Modelling Results and Assessment.........................10-95
10.4.5 Impact Mitigation and Residual Effects ....................................................10-101
10.4.6 Results Summary ....................................................................................10-101
10.5 RISKS FROM STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION OF AQUEOUS AMMONIA FOR NOX
EMISSION CONTROL ........................................................................................10-104
10.5.1 Properties of Aqueous Ammonia .............................................................10-105
10.5.2 Behaviour on Release from Containment ................................................10-106
10.5.3 Ammonia Hazard .....................................................................................10-107
10.5.4 Risk Mitigation .........................................................................................10-108
10.5.5 Impact Assessment .................................................................................10-109
10.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND MANAGEMENT ............................................10-111
10.6.1 Approach for Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................10-111
10.6.2 CO2 Equivalence Factors for Greenhouse Gases ....................................10-112
10.6.3 Emissions from the Proposed Power Plant ..............................................10-113
10.6.4 Outline of Potential Emission Offsets .......................................................10-115
10.6.4.1 Background.....................................................................................10-115
10.6.4.2 Proponent Initiatives........................................................................10-117
10.6.5 GHG Mitigation Plan ................................................................................10-119
11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT, MITIGATION AND MONITORING
– OTHER PLANT SITE ISSUES ..............................................................................11-1
11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE .......................................................................................11-1
11.1.1 Operational Noise Specification ...................................................................11-1
11.1.1.1 Far Field Noise....................................................................................11-1
11.1.1.2 Near Field Noise .................................................................................11-1
11.1.1.3 Rooms ................................................................................................11-1
11.1.1.4 Exclusions...........................................................................................11-1
11.1.2 Potential Noise Issues and Assessment Methodology .................................11-1
11.1.3 Assessment of Construction Noise ..............................................................11-3
xxi
11.1.4 Modelling and Assessment of Plant Operational Noise ................................11-4
11.1.5 Noise Mitigation ...........................................................................................11-6
11.1.6 Residual Impacts .........................................................................................11-8
11.1.7 Monitoring....................................................................................................11-9
11.2 HYDROLOGY AND STORMWATER RUNOFF ..............................................................11-9
11.2.1 Modelling of Effect of Plant Development on Site Hydrology........................11-9
11.2.2 Stormwater Runoff Management Plan .......................................................11-11
11.2.3 Impact Assessment ...................................................................................11-12
11.2.4 Residual Impacts .......................................................................................11-13
11.2.5 Water Quality Monitoring ...........................................................................11-13
11.3 W ASTEWATER DISCHARGES ...............................................................................11-13
11.3.1 VIGP Wastewater Sources and Flows .......................................................11-13
11.3.2 Harmac Mill Effluent and Treatment...........................................................11-14
11.3.3 Assessment of Impacts of VIGP Effluent ...................................................11-16
11.3.4 Impact Mitigation........................................................................................11-18
11.3.6 Monitoring..................................................................................................11-18
11.4 W ATER SUPPLY .................................................................................................11-19
11.4.1 Water Supply Requirements ......................................................................11-19
11.4.2 Source of Water.........................................................................................11-20
11.4.3 Potential Impacts of Water Use..................................................................11-20
11.4.5 Monitoring..................................................................................................11-21
11.5 FISH, WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION .......................................................................11-22
11.5.1 Potential Environmental Issues and Planned Mitigation Measures ............11-22
11.5.1.1 Assessment of Impacts to Aquatic Resources...................................11-22
11.5.1.2 Assessment of Impacts to Wildlife.....................................................11-23
11.5.1.3 Assessment of Impacts to Vegetation ...............................................11-24
11.5.3 Monitoring..................................................................................................11-26
11.6 TERRAIN AND SOILS ...........................................................................................11-26
11.6.3 Monitoring..................................................................................................11-27
11.7 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..........................................................................11-27
11.7.1 Methodology and Findings from Overview Study .......................................11-27
11.7.3 Mitigation and Monitoring...........................................................................11-29
11.8 W ASTE MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................11-29
11.8.1 Construction Wastes..................................................................................11-29
11.8.2 Operation Wastes ......................................................................................11-29
11.8.3 Wastes from Repairs and Maintenance .....................................................11-30
11.8.4 Sanitary Wastes and Garbage ...................................................................11-30
11.8.5 Hazardous Wastes ....................................................................................11-30
11.9 LAND USE ..........................................................................................................11-30
11.9.1 Land Ownership ........................................................................................11-31
11.9.2 Land Tenures ............................................................................................11-31
11.9.3 Environmentally Sensitive Area .................................................................11-31
11.9.4 Zoning .......................................................................................................11-31
11.9.5 Right Of Way .............................................................................................11-32
xxii
11.9.6 Impact and Mitigation Methods ..................................................................11-36
11.10 PROJECT ABANDONMENT AND RESTORATION ......................................................11-36
11.11 LICENSES, PERMITS AND APPROVALS..................................................................11-36
12. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE POWER
TRANSMISSION LINE .............................................................................................12-1
12.1 SOILS AND TERRAIN .............................................................................................12-1
12.1.1 Potential Impacts .........................................................................................12-1
12.1.1.1 Reduction of Soil Productivity..............................................................12-1
12.1.1.2 Compaction.........................................................................................12-1
12.1.1.3 Erosion................................................................................................12-1
12.1.1.4 Soil Contamination ..............................................................................12-1
12.1.2 Mitigation Measures.....................................................................................12-2
12.2 AQUATIC RESOURCES ..........................................................................................12-2
12.2.2 Mitigation .....................................................................................................12-3
12.3 W ILDLIFE HABITAT................................................................................................12-4
12.3.1 Potential Environmental Issues and Planned Mitigation Measures ..............12-4
12.3.2 Assessment of Impacts to Wildlife ...............................................................12-5
12.3.3 Residual Effects...........................................................................................12-6
12.3.4 Monitoring....................................................................................................12-6
12.4 VEGETATION ........................................................................................................12-6
12.4.2 Mitigation Measures.....................................................................................12-7
12.5 VISUAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................12-8
12.5.1 Project Effects .............................................................................................12-8
12.5.1.1 Specific Viewing Opportunities ............................................................12-8
12.5.2 Mitigation Measures...................................................................................12-14
12.6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..........................................................................12-14
12.6.1 Methodology and Findings from Overview Study .......................................12-14
12.6.3 Impact Mitigation and Monitoring ...............................................................12-15
12.7 PARKS AND RECREATION ....................................................................................12-16
12.7.1 Project Effects ...........................................................................................12-16
12.8 LAND USE ..........................................................................................................12-17
12.8.1 Project Effects ...........................................................................................12-17
12.8.2 Results of Assessment ..............................................................................12-18
13. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE NATURAL GAS
SERVICE LINE.........................................................................................................13-1
13.1 SOIL AND TERRAIN ...............................................................................................13-1
13.1.2 Loss of Soil Productivity...............................................................................13-1
13.1.2.1 Soil Compaction..................................................................................13-1
13.1.2.2 Erosion and Mass Wasting..................................................................13-1
13.1.3 Mitigation Methods.......................................................................................13-2
13.2 VEGETATION ........................................................................................................13-2
xxiii
13.3 W ILDLIFE .............................................................................................................13-4
13.3.1.1 Habitat Disturbance.............................................................................13-4
13.3.1.2 Construction Noise Disturbance ..........................................................13-4
13.3.1.3 Maintenance and Operation ................................................................13-5
13.3.2 Mitigation Strategies ....................................................................................13-5
13.3.2.1 Breeding Bird and Raptor Management Plan ......................................13-5
13.3.2.2 Amphibian Management Plan .............................................................13-6
13.3.2.3 Small Mammal Management Plan.......................................................13-6
13.4 AQUATIC RESOURCES ..........................................................................................13-7
13.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................13-8
13.5.1 Methodology ................................................................................................13-8
13.5.2 Impact Assessment .....................................................................................13-9
13.5.3 Mitigation and Monitoring.............................................................................13-9
14. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ................................................................14-1
14.1 METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................14-1
14.2 SCOPING OF POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .....................................................14-2
14.3 EXISTING AND FUTURE PROJECTS INCLUDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ..........................14-4
14.4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ....................................................................................14-4
14.4.1 Air Quality ....................................................................................................14-4
14.4.1.1 VIGP Combined with Existing Emission Sources ................................14-4
14.4.1.2 Secondary Particulate from VIGP Precursor Emissions ......................14-5
14.4.1.3 Ground-level Ozone from VIGP Precursor Emissions .........................14-6
14.4.1.4 Long-Range Transport of VIGP Emissions..........................................14-7
14.4.2 Environmental Noise....................................................................................14-7
14.4.3 Surface Water..............................................................................................14-8
14.4.3.1 Acid Deposition ...................................................................................14-8
14.4.3.2 Run-off from Construction Areas .......................................................14-10
14.4.3.3 Wastewater Discharges ....................................................................14-10
14.4.4 Water Resources .......................................................................................14-11
14.4.5 Visibility .....................................................................................................14-11
14.4.6 Wildlife.......................................................................................................14-12
15. PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................15-1
15.1 EXISTING PUBLIC HEALTH SETTING .......................................................................15-1
15.2 SCOPING HEALTH ISSUES FOR VIGP.....................................................................15-2
15.2.1 Non-Criteria Air Pollutants ...........................................................................15-2
15.2.2 Criteria Air Pollutants ...................................................................................15-2
15.2.3 Acutely Hazardous Materials .......................................................................15-3
15.3 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING.......................................................................15-3
15.4 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................15-3
15.4.1 Methods.......................................................................................................15-3
15.4.1.1 Risk Assessment Methodology for Chemical Air Pollutants.................15-4
15.4.1.2 Risk Assessment Methodology for Health Effects of PM10 and PM2.5...15-5
15.4.1.3 Acceptable Health Risk Thresholds and Toxicity Values .....................15-7
xxiv
15.4.2 Overview of Toxicological Profiles of Air Pollutants Considered in this
Assessment ...............................................................................................15-10
15.4.2.1 Carbon Monoxide (CO) .....................................................................15-10
15.4.2.2 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)......................................................................15-11
15.4.2.3 Ground-Level Ozone (O3)..................................................................15-11
15.4.2.4 Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)...................................................15-12
15.4.2.5 Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) .......................................................................15-13
15.4.2.6 Acetaldehyde (C2H4O).......................................................................15-14
15.4.2.7 Acrolein (C3H4O) ...............................................................................15-14
15.4.2.8 Ammonia (NH3) .................................................................................15-15
15.4.2.9 Formaldehyde (CH2O )......................................................................15-16
15.4.2.10 Benzo[a]pyrene (C20H12)....................................................................15-17
15.4.3 Risk Characterization.................................................................................15-17
15.4.3.1 Non-criteria and Criteria Chemical Pollutants ....................................15-17
15.4.3.2 Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)...................................................15-20
15.4.3.3 Ground-Level Ozone (O3)..................................................................15-26
15.4.4 Comparative Population Health Risks........................................................15-27
15.5 W ASTE DISPOSAL AND W ATER QUALITY ISSUES...................................................15-28
16. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT..........................................................16-1
16.1 OVERVIEW ...........................................................................................................16-1
16.1.1 Approach and Methodology .........................................................................16-1
16.1.2 Study Area...................................................................................................16-2
16.1.2.1 Study Area Definition ..........................................................................16-2
16.1.2.2 Local and Regional Study Area Overview ...........................................16-3
16.1.3 Project Overview..........................................................................................16-7
16.1.3.1 Components and Location ..................................................................16-7
16.1.3.2 Project Timeline ..................................................................................16-8
16.1.3.3 Project Cost ........................................................................................16-8
16.2 EMPLOYMENT, INCOME, AND GOVERNMENT REVENUES..........................................16-8
16.2.1 Baseline Conditions .....................................................................................16-8
16.2.1.1 Economic Overview ............................................................................16-9
16.2.1.2 Labour Force.......................................................................................16-9
16.2.1.3 Unemployment..................................................................................16-15
16.2.1.4 Income ..............................................................................................16-17
16.2.2 Project Effects ...........................................................................................16-18
16.2.2.1 Methodology .....................................................................................16-18
16.2.2.2 Construction Phase...........................................................................16-19
16.2.2.3 Operations Phase .............................................................................16-25
16.2.3 Enhancement and Mitigation .....................................................................16-27
16.2.3.1 Workforce Hiring Practices................................................................16-28
16.2.3.2 Procurement .....................................................................................16-29
16.2.3.3 Other Economic Considerations........................................................16-30
16.3 POPULATION ......................................................................................................16-30
16.3.1 Baseline Conditions ...................................................................................16-30
16.3.1.1 Current Population ............................................................................16-30
16.3.1.2 Baseline Population Projections ........................................................16-31
16.3.2 Project Effects ...........................................................................................16-34
16.3.2.1 Construction......................................................................................16-34
16.3.2.2 Operations ........................................................................................16-34
xxv
16.4 HOUSING ...........................................................................................................16-35
16.4.1 Accommodation.........................................................................................16-35
16.4.1.1 Baseline Conditions ..........................................................................16-35
16.4.1.2 Project Effects...................................................................................16-41
16.4.1.3 Enhancement and Mitigation.............................................................16-42
16.4.1.4 Residual Effects ................................................................................16-42
16.4.2 Property Values .........................................................................................16-43
16.4.2.1 VIGP Facility .....................................................................................16-43
16.5 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ..........................................................................16-44
16.5.1 Roads ........................................................................................................16-45
16.5.1.2 Project Effects...................................................................................16-46
16.5.2 Marine .......................................................................................................16-50
16.5.2.2 Project Effects...................................................................................16-51
16.5.3 Air ..............................................................................................................16-52
16.5.3.2 Project Effects...................................................................................16-53
16.5.4 Rail ............................................................................................................16-53
16.6 EMERGENCY SERVICES ......................................................................................16-53
16.6.1 Fire ............................................................................................................16-54
16.6.1.2 Project Effects...................................................................................16-55
16.6.2 Police.........................................................................................................16-56
16.6.2.2 Project Effects...................................................................................16-57
16.6.3 Ambulance.................................................................................................16-59
16.6.3.2 Project Effects...................................................................................16-60
16.6.4 Emergency Planning..................................................................................16-61
16.6.4.2 Project Effects...................................................................................16-63
16.7 HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE ................................................................................16-64
xxvi
16.7.2 Project Effects ...........................................................................................16-65
16.7.2.1 General .............................................................................................16-65
16.7.2.2 Electric and Magnetic Fields .............................................................16-66
16.8 EDUCATION........................................................................................................16-67
16.8.1 Primary and Secondary .............................................................................16-67
16.8.1.2 Project Effects...................................................................................16-68
16.8.2 Post-Secondary and Adult Education.........................................................16-69
16.8.2.2 Project Effects...................................................................................16-69
16.9 UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATION ..........................................................................16-69
16.9.1 Water.........................................................................................................16-69
16.9.1.2 Project Effects...................................................................................16-70
16.9.2 Sewers/Waste Treatment ..........................................................................16-70
16.9.2.2 Project Effects...................................................................................16-71
16.9.3 Solid Waste ...............................................................................................16-71
16.9.3.2 Project Effects...................................................................................16-71
16.9.4 Electricity ...................................................................................................16-72
16.9.4.2 Project Effects...................................................................................16-72
16.9.5 Natural Gas ...............................................................................................16-73
16.9.5.2 Project Effects...................................................................................16-73
16.9.6 Telephone and Cable ................................................................................16-73
16.9.6.2 Project Effects...................................................................................16-74
16.10 VISUAL RESOURCES ...........................................................................................16-74
16.10.2 Project Effects ...........................................................................................16-74
xxvii
16.11 TOURISM ...........................................................................................................16-83
16.11.2 Project Effects ...........................................................................................16-83
16.12 RECREATION......................................................................................................16-84
16.12.2 Project Effects ...........................................................................................16-84
16.13 LOCAL BUSINESS/INDUSTRY ...............................................................................16-85
16.13.2 Project Effects ...........................................................................................16-86
16.13.2.1 Construction......................................................................................16-86
16.13.2.2 Operations ........................................................................................16-86
16.13.3.1 Procurement .....................................................................................16-87
16.14 CULTURE AND HERITAGE ....................................................................................16-87
16.14.2 Project Effects ...........................................................................................16-87
16.15 QUALITY OF LIFE ................................................................................................16-87
16.15.2 Project Effects ...........................................................................................16-88
17. FIRST NATIONS SPECIFIC CONSULTATION AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT........17-1
17.1 CONSULTATION ....................................................................................................17-1
17.1.1 Overview .....................................................................................................17-1
17.1.2 Project Related Activities with the Snuneymuxw ..........................................17-2
17.1.2.1 Phone calls .........................................................................................17-2
17.1.2.2 Meetings .............................................................................................17-2
17.1.2.3 Letters.................................................................................................17-3
17.1.2.4 Archaeology and Traditional Use Studies............................................17-4
17.1.3 Activities with other First Nations .................................................................17-4
17.1.4 Proposed Consultation Activities..................................................................17-5
17.2 FIRST NATIONS SPECIFIC EFFECTS AND CONCERNS ...............................................17-6
17.2.1 Preliminary Issue Identification and Resolution............................................17-6
17.2.2 Proponents Commitments in Other Areas....................................................17-9
18. CONSULTATION PROGRAM ..................................................................................18-1
18.1 OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................18-1
18.2 ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION ................................................................18-2
18.3 PROGRAM COMPONENTS ......................................................................................18-3
18.3.1 Stakeholder Identification.............................................................................18-4
xxviii
18.3.2 Project Information Activities........................................................................18-4
18.3.2.1 Event Specific Advertisements ............................................................18-5
18.3.2.2 Media ..................................................................................................18-6
18.3.2.3 Information Sheets ..............................................................................18-7
18.3.2.4 Information Ads...................................................................................18-8
18.3.2.5 Op-Ed Pieces/Responses to Letters to the Editor................................18-8
18.3.2.6 Responses to Stakeholder Questions .................................................18-9
18.3.2.7 Web-site..............................................................................................18-9
18.3.3 Two-way Communication and Public Feedback...........................................18-9
18.3.3.1 Project Information Line and E-mail.....................................................18-9
18.3.3.2 Stakeholder Meetings/Discussions/Letters ........................................18-10
18.3.3.3 Community Breakfast........................................................................18-13
18.3.3.4 Open Houses ....................................................................................18-13
18.3.3.5 Community Roundtable Discussions .................................................18-16
18.3.3.6 Comment Forms ...............................................................................18-16
18.3.4 BC Hydro’s Public Education Program.......................................................18-16
18.3.4.1 Newsletters .......................................................................................18-16
18.3.4.2 Information Advertisements...............................................................18-16
18.4 TRANSMISSION LINE SPECIFIC CONSULTATION.....................................................18-17
18.5 FUTURE CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES ....................................................................18-17
18.5.1 Application Review ....................................................................................18-18
18.5.2 Construction ..............................................................................................18-18
18.5.3 Operations .................................................................................................18-18
19. REFERENCES .........................................................................................................19-1
xxix
LIST OF APPENDICES
VOLUME II
TAB
A
INFORMATION ON PROJECT RATIONALE ............................................................... A
B
PROJECT RELATED ISSUES, COMMENTS AND CONCERNS ................................. B
C
STAKEHOLDERS LIST................................................................................................ C
D
CONSULTATION MATERIALS.................................................................................... D
D(1)
D(2)
D(3)
D(4)
D(5)
D(6)
D(7)
D(8)
D(9)
D(10)
D(11)
D(12)
D(13)
D(14)
D(15)
D(16)
Open House Notices...................................................................................... D1
Media Advisory and News Release ............................................................... D2
Info Sheet 1 - Project Overview ..................................................................... D3
Info Sheet 2 - Project Studies ........................................................................ D4
Info Sheet 3 - Environmental Review Process ............................................... D5
Info Sheet 4 - Employment ............................................................................ D5
Info Sheet 5 -Greenhouse Gas Management................................................. D7
Info Sheet 6 - Air Quality................................................................................ D8
Regional Emissions and Canada Wide Standards ......................................... D9
Common Myths about Electricity Supply on Vancouver Island and Press
Releases ..................................................................................................... D10
Comment Forms .......................................................................................... D11
Poster Boards.............................................................................................. D12
Poster Boards.............................................................................................. D13
Project Update - April 4, 2002 ...................................................................... D14
Facts about Your Future Electricity Supply .................................................. D15
Information Letters....................................................................................... D16
E
DISPERSION MODELLING AND CLIMATE INFORMATION ...................................... D
F
BIOPHYSICAL FIELD DATA ........................................................................................F
F(1)
F(2)
F(3)
Biophysical Field Data for the Plant Site .........................................................F1
Biophysical Field Data for the Natural Gas Service Line .................................F2
Biophysical Field Data for the Power Transmission Line.................................F3
G
REQUEST FOR GREENHOUSE GAS OFFSET PROPOSALS ................................... G
H
ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................ H
I
DISPERSION MODELLING RESULTS ..........................................................................I
J
CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE VIGP PLANT
SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................J
K
TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILES OF AIR POLLUTANTS................................................ K
xxx
L
SUMMARY LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION COMMITMENTS FOR
VIGP..............................................................................................................................L
M
LICENSES AND PERMITS UNDERSTOOD TO BE REQUIRED .................................M
MAP GENERAL LOCATION OF THE VIGP PLANT SITE AND SERVICES(MAP POCKET)
xxxi
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Figure 1.2-1
General Location of VIGP Plant Site ....................................................1-3
Figure 2.2-1
Simplified Schematic of the Site Selection Process .............................2-4
Figure 2.2-2
Map of All Alternative Sites Considered for VIGP...............................2-10
Figure 2.2-3
Phase 2 Site Evaluation Results ........................................................2-11
Figure 3.1-1
Map showing the VIGP Plant Site and Linear Project
Components in the Study Area ............................................................3-2
Figure 3.1-2
Vancouver Island Generation Project Plant Site Plan ..........................3-3
Figure 3.1-3
Vancouver Island Generation Project Plant Layout ..............................3-4
Figure 3.2-1
Simplified Process Schematic Diagram and Typical Stream
Temperatures for the Vancouver Island Generation Project.................3-7
Figure 3.2-2
Typical VIGP Water Balance for Winter and Summer
Temperatures with Duct Firing ...........................................................3-11
Figure 3.2-3
Typical VIGP Energy Balance for Winter and Summer
Temperatures with Duct Firing ...........................................................3-12
Figure 3.4-1
Alignment of the Proposed Centra Gas Feed Pipeline from the
Harmac Lateral to VIGP.....................................................................3-28
Figure 3.6-1
Proposed Vancouver Island Generation Project Schedule.................3-32
Figure 4.3-1
Wind Rose for Harmac Mill Station Data 1996-2001 ............................4-7
Figure 4.3-2
Emission Inventory Results Excluding Road Dust Emissions...............4-9
Figure 4.3-3
Emission Inventory Results Including Road Dust Emissions..............4-10
Figure 4.3-4
Location of Air Quality and Meteorological Monitoring Stations in
the Study Area...................................................................................4-20
Figure 4.3-5
Summary of PM2.5 Data at Nanaimo Labieux Road for 1997-2001.....4-23
Figure 4.3-6
Summary of PM10 Data at Harmac Cedar Woobank for 19972001 ..................................................................................................4-23
Figure 4.3-7
CWS Determination for PM2.5 in Nanaimo..........................................4-24
Figure 4.3-8
CWS Determination for O3 in Nanaimo ..............................................4-24
xxxii
Figure 4.3-9
Time series of 24-h daily PM10 at Department of National Defence
and Harmac Cedar Woobank (HCW) locations in 2002 .....................4-28
Figure 4.3-10
Time series of 24-h daily PM2.5 at Nanaimo Labieux Road
Location in 2002 ................................................................................4-28
Figure 4.3-11
Time series of daily maximum 1-hour O3 at Harmac Cedar,
Department of National Defence and Naniamo Labieux Road
Locations in 2002...............................................................................4-29
Figure 4.3-12
Time series of daily maximum 1-hour NO2 at Harmac Cedar and
Department of National Defence locations in 2002 ............................4-29
Figure 4.3-13
Maximum 24-hour PM10 Concentrations for the Combined 1995
and 2000-2001 Modelling Period for the Harmac Mill.........................4-32
Figure 4.3-14
Maximum 24-hour PM10 Concentrations for the Combined 1995
and 2000-2001 Modelling Period for the Harmac Mill
Superimposed on an Aerial Photograph .........................................4-33
Figure 4.3-15
Maximum Annual PM10 Concentrations for the Combined 1995
Figure 4.3-16
Maximum 24-hour PM2.5 Concentrations for the Combined 1995
Figure 4.3-17
Maximum Annual PM2.5 Concentrations for the Combined 1995
Figure 4.3-18
Maximum 1-hour SO2 Concentrations for the Combined 1995 and
2000-2001 Modelling Period for the Harmac Mill................................4-37
Figure 4.3-19
Maximum 1-hour NO2 Concentrations for the Combined 1995 and
2000-2001 Modelling Period for the Harmac Mill................................4-39
Figure 4.3-20
Maximum 24-hour NO2 Concentrations for the Combined 1995
Figure 4.3-21
Maximum Annual NO2 Concentrations for the Combined 1995
Figure 4.4-1
Location of Sites Considered for Baseline Noise Monitoring ..............4-45
Figure 4.4-2
Summary of Measured Baseline Leq Levels at the Monitoring
Sites ..................................................................................................4-46
Figure 4.4-3
Hourly Measured Baseline Leq Levels at the Monitoring Sites ............4-46
Figure 4.4-4
Octave Band Noise Values at the Monitoring Sites ............................4-47
Figure 4.6-1
Outline of the Nanaimo River Watershed...........................................4-95
xxxiii
Figure 4.6-2
Flow in the Nanaimo River near Cassidy for years 1988-1998...........4-96
Figure 4.6-3
General Location Map for the Harmac Water Supply System ............4-98
Figure 4.6-4
Estimated Water Use Trend for the Harmac Mill for 1981
through 2000 ...................................................................................4-100
Figure 4.7-1
Existing Drainage Catchments and Flow Directions for the
VIGP Plant Site................................................................................4-105
Figure 4.7-2
Aerial Photograph Showing Existing Surface Water Drainage to
Off-Site Areas ..................................................................................4-106
Figure 4.8-1
General Land Use in the Nanaimo Area:
Harmac Pulp
Operations and Proposed VIGP Operations ....................................4-109
Figure 4.8-2
Northumberland Channel Features, Including Bacterial Mat in
Harmac Area ..................................................................................4-110
Figure 4.8-3
Site Map; Harmac Pulp Operations and Proposed VIGP
Operations .......................................................................................4-111
Figure 5.1-1
Typical Right-of-Way Cross Section Between Harewood Tap and
Harmac Substation ..............................................................................5-2
Figure 5.6-1
Sensitive Fisheries Habitat and Aquatic Habitat...................................5-6
Figure 5.7-1
Existing Electrical Transmission Line Right-of-Way – Study
Section Locations ..............................................................................5-24
Figure 5.7-2
Section 1 .........................................................................................15-26
Figure 5.7-3
Section 2 ...........................................................................................5-27
Figure 5.7-4
Section 3 ...........................................................................................5-28
Figure 5.7-5
Section 4 ...........................................................................................5-29
Figure 5.7-6
Incidental Wildlife Sightings in Study Section 1..................................5-36
Figure 5.7-7
Figure 5.7-8
Figure 5.7-9
Figure 5.8-1
Vegetation Key Map ..........................................................................5-58
xxxiv
Figure 5.8-2
Vegetation Survey Results from Harewood Tap to Stockett...............5-59
Figure 5.8-3
Vegetation Survey Results from Stockett to West of the Nanaimo
River ..................................................................................................5-60
Figure 5.8-4
Vegetation Survey Results from West of the Nanaimo River to
the VIGP Plant Site............................................................................5-61
Figure 5.9-1
Visual and Recreation Features.........................................................5-79
Figure 5.11-1
Transmission Corridor Study Area Local Jurisdictions .......................5-86
Figure 5.11-2
Planned Land Use .............................................................................5-87
Figure 6.1-1
Route Options......................................................................................6-2
Figure 6.2-1
Vegetation Along Pipeline Route .........................................................6-7
Figure 6.3-1
Wildlife and Aquatic Features Along Pipeline Route ..........................6-11
Figure 10.3-1
2001 Regional Emissions in the Nanaimo, Cedar and Gabriola
Island Study Area with Addition of Maximum VIGP Emissions.........10-32
Figure 10.3-2
Combined Cycle Start-up Curves for Hot (A), Warm (B) and Cold
(C) Start-up......................................................................................10-35
Figure 10.3-3
Gas Turbine CO and NOX Emissions at Part Load Conditions .........10-36
Figure 10.3-4
Modelling Domain Showing the Industrial, Nanaimo, Cedar and
Gabriola Island Areas used to Discuss Air Quality Modelling
Results. ...........................................................................................10-40
Figure 10.3-5
Maximum Predicted 1-Hour NO2 Concentration for VIGP for the
Combined 1995 and 2000-2001 Modelling Period. ..........................10-41
Figure 10.3-6
Maximum Predicted 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations for VIGP for
1995. ...............................................................................................10-43
Figure 10.3-7
Predicted 98th Percentile 1-Hour NO2 Concentration for VIGP for
1995. ...............................................................................................10-44
Figure 10.3-8
Predicted 98th Percentile 1-Hour NO2 Concentration for VIGP for
2000-2001. ......................................................................................10-45
Figure 10.3-9
Maximum Predicted 24-Hour NO2 Concentrations for VIGP for
the Combined 1995 and 2000-2001 Modelling Period. ....................10-46
Figure 10.3-10
Maximum Predicted Annual NO2 Concentrations for VIGP for the
Combined 1995 and 2000-2001 Modelling Period. ..........................10-47
xxxv
Figure 10.3-11
Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Primary PM2.5 Concentrations for
VIGP for the Combined 1995 and 2000-2001 Modelling Period. ......10-53
Figure 10.3-12
Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Secondary PM2.5 Concentration for
VIGP for the Combined 1995 and 2000-2001 Modelling Period. ......10-54
Figure 10.3-13
Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Total PM2.5 Concentration for VIGP
for the Combined 1995 and 2000-2001 Modelling Period. ...............10-55
Figure 10.3-14
Maximum Predicted 1-Hour NO2 Concentration for VIGP and the
Harmac Mill Together for the Combined 1995 and 2000-2001
Modelling Period ..............................................................................10-59
Figure 10.3-15
Net Increase in the Maximum Predicted 1-hour NO2
Concentration for VIGP Plus the Harmac Mill Compared to that
for the Harmac Mill Alone.................................................................10-60
Figure 10.3-16
Predicted 98th Percentile 1-hour NO2 Concentration for VIGP and
the Harmac Mill Together for the Combined 1995 and 2000-2001
Modelling Period. .............................................................................10-61
Figure 10.3-17
Net Increase in the Maximum Predicted 24-hour NO2
Figure 10.3-18
Net Increase in the Maximum Annual NO2 Concentration for
VIGP Plus the Harmac Mill Compared to that for the Harmac Mill
Alone. ..............................................................................................10-63
Figure 10.3-19
Net Increase in the Maximum Predicted 24-hour PM2.5
Figure 10.3-20
Predicted 98th Percentile for 24-hour PM2.5 Concentrations for
VIGP and the Harmac Mill Together for the Combined 1995 and
2000-2001 Modelling Period. ...........................................................10-65
Figure 10.3-21
Frequency Histogram of Hourly Ozone Concentration at Labieux
Road for 1998-2001.........................................................................10-69
Figure 10.3-22
Maximum Predicted Acidic Deposition Rates from VIGP
Emissions for 2000/2001 .................................................................10-73
Figure 10.3-23
Maximum Predicted 1-hour NO2 Concentration for VIGP Without
Duct Firing and No SCR for the Combined 1995 and 2000-2001
Modelling Period ..............................................................................10-80
Figure 10.3-24
Maximum Predicted 98th Percentile 1-hour NO2 Concentration for
VIGP without Duct Firing and No SCR for the Combined 1995
and 2000-2001 Modelling Period. ....................................................10-81
xxxvi
Figure 10.3-25
Maximum Predicted Long-Range 1-Hour NO2 Concentration for
VIGP for the 2000-2001 Modelled Year. ..........................................10-83
Figure 10.3-26
Maximum Predicted Long-Range 24-Hour NO2 Concentration for
Figure 10.3-27
Maximum Predicted Long-Range Annual NO2 Concentration for
Figure 10.3-28
Maximum Predicted Long-Range 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentration
for VIGP for the 2000-2001 Modelled Year. .....................................10-86
Figure 10.3-29
Maximum Predicted Long-Range Annual PM2.5 Concentration for
Figure 10.3-30
Maximum Predicted Long-Range 1-Hour SO2 Concentration for
Figure 10.4-1
Plume Rose Showing Length Direction and Frequency of Visible
Water Vapour Stack Plume for Winter Peak Load............................10-96
Figure 10.4-2
Histogram Showing Relative Frequency of Visible Water Vapour
Plume Heights for the Stack with the Plant at Winter Peak Load .....10-97
Figure 10.4-3
Plume Rose Showing Length, Direction and Frequency of
Cooling Tower Visible Plume for Winter Peak Load with Duct
Firing ...............................................................................................10-99
Figure 10.4-4
Plume Rose Showing Length, Direction and Frequency of
Cooling Tower Visible Plume for Summer Peak Load with Duct
Firing ...............................................................................................10-99
Figure 10.4-5
Histogram Showing Relative Frequency of Plume Heights for the
Cooling Tower for the Winter Peak Load with Duct Firing ..............10-100
Figure 10.4-6
Histogram Showing Relative Frequency for Varying Visible Plume
Height for Summer Peak Load with Duct Firing .............................10-100
Figure 10.4-7
Frequency of Ground-Level Fog Occurrence from the Cooling
Tower for the Winter Case with Duct Firing....................................10-102
Figure 10.4-8
Frequency of Ground-Level Fog Occurrence from the Cooling
Tower for the Summer Case with Duct Firing.................................10-103
Figure 10.6-1
Greenhouse Gas Intensities for Fossil-Fuelled Electricity
Generation.....................................................................................10-116
Figure 11.1-1
Contours of Predicted Noise Levels (in dBA) from VIGP Alone..........11-7
Figure 11.2-1
Post-Development Stormwater Runoff Control Structures ...............11-10
xxxvii
Figure 11.9-1
Proposed VIGP Site and Surrounding Lands ...................................11-33
Figure 15.4-1
Sum of Daily PM10>25 ìg/m3 at the Harmac Cedar Woobank
Station .............................................................................................15-22
Figure 15.4-2
Predicted PM10 Related Health Impact of VIGP (cases per million
population per year) Based on the Mean Values for 1998-2001.......15-23
Figure 15.4-3
Sum of Daily PM2.5>15 ìg/m3 at the Nanaimo Labieux Road
Station .............................................................................................15-25
Figure 15.4-4
Predicted PM2.5 Related Health Impacts (cases per million
population per year) Based on Mean Values for 1998-2001 ............15-26
Figure 16.1-1
Regional District of Nanaimo Electoral Area Boundaries....................16-4
Figure 16.1-2
Nanaimo Regional District Census Boundaries..................................16-5
Figure 16.1-3
Cowichan Valley Regional District Census Boundaries......................16-6
Figure 16.2-1
Approximate Workforce Requirements by Month (Excludes Tieins for Transmission, Natural Gas, Water and Effluent)....................16-20
Figure 16.3-1
Projected Population by Region for the NRD ...................................16-32
Figure 16.3-2
Projected Population by Region for the CVRD.................................16-33
Figure 16.10-1
Aerial View of the VIGP Power Plant at the Proposed Site ..............16-70
Figure 16.10-2
Photograph Locations for the VIGP Visibility Analysis......................16-70
Figure 16.10-3
View from the Nanaimo Estuary Wildlife Reserve at the end of
Raines Road without VIGP ..............................................................16-70
Figure 16.10-4
View Along Duke Point Highway from the MacMillian Road
Overpass Without VIGP...................................................................16-70
Figure 16.10-5
View from the Duke Point Ferry Terminal Without VIGP ..................16-70
Figure 16.10-6
View from Marina’s Hideaway Bed and Breakfast Canso Drive
Gabriola Island Without VIGP ..........................................................16-70
xxxviii
LIST OF PLATES
PAGE
Plate 4.5-1
Upstream View of ED#1.....................................................................4-52
Plate 4.5-2
Plate 4.5-3
Plate 4.5-4
View Across ED#3 .............................................................................4-54
Plate 4.5-5
Typical View Downstream of ED#4 ....................................................4-55
Plate 4.5-6
Plate 4.5-7
Typical View Upstream of ED#5 ........................................................4-57
Plate 4.5-8
View of Pond #1 Facing West ............................................................4-58
Plate 4.5-9
Typical View of Pond #2 Facing East.................................................4-59
Plate 4.5-10
Bald Eagle Nest Location (78m outside northwest corner of site) ......4-75
Plate 4.5-11
Racoon Caught Near Small Mammal Trap #5....................................4-78
Plate 4.5-12
Typical View of Quadrat #1................................................................4-88
Plate 4.5-13
Plate 4.5-14
Plate 4.5-15
Plate 4.5-16
Plate 5.6-1
Holden Creek Wetland at the BC Hydro Transmission Line
Crossing ..............................................................................................5-8
Plate 5.6-2
Holden Creek at the BC Hydro Transmission Line Crossing ................5-9
Plate 5.6-3
Unnamed Holden Creek Tributary Paralleling the Transmission
Line RoW Between Structures 8/2 and 8/4. .......................................5-10
Plate 5.6-4
Excavated Back Channel Pool Habitat Along York Creek,
Upstream of the Transmission Line RoW...........................................5-11
Plate 5.6-5
Nanaimo River at the transmission line RoW crossing .......................5-12
xxxix
Plate 5.6-6
Nanaimo River, at the Transmission Line RoW Crossing, Looking
Upstream Along the Right Bank.........................................................5-13
Plate 5.6-7
Flooded Habitat Located Between Structures 6/8 and 6/7 .................5-14
Plate 5.6-8
Relative Locations of Structures 6/7 (foreground) and 6/8
(background) in Relation to the Wetted Area of this Feature..............5-14
Plate 5.6-9
Beck Creek Estuary, Taken from Maki Road Underneath the
Transmission Line Conductors, Looking Downstream .......................5-15
Plate 5.6-10
Maki Road, looking West, Illustrating the Location of Structure 6/4
in Relation to the Road and Beck Creek ............................................5-16
Plate 5.6-11
Wexford Creek, Looking Downstream Towards the Transmission
Line RoW...........................................................................................5-17
Plate 5.6-12
Structure 6/1A in Relation to the Chase River Riparian Area and
Floodplain ..........................................................................................5-18
Plate 5.6-13
Structure 6/1 in relation to the Chase River riparian area...................5-19
Plate 5.6-14
Aquatic Habitat Conditions on the Chase River through the
Transmission Row, Looking Downstream. .........................................5-19
Plate 5.6-15
Aquatic habitat conditions on the unnamed Wexford Creek
tributary through the transmission RoW, looking upstream. ...............5-20
Plate 5.7-1
Bald Eagle Nest Along Rocky Outcrop Ridge in Study Section 4 .......5-48
Plate 5.7-2
Bald Eagle Nest Along Study Section 3 .............................................5-49
Plate 5.7-3
Bald Eagle Nest Location (78 m outside northwest corner of plant
site)....................................................................................................5-49
Plate 5.7-4
Roughskin Newt ................................................................................5-51
Plate 5.7-5
Green Frog (juvenile).........................................................................5-51
Plate 5.7-6
Norway Rat Trapped at SMT #15 ......................................................5-55
Plate 5.8-1
Shrub-Herb Ecosystem Unit ..............................................................5-62
Plate 5.8-2
Old Field Ecosystem Unit...................................................................5-63
Plate 5.8-3
Herbaceous Seeps Ecosystem Unit...................................................5-64
Plate 5.8-4
Fescue-Camas Ecosystem Unit.........................................................5-65
Plate 5.8-5
Tall Shrub Ecosystem Unit.................................................................5-66
xl
Plate 5.8-6
Marsh Wetland Ecosystem Unit .........................................................5-68
Plate 5.8-7
Open Water with Spirea-Sedge Wetland Ecosystem Unit ..................5-68
Plate 5.8-8
Estuarine Marsh Ecosystem Unit .......................................................5-69
Plate 5.8-9
Douglas-fir – Garry Oak – Alaska Oniongrass Ecosystem Unit ..........5-70
Plate 5.8-10
Douglas-fir – Salal Ecosystem Unit....................................................5-71
Plate 5.10-1
First Nations’ Canoeing on Nanaimo River as seen from Raines
Road..................................................................................................5-81
Plate 5.10-2
Easy Access to Nanaimo River from Transmission Line East of
the End of Maki Road ........................................................................5-81
Plate 5.10-3
Hikers at Harewood Tap Starting Out on Trans Canada Trail Hike ....5-83
Plate 5.10-4
Stairs leading from Transmission Line RoW to Beginning of Trans
Canada Trail (extension Ridge Trail)..................................................5-84
Plate 12.5-1
View of Transmission Line Northwest from Gordon Road ..................12-9
Plate 12.5-2
Appearance of Existing Poles at Residence on Raines Road ..........12-10
Plate 12.5-3
Appearance of Existing Transmission Line on Maki Road................12-10
Plate 12.5-4
View of Existing Poles at South End of Chase River Park and
Standing Just West of the Wetland ..................................................12-11
Plate 12.5-5
Same View as Plate 12.5-4 but Portraying Expected Appearance
of Proposed Steel Pole ....................................................................12-11
Plate 12.5-6
Appearance of Existing Transmission Line from Nanaimo
Parkway at Harewood Substation; Parkway Trail in Foreground......12-12
Plate 12.5-7
View South Along Bruce Avenue Towards Transmission Line
where it Crosses Harewood Plains. .................................................12-13
Tables
xli
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 2.2-1
Phase 2 Site Evaluation Criteria..................................................................2-7
Table 2.2-2
Features of the Candidate Sites Studied Further in Phase 3.....................2-12
Table 3.2-1
Summary of Nominal Plant Design Basis....................................................3-6
Table 3.2-2
Design Annual Average Water Requirements at 100% Load ......................3-9
Table 3.2-3
BC Emission Criteria and Monitoring Requirements for Gas Turbines
with a Capacity Greater than 25 MW ........................................................3-18
Table 3.2-4
Maximum Noise Levels from VIGP Plant Site During Normal
Operation..................................................................................................3-20
Table 3.4-1
Typical Composition and Properties of Natural Gas used on
Vancouver Island in 2001..........................................................................3-27
Table 4.3-1:
2001 Annual Emissions from Existing Point, Area and Mobile Sources
in the Combined Nanaimo, Cedar and Gabriola Area ...............................4-11
Table 4.3-2
Description of Federal and Ambient Air Quality Objectives .......................4-15
Table 4.3-3
Summary of Ambient Air Quality Objectives for B.C. and Canada for
NO2, CO, SO2, PM10 and O3 ......................................................................4-16
Table 4.3-4
Ministry of Water, Land And Air Protection Ambient Air Monitoring
Station Locations and Pollutants Monitored Within the Long Range
Transport Domain ...................................................................................4-19
Table 4.3-5
VIGP Station Locations and Pollutants Monitored in the Nanaimo
Area..........................................................................................................4-19
Table 4.3-6
Summary of PM10 Data for January 1998 – September 1988 at
Nanaimo Labieux Road ............................................................................4-21
Table 4.3-7
Summary of PM2.5 Data for December 1997 – December 2001 at
Table 4.3-8
Summary of O3 Data for December 1997 – December 2001 at
Table 4.3-9
Summary of PM10 Data for July 1997 - December 2001 at Harmac
Cedar Woobank........................................................................................4-22
Table 4.3-10 Predicted Concentrations for the Combined 1995 and 2000-2001
Modelling Period Resulting from Harmac Mill Emissions...........................4-30
xlii
Table 4.4-1
Summary of Baseline Noise Values as Leq ................................................4-44
Table 4.5-1
Summary Table of Passerine Bird Survey.................................................4-73
Table 4.5-2
Species Abundance and Diversity at Each Point Count ............................4-74
Table 4.5-3
Amphibians Encountered During Time Constraint and Systematic
Searches ..................................................................................................4-76
Table 4.5-4
Results of Live Small Mammal Trapping ...................................................4-76
Table 4.5-5
Incidental Wildlife Sightings ......................................................................4-77
Table 4.5-6
Vegetation Typically Occurring Within the Moist Maritime Coastal
Douglas-fir Subzone (CDFmm) .................................................................4-79
Table 4.5-7
Quadrat #1 – Moist Coniferous Forest (Fc-mo) .........................................4-80
Table 4.5-8
Quadrat #2 – Oldfield (Of).........................................................................4-81
Table 4.5-9
Quadrat #3 – Oldfield (Of).........................................................................4-82
Table 4.5-10 Quadrat #4 – Oldfield (Of).........................................................................7-83
Table 4.5-11 Quadrat #5 – Riparian (Ri) ........................................................................4-84
Table 4.5-12 (No Quadrat) - Wetlands (We) ..................................................................4-85
Table 4.5-13 Vegetation Community Summary Table....................................................4-85
Table 4.6-1
Mean Monthly Flowrate in the Nanaimo River at Station 08HB034 ...........4-94
Table 4.6-2
Pope & Talbot Ltd. Water Licences...........................................................4-97
Table 4.6-3
Water Usage at Harmac Pulp Operations in 2001-2002............................4-99
Table 4.6-4
Summary of Common Water Quality Parameters for Water Distributed
Through the Main Water Pipeline from the Nanaimo Water Shed ..........4-101
Table 4.6-5
GNWD Fertilizer Study Analytical Results for Metals ..............................4-101
Table 4.7-1
Comparisons of Precipitation Values for the Nanaimo Airport and
Nanaimo Departure Bay Stations............................................................4-102
Table 4.7-2
24 Hour Extreme Precipitation ................................................................4-103
Table 4.7-3
Expected Peak Flows and Runoff Volumes from the VIGP Site ..............4-107
Table 4.8-1
Classification of Habitats of Northumberland Channel Based on
Procedures Described by Cowardin et al. (1979). ...................................4-114
xliii
Table 4.8-2
Red and Blue Listed Species Potentially Present in the Study Area........4-115
Table 4.8-3
Classification of Habitats of the Nanaimo River Estuary Based on
Procedures Described by Cowardin et al. (1979). ...................................4-122
Table 5.6-1
BC Hydro Transmission Line, Major Stream Crossings and
Preliminary Fish Inventory Data ..................................................................5-7
Table 5.7-1
Summary Table of Passerine Bird Survey.................................................5-46
Table 5.7-2
Species Abundance and Diversity at Each Point Count ............................5-47
Table 5.7-3
Amphibians Encountered During Time Constraint and Systematic
Searches ..................................................................................................5-53
Table 5.7-4
Results of Live Small Mammal Trapping ...................................................5-54
Table 5.7-5
Incidental Wildlife Sightings ......................................................................5-56
Table 6.2-1
Vegetation Typically Occurring Within the Coastal Douglas – fir Moist
Maritime Subzone (CDFmm).......................................................................6-5
Table 6.3-1
Mammals of Southern Vancouver Island...................................................6-14
Table 6.3-2
Forest Birds of Southern Vancouver Island...............................................6-15
Table 6.3-3
Amphibians and Reptiles of Southern Vancouver Island ...........................6-17
Table 8.2-1
Population and Residency of Registered Members.....................................8-2
Table 8.2-2
Population by Reserve and Proximity to Project site ...................................8-3
Table 8.2-3
Age Breakdown ..........................................................................................8-3
Table 8.2-4
Total Population 15 years and over by Highest Level of Schooling .............8-4
Table 8.2-5
Number of People 15+ Reaching Various Education Levels .......................8-5
Table 8.2-6
Highest Level of Schooling for Population 25+ ...........................................8-5
Table 8.2-7
Labour Force Characteristics of Population 15+..........................................8-6
Table 8.2-8
Industry Characteristics of Population 15+ ..................................................8-6
Table 9.1-1
Issue Matrix Used to Guide the Environmental Assessment for the
VIGP Power Plant and Associated Lands ...................................................9-2
Table 10.2-1 BC Emission Criteria and Monitoring Requirements for Gas Turbines
with a Capacity Greater Than 25 MW .....................................................10-10
xliv
Table 10.2-2 Existing and Proposed CEPA National Guidelines for New Stationary
Sources – Thermal Power Generation Emissions ...................................10-12
Table 10.2-3 BACT Guidelines for NOx .......................................................................10-14
Table 10.2-4 BACT Guidelines for CO .........................................................................10-15
Table 10.2-5 Review of Recent BACT Determinations for NOx from Comparable
Facilities..................................................................................................10-19
Table 10.2-6 Review of Recent BACT Determinations for CO from Comparable
Facilities..................................................................................................10-20
Table 10.2-7 Review of Recent BACT Determinations for VOC from Comparable
Facilities..................................................................................................10-21
Table 10.2-8 Review of Recent BACT Determinations for Particulate Matter from
Comparable Facilities .............................................................................10-22
Table 10.2-9 Review of Recent BACT Determinations for SOx from Comparable
Facilities..................................................................................................10-23
Table 10.2-10 Review of Recent BACT Determinations for Ammonia from
Comparable Facilities .............................................................................10-24
Table 10.3-1 Emissions from the Proposed VIGP Power Plant....................................10-28
Table 10.3-2 Trace Contaminant Emissions from VIGP...............................................10-29
Table 10.3-3 Trace Contaminants Selected for Health Impact Assessment.................10-30
Table 10.3-4 Cumulative Emissions from Existing Point, Area and Mobile Sources
and the Proposed VIGP Power Plant ......................................................10-31
Table 10.3-5 Modelling Stack Parameters for Emissions from VIGP at 100% Load
and Harmac Mill Sources ........................................................................10-33
Table 10.3-6 Summary of Gas Turbine Start-up Conditions.........................................10-37
Table 10.3-7 Typical Water Emission from VIGP and the Harmac Mill.........................10-37
Table 10.3-8 VIGP Cooling Tower Data Input for FOG Model......................................10-38
Table 10.3-9 Predicted Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations for VIGP Alone at 100%
Load With Duct Firing and SCR for the Combined Modelling Period
1995 and 2000-2001...............................................................................10-39
Table 10.3-10 Predicted PM2.5 Concentrations (Primary and Primary + Secondary)
for VIGP Alone at 100% Load With Duct Firing for the Combined 1995
and 2000-2001 Modelling Period. ...........................................................10-49
xlv
Table 10.3-11 Predicted Maximum Primary, Secondary and Total Particulate Matter
Concentration for VIGP for the Combined 1995 and 2000-2001
Modelling Period. ....................................................................................10-50
Table 10.3-12 Predicted Sulphur Dioxide Concentrations for VIGP at 100% Load
With Duct Firing for the Combined 1995 and 2000-2001 Modelling
Period .....................................................................................................10-50
Table 10.3-13 Predicted Carbon Monoxide Concentrations for VIGP at 100% Load
With Duct Firing for the Combined 1995 and 2000-2001 Modelling
Period. ....................................................................................................10-51
Table 10.3-14 Predicted VOC Concentrations for VIGP at 100% Load With Duct
Firing for the Combined 1995 and 2000-2001 Modelling Period..............10-51
Table 10.3-15 Predicted Concentrations from the Harmac Mill and VIGP Together for
the Combined 1995 and 2000-2001 Modelling Period.............................10-56
Table 10.3-16 Acid Rain Precursor Emissions (NOx and SO2) in the Nanaimo Area ......10-72
Table 10.3-17 Maximum Predicted Increase in Acid Deposition from VIGP for Lakes
Near Nanaimo.........................................................................................10-74
Table 10.3-18 U.S. Forest Service Guidelines for Acid Deposition................................10-74
Table 10.3-19 Alberta Environment Guidelines for Acid Deposition ...............................10-74
Table 10.3-20 Maximum Predicted Concentrations of Non-criteria Pollutants Emitted
from VIGP Alone at Peak Load with Duct Firing......................................10-76
Table 10.3-21 Summary of SCREEN3 Model Results for Start-up Scenarios ................10-77
Table 10.3-22 Predicted Concentrations for the 1995 and 2000-2001 Modelling
Period Results from VIGP Emissions without Duct Firing and with
SCR. .......................................................................................................10-78
Table 10.3-23 Predicted Concentrations for VIGP without Duct Firing and No SCR
for the Combined 1995 and 2000-2001 Modelling Period........................10-79
Table 10.4-1 Class 1 Background Extinction Properties ..............................................10-92
Table 10.4-2 CALPUFF Modelled Regional Visibility Impact of VIGP ..........................10-94
Table 10.4-3 VIGP Stack Water Vapour Emission Parameters ....................................10-95
Table 10.4-4 Cooling Tower Building Dimensions........................................................10-97
Table 10.4-5 Cooling Tower Emission Parameters for the Summer and Winter Peak
Load Scenarios with Duct Firing..............................................................10-98
xlvi
Table 10.6-1 Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Proposed
VIGP .....................................................................................................10-114
Table 10.6-2 VIGP CO2 Emissions Compared to 1995 BC Totals (excluding
biomass fuels).......................................................................................10-115
Table 11.1-1 Predicted Baseline and Post VIGP Noise Levels at the Monitoring
Station Locations ......................................................................................11-5
Table 11.2-1 Post-Development and Pre-Development Peak Flow Hydrograph
Results....................................................................................................11-11
Table 11.3-1 Harmac Permit PE-01214 Requirements ................................................11-14
Table 11.3-2 Pulp Mill Effluent Quality for 1996-2001 ..................................................11-15
Table 11.3-3 Design Flowrate and Temperature of VIGP Wastewater .........................11-16
Table 11.3-4 Projected Process Wastewater Quality from VIGP..................................11-17
Table 11.3-5 Existing Effluent Monitoring Program for Harmac Under PE-01214 ........11-18
Table 11.4-1 Summary of Water Supply Requirements of the VIGP Power Plant at
100% Load .............................................................................................11-19
Table 11.5-1 Vegetation Impact Summary Table. ........................................................11-24
Table 11.5-2 Mitigation and Residual Impacts for Vegetation ......................................11-25
Table 11.9-1 Land Ownership......................................................................................11-34
Table 12.3-1 Wildlife Impact Summary Table.................................................................12-5
Table 12.6-1 Summary of Results of the AIA for the Upgrade of the Existing Power
Transmission Line for VIGP ....................................................................12-16
Table 13.2-1 Loss of Vegetation Associated with Clearing of Pipeline ROW .................13-3
Table 14.2-1 Potential Cumulative Effects Identified for Assessment.............................14-3
Table 14.4-1 Summary of Long-Range Modelling Results .............................................14-7
Table 15.1-1 Nanaimo Local Health Area (LHA) Referral Pattern Analysis by Major
Clinical Categories (Inpatient) Based on Data for 1996 to 2001 ................15-1
Table 15.4-1 Central Estimates of the Concentration-Response Coefficients (CRC)
Used to Estimate PM10 and PM2.5 Health Impacts..................................15-6
Table 15.4-2 Generally Acceptable Risk Thresholds and Hazard Indices ......................15-7
xlvii
Table 15.4-3 Exposure Levels Used to Characterize Human Health Risks Arising
from Potential Exposure to Criteria and Non-Criteria Pollutants ................15-8
Table 15.4-4 Comparative Ambient Air Quality Guidelines or Standards for Human
Health .......................................................................................................15-9
Table 15.4-5 Maximum VIGP Non-Criteria and Criteria Pollutant Emissions and
Incremental Ground-Level Ambient Air Concentrations in the Region .....15-18
Table 15.4-6 Acute Inhalation Hazard Indices Based on the Maximum Predicted Air
Pollutant Concentrations from VIGP .......................................................15-18
Table 15.4-7 Chronic Inhalation Hazard Indices Based on the Maximum Predicted
Air Pollutant Concentrations from VIGP ..................................................15-19
Table 15.4-8 Individual Cancer Risk by Pollutant and Pathway Based on a 44-Year
Exposure to Maximum Predicted VIGP Air Pollutant Concentrations ......15-20
Table 15.4-9 Individual Cancer Risk by Pollutant and Pathway Based on a Lifetime
(70-Year) Exposure to Maximum Predicted VIGP Air Pollutant
Concentrations........................................................................................15-20
Table 15.4-10 Baseline Concentrations of PM10 Measured at the Harmac Cedar
Woobank Station from 1998 to 2001.......................................................15-21
Table 15.4-11 Annual Sums of PM10 Concentrations Greater than 25 ìg/m3 for 1998
2001 at the Harmac Cedar Woobank Station ..........................................15-22
Table 15.4-12 Predicted PM10 Related Health Impact of VIGP (cases per million
population per year) Based on Mean Values for 1998-2001....................15-23
Table 15.4-13 Baseline Concentrations of PM2.5 at the Nanaimo Labieux Road
Station for 1998-2001 .............................................................................15-24
Table 15.4-14 Annual Sums of PM2.5 Concentrations Greater than 15 µg/m3 for
1998- 2001 at the Nanaimo Labieux Road Station ..................................15-24
Table 15.4-15 Predicted PM2.5 Related Health Impact of VIGP (cases per million
population per year) Based on Mean Values for 1998-2001....................15-25
Table 15.4-16 Baseline Ambient Air Concentrations of Ozone (O3) at the Nanaimo
Labieux Road Station for 1998-2001.......................................................15-27
Table 15.4-17 Annual Attributable Deaths for Selected Causes in Central Vancouver
Island Health Region and in British Columbia (1999 Population Health
Report)....................................................................................................15-28
Table 15.4-18 Annual Attributable Deaths for Selected Causes in the Lower
Mainland .................................................................................................15-28
xlviii
Table 16.2-1 Labour Force Overview for the Nanaimo and Cowichan Valley
Regional Districts....................................................................................16-10
Table 16.2-2 Labour Force by Industry Division...........................................................16-12
Table 16.2-3 Labour Force by Occupational Division...................................................16-13
Table 16.2-4 Historical Unemployment Rates from the Labour Force Survey ..............16-15
Table 16.2-5 Average Work-Ready Employment Insurance Claims (Monthly
Averages) ...............................................................................................16-16
Table 16.2-6 Average Employment Earnings (Expressed in 2002-Dollar Terms) .........16-18
Table 16.2-7 Peak Construction Employment Requirements .......................................16-21
Table 16.2-8 Construction Workforce Requirements (On-Site and Near-Site)..............16-22
Table 16.2-9 Wages by Trade Group (based on current AHC agreements) .................16-23
Table 16.2-10 Summary of Construction Impacts on Employment and Household
Income....................................................................................................16-25
Table 16.2-11 Operating Staff Requirements for VIGP Power Plant .............................16-26
Table 16.3-1 Census Subdivisions by Area and Population .........................................16-31
Table 16.4-1 City of Nanaimo Average Accommodation (Hotel and Motel) Vacancy
Rates 1996 – 2001..................................................................................16-36
Table 16.4-2 Nanaimo Regional District – Housing Statistics by Census
Subdivision, 1996 ...................................................................................16-38
Table 16.4-3 Cowichan Valley Regional District – Housing Statistics by Census
Subdivision, 1996 ...................................................................................16-39
Table 16.4-4 Nanaimo Real Estate Sales Prices (1996-2001) .....................................16-40
Table 16.5-1 Airport Passenger Volume 1992 - 2001 ..................................................16-52
Table 16.8-1 School District #68 Primary and Secondary School Enrolment ...............16-68
List of Abbreviations
xlix
L IST
%
103m3/d
ACE
AHC
AIA
AOX
AQVM
asl
ATSDR
AVICC
AWSJV
BAAQMD
BACT
bbl
BC
bcf
BCGS
BCH
BMC05
BOD5
Btu or BTU
°C
CaCO3
CARB
CALPUFF
CCA
CCGT
CCME
CCPA
CDC
CDN
CEA
CEAA
CEPA
CF
CHA
CH4
C2H6
C3H8
C4H10
CH2O
OF
A B B R E V I ATIONS
Percent
thousand cubic metres per day
Air Contaminant Emissions
Allied Hydro Council
archaeological impact assessment
Adsorbable organic halogen compounds
(Environment Canada) Air Quality Valuation Model
above mean sea level
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities
Arrowsmith Water Service Joint Venture
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Best Available Control Technology (as defined by the US EPA)
barrel (159 litres)
British Columbia
billion cubic feet
BC Geological Survey
B.C. Hydro
benchmark concentration (expected to produce response rate of 5%)
5 day biological oxygen demand
British Thermal Unit of energy
degrees Celsius
calcium carbonate
California Air Resources Board
CALPUFF dispersion model
cromated copper arsenate
combined cycle gas turbine
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
Canadian Chemical Producers Association
Conservation Data Centre
Canadian
Cumulative Effects Assessment
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Conversion Factor
Cardiac Hospital Admissions
methane
ethane
propane
butane
formaldehyde
l
C3H4O
CI
CMT
CN
CO
CO2
CO2eq
COPD
CRC
COSEWIC
CTG
CWS
CWS
d
dB
dBA
DCS
DFO
DLN
∆E
E
EAO
EC
ED
EEM
EMF
ENE
EOR
EPC
EPZ
ERP
ESA
ESE
°F
FEV1
FISS
FLR
FPAC
g
GE
GEP
acrolein
Confidence Interval
culturally modified tree
curve numbers
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
total CO2, CH4 and N2O expressed as CO2 having the same global
warming potential over a 100 year period (see Section 10.6)
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Concentration-Response coefficient
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
combustion turbine generator
Canada-Wide Standards
Canadian Wildlife Service
day
decibel
decibel, A-weighted
Distributed Control System
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
dry low NOx
colour contrast parameter
east direction
Environmental Assessment Office
Environment Canada
emphemeral drainage
environmental effects monitoring
electromagnetic field
east-northeast direction
element occurance report
engineer, procure and construct
emergency planning zone
emergency response plan
environmentally sensitive area
east-southeast direction
degrees Fahrenheit
Forced Expiratory Volume (10% decrease)
Fish Information Summary System
Forest Land Reserve
Federal-Provincial Advisory Committee on Air Quality
gram
General Electric
good engineering practice
li
GHG or ghg
GJ
GJ/h
g/s
GPS
GSX
GVRD
GW
GWP
h
H+
H2
ha
HADD
HC
HCW
HI
HNO3
H2O
HRSG
H2S
H2SO4
HHV or LHV
HNO3
hp
HP
hr
Hz
IDF
IEP
Igpm
IP
IPCC
greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous
oxide.
gigajoule of energy (1 billion Joules)
gigajoule per hour (1.055 GJ/h = 1 million BTU/h)
grams per second
global positioning system
Georgia Strait Crossing
Greater Vancouver Regional District
Gigawatt (1 billion Watts)
global warming potential index relative to CO2
hour
hydrogen ion
molecular hydrogen
hectare (10,000 m2)
harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (per Section
35 of the Canadian Fisheries Act)
hydrocarbon
Harmac Cedar Woobank ambient monitoring station
Hazard Index
nitric acid
water
heat recovery steam generator
hydrogen sulphide
sulphuric acid
HHV is the higher heating value, and LHV the lower heating value, of
a fuel. The heating value is a measure of the energy released when a
fuel is burned, and is the basis for calculating the energy efficiency of
a thermal process. The heating value of a fuel may be reported as
higher (gross) heating value (HHV) or lower (net) heating value (LHV).
The higher heating value includes the heat released when water
produced by combustion of hydrogen in the fuel condenses. The
lower heating value excludes the heat released by condensing
combustion moisture, assuming it stays in vapour form. For natural
gas, the lower heating value is about 90% of the higher heating value,
and is different for each fuel.
nitric acid
mechanical shaft horsepower
high pressure
hour
hertz (measure of frequency and equals 1 cycle per second)
intensity-duration frequency
BC Hydro’s Integrated Electricity Plan
imperial gallon per minute
intermediate pressure
Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change
lii
ISC/3
Industrial Source Complex Model, Version 3
ISO
International Standards Organization
J
Joule (1,055 J per BTU)
K
temperature in degrees Kelvin
K2CO3
potassium carbonate
kg
kilogram (1000 g)
km
kilometre
kmol
kilogram mol of a substance
kmol H+ equiv/ha/yr kilogram mol hydrogen ion equivalents deposited per hectare per year
kPa
absolute pressure in units of thousands of Pascals (6.8947 kPa = 1
pound per square foot)
kPa(g)
pressure in units of thousands of Pascals above 101.3 kPa. (6.8947
kPa = 1 pound per square foot)
kW
kilowatt (1000 Watts)
kV
kilovolt (1000 Volts)
L
litre (3.785 L per US gallon; 4.546 L per Imperial gallon)
L10, L50 & L90
noise levels exceeded 10, 50 and 90% of the time, respectively.
Leq
Equivalent sound level calculated as the A-weighted sound level over
the measured time period that has the same acoustical energy as the
actual fluctuating sound levels occurring over the same period.
LAER
Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (as defined by the US EPA)
LC 50
interpolated concentration at which 50% lethality occurs in test
organisms versus a control group. A 96-hour LC50 fish bioassay is
conducted for 96 hours using a fish species and life stage of concern.
LFV
Lower Fraser Valley
LHV
see HHV
L/min
litres/minute
LOAEL
lowest observed adverse effect level
LP
low pressure
m
meter
3
m
cubic meter
MC2
Mesoscale compressible Community model
m3/d
cubic meters per day
3
m /s
cubic metres per second
MELP
B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (now Ministry of
Water, Land and Air Protection)
mg
milligram (0.001 g)
3
mg/m
milligram per cubic meter
MHPHS
Ministry of Health Planning and Health Services (of BC)
MIACC
Major Industrial Accidents Council of Canada
MICR
Maximum Individual Cancer Risk
MJ
megajoule (1 million joules)
mm
millimetre (0.001 m)
MMBtu
million British Thermal Units
liii
mmscfd
MM5
MOE
MoF or MOF
mol
MoTH
m/s
MSC
MSDS
MSW
MW
MWh
N
N2
NAAMP
NAAQO
NAAQS
NAFTA
NAPSP
NBCC
NCCP
NCOC
NE
NEMPSC
ng/kg bw/day
NH3
NH4NO3
NLR
NOAA
NOAEL
NNE
NNW
NO
NOX
(NH4)2 SO4
NO2
N2O
NPRI
NRCan
NTS
NTU
NW
million cubic feet per day at 15°C and 101.325 kPa
National Center for Atmospheric Research/Penn State Mesoscale
model
(Ontario) Ministry of Environment
B.C. Ministry of Forests
a gram mole of a gas
Ministry of Transportation and Highways
metre/second
Meteorological Service of Canada
Material Safety Data Sheets
municipal solid waste
megawatt
megawatt hour
north direction
nitrogen
North American Amphibian Monitoring Program
National Ambient Air Quality Objectives
(US) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
North American Free Trade Agreement
National Air Pollution Surveillance Program
National Building Code of Canada
National Climate Change Process
Nanaimo Citizens Organizing Committee
northeast direction
Naniamo Estuary Management Plan Steering Committee
nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day
ammonia (anhydrous)
ammonium nitrate
Nanaimo Labieux Road ambient monitoring station
National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration
no observed adverse effect level
north-northeast direction
north-northwest direction
nitric oxide
oxides of nitrogen reported as NO2
ammonium sulphate
nitrogen dioxide
nitrous oxide
National Pollutant Release Inventory
Natural Resources Canada
National Topographic Series
nominal turbidity units
northwest direction
liv
OEHHA
OSHA
O2
O3
PAH
PC
PCDD
PCDF
PM
PM2.5
PM10
ppb
ppm
ppmv
ppmvd
psia
psig
PURRFECT
Q1*
RDN
REL
RfC
RFP
RHA
RIC
RMP
RO
RR1
s
S
scf
SCR
SCS
SE
SF
SF6
Si
SMP
SMR
sm3
SNCR
SO2
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
US Occupational Safety and Health Agency
oxygen
ozone
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
point count
polychlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxins
polychlorinated dibenzofurans
(total) particulate matter
particulate matter under 2.5 µm in diameter
particulate matter under 10 µm in diameter
parts per billion (1 part per billion parts by volume)
parts per million (1 part per million parts by volume)
parts per million by volume
part per million by volume on a dry gas basis
pounds per square inch absolute
pounds per square inch gauge, pressure above atmospheric pressure
Population Utilization Rates and Referrals for Easy Comparative
Tables
Cancer Potency Slope Factor
Regional District of Naniamo
Reference Exposure Level
Reference Concentration
Request for Proposals
Respiratory Hospital Admissions
(Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force) Resource Inventory Committee
Risk Management Plan
Reverse Osmosis
relative risk per 1µg/m3 increase in daily concentration
second
south direction
standard cubic foot (15°C, 101.325 kPa)
selective catalytic reduction
Soil Conservation Service
southeast direction
Slope Factor
sulphur hexafluoride
silica
Stormwater Management Plan
Standardised Mortality Ratio
standard cubic metre (20°C, 101.325 kPa)
Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
sulphur dioxide
lv
SO3
SO42SOx
SSE
SSW
ST
STG
SUMLOAEL
SW
t
TAC
Tc
TRIM
TUS
t/y
TDG
TDS
TEOM
TJ
TOC
TSP
TSS
U
UAM
UCL
UHC
UNFCCC
UR
U.S. EPA
USG
US gpm
UTM
UV
VCR
VEC
VIEC
VIGP
V2O5
VOC
W
sulphur trioxide
sulphate ion
total sulphur oxides reported as SO2
south-southeast direction
south-southwest direction
steam turbine
steam turbine generator
used in the context of PM10 and PM2.5 to indicate the sum of the
amount that the 24-hour average concentration exceeds the health
Reference Level for each pollutant for all the sampling periods in a
year. The Reference Levels are: PM10, 25 µg/m3, and PM2.5, 15 µg/m3.
southwest direction
metric tonne (0.907 tonne = 1 ton)
Toxic Air Contaminant
time of concentration
Terrain Resource Information Management (Program)
traditional use study
tonnes/year
transportation of dangerous goods
total dissolved solids
tapered element oscillating microbalance
terajoule (1 TJ= 1012 J)
total organic carbon
total suspended particulate in air
total suspended solids in water
horizontal wind speed (m/s)
Urban Airshed Model
upper confidence limit
unburned hydrocarbons
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Unit Risk (factor)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
US Gallon
US gallons per minute (3.785 L/min = 1 US gpm)
Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates
ultraviolet
Natural Resources Canada Voluntary Challenge and Registry
Valued Ecosystem Component
Vancouver Island Energy Corporation
Vancouver Island Generation Project
vanadium pentoxide
volatile organic compounds, excluding methane and ethane
west direction
lvi
WCB
WHMIS
WHO
WLAP
WO3
WNW
WSC
WSW
yr
zo
µg/m3
Workers Compensation Board
workplace hazardous materials information system
World Health Organization
BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection
tungsten trioxide
west-northwest direction
Water Survey of Canada
west-southwest direction
year
surface roughness (m)
micrograms per cubic metre
lvii
1. INTRODUCTION
The Vancouver Island Generation Project (VIGP) consists of a combined cycle power plant
and ancillary equipment with a nominal power output of 265 MW (increased to 295 MW with
duct-firing), upgrading of 9 km of existing power transmission line, a 440m long service line
for supply of natural gas fuel to the plant, and fresh water and wastewater pipelines
connecting to existing systems at the Harmac mill. The combined cycle system at the plant
consists of an advanced design natural gas-fired turbine cycle that will produce nominally
170 MW of electricity, a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) to generate steam from the
hot turbine combustion gases, and a steam turbine cycle that will produce nominally 95 MW
(increased to 125 MW with duct-firing) of power. Electricity from the plant will be supplied to
B.C. Hydro's grid.
Pursuant to the B.C. Environmental Assessment Act, the Vancouver Island Energy
Corporation (VIEC), the project developer, is applying to the B.C. Environmental
Assessment Office (EAO) for a Project Approval Certificate, which would allow it the right to
construct and operate this facility. During the review period, VIEC will apply for some of the
required permits and licenses to build and operate the plant so that approvals can be
expedited.
1.1
APPLICANT NAME AND CONTACT
This Application for a Project Approval Certificate has been submitted to the Environmental
Assessment Office by VIEC to obtain a Project Approval Certificate for the Vancouver Island
Generation Project (VIGP). VIEC is a wholly owned subsidiary of B.C. Hydro and Power
Authority.
Communication with respect to this project should be sent to:
6911 Southpoint Drive "E14"
Burnaby, B.C.
V3N 4X8
Tel: 1-604-528-2661
Fax: 1-604-528-3037
Attention: Mr. Lachlan Russel, P.Eng., Project Manager
B.C. Hydro is one of the largest electric utilities in Canada serving more than 1.5 million
customers in an area containing over 94 per cent of British Columbia's population. B.C.
Hydro generates between 43,000 and 54,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity annually,
depending on prevailing water levels in its reservoirs. Last year domestic electric sales
volume reached 48,131 gigawatt hours.
In fiscal year 2000/2001, B.C. Hydro paid the Province of B.C. $801 million in tax and
dividend payments ($255 million in water rentals, $372 million in dividends, $137 million for
school taxes and grant-in-lieu of general taxes, and $37 million in Corporation Capital
taxes.)
1-1
More than 80% of B.C. Hydro's electricity is produced by major hydroelectric generating
stations on the Columbia and Peace Rivers. Electricity is delivered through a network of
more than 75,000 kilometres of transmission and distribution lines.
Thirty-two hydroelectric plants, two gas-fired thermal power plants and two combustion
turbine stations make-up B.C. Hydro's total operations and, as of March 31, 2001, B.C.
Hydro, including its subsidiaries, employed 5,952 people.
1.2
GENERAL B ACKGROUND
VIGP is proposed to be located at an industrially zoned site presently owned by Pope &
Talbot at the Harmac Pulp Operations in the Duke Point Area of the City of Nanaimo. The
location of the proposed VIGP plant site relative to the City of Nanaimo and other
communities, as well as significant streams and transportation corridors are illustrated in
Figure 1.2-1. As discussed in detail in Section 2, the site is presently zoned for industrial
use and the project would be compatible with neighbouring industries, the site is already
cleared and disturbed from past development, and it is a significant distance from residential
development.
VIGP consists of a natural gas fired, combined-cycle power plant, a connection to the
existing electricity transmission grid, and a short feeder pipeline for supply of natural gas
fuel to the plant. Make-up fresh water supply and wastewater treatment and discharge will
be provided under a commercial agreement with Harmac Pulp Operations of Pope and
Talbot Ltd. using their existing infrastructure with short pipelines connecting to VIGP. The
combined-cycle energy system proposed for the plant consists of an advanced natural gas
fired turbine that will produce nominally 170 MW of electricity, a heat recovery steam
generator (HRSG) to generate steam from the hot turbine exhaust gases, and a steam
turbine cycle that will produce 95-125 MW of electricity, depending on inlet steam flow.
Power generated by the plant will be supplied to the B.C. Hydro grid at Duke Point to meet
growing domestic load.
The City of Nanaimo and the Regional District of Nanaimo have expressed their support for
siting the VIGP in the proposed location. Also, the Association of Vancouver Island and
Coastal Communities (AVICC), at its March 2002 meeting in Campbell River, passed the
following resolution: "that the membership of Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal
Communities supports the Vancouver Island Electricity Generation Project and its essential
components of a new natural gas power generation plant and the Georgia Strait Crossing
Pipeline Project needed to supply the new generating plant, and that the resolution be
submitted to the National Energy Board Review Panel."
1-2
Figure 1.2-1 General Location of VIGP Plant Site
1-3
1.3
PROJECT OVERVIEW
VIGP will have an overall capital cost of approximately $370 million and will use state of the
art combined-cycle technology to achieve high energy efficiency and low emission levels
that will be comparable to the best plants of this size in North America. VIGP will be fuelled
by natural gas only.
Electricity will be generated by an advanced and well-proven natural gas fired combustion
turbine generator. Hot exhaust gases from the gas turbine will flow to a heat recovery
steam generator (HRSG) that will generate high-pressure steam for production of additional
electricity using a steam turbine generator. Selective catalytic reduction technology will be
used to convert nitrogen dioxide created during the combustion process to nitrogen and
water vapour, thereby reducing the nitrogen dioxide concentration to 60% below the
provincial Emission Criteria for Gas Turbines before the plant exhaust gases are released to
the atmosphere. Other major equipment at the proposed plant site includes a cooling tower
to provide cooling water needed to condense and recycle the low-pressure exhaust steam
from the steam turbine, and a feedwater treatment system. An electrical switchyard, a
control room and an administration building will also be constructed for the new plant.
Electricity produced by VIGP will be stepped up to 138 kV through transformers for delivery
through an inter-connection to the existing B.C. Hydro transmission lines, which will be
upgraded as necessary. Natural gas will be provided from the existing Harmac lateral,
operated by Centra Gas, through a short service line to the plant.
Existing water supply sources will be used to meet the water needs of the VIGP, which are
primarily for cooling water and boiler water makeup water. An agreement has been made
with Pope and Talbot Ltd. to tie into the Harmac mill's existing water supply pipeline system.
A short small diameter pipeline will be built from an existing water storage tank to the VIGP
plant site.
Cooling tower blowdown and other miscellaneous process wastewater will be discharged to
the Harmac wastewater treatment system, where it will combine, and be treated with effluent
from the Harmac mill prior to being discharged through an existing outfall. A pipeline will be
built from VIGP to Harmac system. Domestic sewage from the plant will be treated on site
in a packaged sewage treatment system and be discharged with effluent from the Harmac
mill. Treated wastewater will meet the requirements of Harmac’s effluent permit established
by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, and be discharged to Northumberland
Channel through the existing submarine outfall.
1.4
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
VIEC is applying to the EAO for a Project Approval Certificate, which would allow it to
construct and operate this facility. Although Bill 38 is to replace the existing B.C.
Environmental Assessment Act, this application has been prepared to comply with the
current Act since the timing of the new Act's coming into effect is uncertain. VIEC will apply
for some of the required permits and licenses to build and operate the plant concurrently
with review of this Application by the EAO with the intent of expediting permit approvals.
1-4
This Application provides the EAO, relevant provincial and federal agencies and other
interested parties with the following information:
•
The purpose of VIGP and the name of the corporate developer;
•
A description of on-site and off-site facilities of VIGP, construction plans and project
schedule;
•
A description of the area in which the VIGP will be located and of the potential
environmental, social, economic, health, cultural, heritage and other effects of the project
on that area;
•
A description of the mitigation and monitoring plans that VIEC will employ to ensure that
potential project effects are either insignificant or can be mitigated with known
technologies; and
•
A description of the consultation program undertaken with local residents, First Nations
and government agencies to date and a description of future consultation activities.
1.5
PROJECT TEAM AND RESPONSIBILITIES
A multidisciplinary team prepared this Application for VIGP, involving contributions from the
preliminary design engineers for the plant and specialists in the environmental issues associated
with the project, public consultation and socio-economic impact assessment. The area of
responsibility of the members of the team were as follows:
Levelton Engineering Ltd., Richmond and Nanaimo, B.C.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Air quality
Aquatic life, wildlife and vegetation for the plant site
Cumulative impact assessment
Emergency response issues
Hydrology and stormwater run-off
Physiography, geology and natural hazards
Public health impacts
Review of emission control technologies
Surface water quality
Terrain, soils and geotechnical conditions
Waste management
Water supply
Matrix Projects Limited, West Vancouver, B.C.
•
Environmental noise
Columbia Pacific Consulting, Vancouver, B.C.
•
Socio-economic effects
The Bastion Group, Duncan, B.C.
•
Archaeology
1-5
G3 Consulting Ltd.
•
Marine receiving environment
Centra Gas, Victoria, B.C.
•
Gas supply
Enkon Environmental Ltd., Victoria, B.C.
•
Environmental assessment of the Centra Gas natural gas service line
Westland Resource Group, Victoria, B.C.
•
Environmental assessment of the power transmission line upgrades
AMEC, Vancouver, B.C.
•
Preliminary Plant Design
B.C. Hydro
•
•
•
Project management
Consultation with the Public and First Nations
Transmission line design
1-6
2. PROJECT RATIONALE AND SITE SELECTION
2.1
PROJECT RATIONALE
2.1.1
Project Objective
VIGP involves the development and construction of a natural gas fired electricity generating
facility at Duke Point, Nanaimo to meet domestic electricity needs. VIGP will increase B.C.
Hydro’s installed generating capacity by approximately 265 MW and will produce additional
energy of about 2100 GWh per year.
The project is being developed to help meet the demand for power on Vancouver Island
from the winter of 2004/2005 onward. Demand for electricity on Vancouver Island is
currently projected to grow at a rate of 1.6% per annum. It will also help to replace electricity
that is currently being delivered to Vancouver Island via submarine cables, some of which
will be decommissioned in stages between now and 2007.
The electricity to be generated by VIGP will become part of B.C. Hydro's resource base
required to meet domestic load. This means that B.C. Hydro's firm electricity supply must
increase sufficiently by 2004/2005 in order to meet the system's projected demand. B.C.
Hydro had intended that the proposed project would provide power to the grid by the winter
of 2003/2004 in accordance with its Integrated Electricity Plan of January 2000.
2.1.2
Background and Status
In 1994, B.C. Hydro issued a Request for Proposals to independent power producers to
supply electricity within British Columbia. A number of proposals were received and, after a
panel chaired by Deputy Minister John Allan completed a Multiple Account Evaluation
(MAE) of the proposals, the Island Cogeneration Project (ICP) in Campbell River was
selected. ICP was to provide 240 MW of power.
A project in Port Alberni, the Port Alberni Cogeneration Project (PACP), a joint venture
between ATCO Power (formerly CU Power) and Pan Canadian Petroleum, ranked second
to ICP. Given the strong support for the project in the community and the fact that B.C.
Hydro would require additional power in the future, the provincial government directed B.C.
Hydro to develop the PACP as well as the ICP.
In a July 1997 letter from the Province, B.C. Hydro was directed to enter into commercial
negotiations with the PACP and to negotiate an electricity purchase agreement that
maximized benefits to the province and to B.C. Hydro. Despite the best efforts of all parties,
including the signing of a key principles agreement in 1998 and the receipt of a Project
Approval Certificate from the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) on 10 December
1999, B.C. Hydro and PACP were unable to achieve a mutually acceptable commercial
agreement. Negotiations between B.C. Hydro and the proponent ended in early 2000.
B.C. Hydro’s January 2000 Integrated Electricity Plan Update (IEP) identifies a power
project at Port Alberni as a committed resource scheduled to be in service in 2003. In
addition to addressing increasing demand on Vancouver Island, which is projected to grow
at a rate of 1.6% per annum, the PAGP was to replace electricity currently delivered to
2-1
Vancouver Island via submarine cables which will be decommissioned between now and
2007, coincident with the end of their useful life.
With the termination of negotiations with ATCO and Pan Canadian, B.C. Hydro proceeded
to look for a partner with whom to develop a replacement generation project in Port Alberni.
In a May 2000 letter B.C. Hydro received Ministerial direction to proceed with the
development of a generation project in Port Alberni with construction commencing as soon
as possible. Ministerial Order No. M-22-0002, dated December 18, 2000, exempted the
project from certain sections of the Utilities Commission Act.
In October 2000, B.C. Hydro selected Calpine Canada Power Holdings Ltd. to negotiate
agreements for the Joint Venture development of the Port Alberni Generation Project. In
fulfilment of the directive from the provincial government, B.C. Hydro and Calpine worked to
develop the Port Alberni Generation Project in Port Alberni in a manner that addressed the
needs of the community and the proponent. B.C. Hydro was to buy the total output of the
plant under an Electricity Purchase Agreement for a period of 25 years.
The Port Alberni Generation Company Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of B.C. Hydro, and
Calpine Canada jointly applied for a Project Approval Certificate in May 2001. Because Port
Alberni council refused rezoning for the plant site, a new location and a new site specific
application were required to obtain approval for the plant.
The Vancouver Island Energy Corporation (VIEC), a wholly owned subsidiary of B.C Hydro,
was formed to partner with Calpine, to develop the project at a new site. The project was
renamed the Vancouver Island Generation Project (VIGP) and an in-service date of
November 2004 was adopted to meet peak requirements from the winter of 2004/2005
onward.
Negotiations between B.C Hydro and Calpine ended on 7 May 2002. VIEC will continue
development of the project and supply the electricity to the B.C Hydro grid to meet domestic
requirements.
2.2
SITE SELECTION
Alternative areas and sites on Vancouver Island were identified and evaluated before
deciding on the project site proposed for VIGP in this Application. This site selection process
consisted of three phases in an overall framework designed to systematically and objectively
consider land use and regional planning, engineering, environmental and socioeconomic/cultural-heritage factors. The site selection process endeavoured to find the
project site that met engineering and business requirements, offered socio-economic
benefits to the community, while minimizing or avoiding to the extent practical adverse
impacts to the environment, public health and cultural-heritage values.
The site selection process, as described in more detail in the following sections, started with
a high-level regional overview to identify potentially suitable areas where the project could
be located close to essential infrastructure. This screening level search was then
progressively narrowed to first develop a short-list of candidate sites, then to rank their
suitability using more detailed criteria and site information and, finally, to decide on the most
suitable site for VIGP. Information used for this site selection process came from municipal
and regional planners, public databases, existing studies and site-specific investigations.
2-2
The site selection process considered candidate sites within a large area extending on the
east coast of Vancouver Island from near the northern limits of the Nanaimo Regional
District, inland from Qualicum Bay, 100 km south to near Somenos in the District of North
Cowichan (see Figure 2.2-2 in Section 2.2). All areas in this region having suitable zoning
and/or that were recommended by municipal or regional government planning staff were
considered at some level. The site selection process narrowed the search from seventeen
sites to seven sites in five areas, then ultimately to one site in the Duke Point industrial area
in Nanaimo that is the basis for this Application.
2.2.1
Methodology
The site selection process consisted of three phases, each progressively refining the
alternative locations for VIGP. The site selection phases were as follows:
Phase 1:
Regional preliminary screening of alternative areas and sites to identify and
screen potential sites and develop a long-list of potentially suitable candidate
sites for further analysis in Phase 2;
Phase 2:
Evaluation and ranking of the long-listed alternative sites to identify the best
candidate sites for final site selection in Phase 3;
Phase 3:
Further site-specific analysis and discussions with the site owner for the best
ranked sites to select a preferred/proposed project site.
The logic flow for the steps in the site selection process is illustrated in Figure 2.2-1.
2.2.1.1 Phase 1
The objective of Phase 1 of the site selection process was to develop a long-list of
potentially suitable sites that met fundamental criteria for siting of the proposed VIGP power
plant and the associated natural gas supply, transmission line, water supply and wastewater
discharge infrastructure. Phase 1 started with a survey of regional areas for sites close to
power transmission and natural gas pipeline infrastructure as development at sites close to
these systems would minimize the environmental disturbance and infrastructure
development costs. The survey for these potential sites was assisted by input from local
government planning staff on the location of areas where industrial development is being
encouraged, or zoning of properties was consistent with the proposed project. Identification
of sites in Phase 1 was necessarily a judgemental process that utilized the expertise of the
proponent in combination with preliminary information on zoning, engineering, cost,
infrastructure requirements, site availability and other factors that influence site selection.
Approximate guidelines for the key screening criteria used to identify alternative long-listed
sites in Phase 1 were:
•
Zoning
The property should have zoning allowing the construction and operation of a natural gas
fired power plant.
•
Size of available site
To enable efficient operations, VIGP requires a minimum area of approximately 4.0 ha
(40,000 square meters), as this provides sufficient room on the site for all facilities, an
2-3
START
PHASE 1
Survey Regions for
Alternative Sites
Develop Long List of
Potential Areas and Sites
Screening Test
of Alternatives
Fail
Reject Sites
Pass
PHASE 2
Short List of Potential
Areas and Sites
Evaluate and
Rank Candidate
Sites
Fail
Reject Sites
PHASE 3
Refine Evaluation and
Environmental Data for Best
Candidates
Decide on
Preferred Site
Reject Sites
Proposed Site
Figure 2.2-1
Simplified Schematic of the Site Selection Process
2-4
office and parking. An additional 4 ha is needed temporarily during construction for
temporary work and material laydown areas. Sites were included that measured 8 ha in
area, either on one property or on adjacent properties.
•
Proximity to infrastructure
The site should be within 20 km of a natural gas pipeline, a water supply and a suitable
location for connection to the power transmission grid, and preferably much closer to
minimize environmental disturbance.
•
Availability of site for purchase
The site has to be available for purchase. If a site was not available for purchase, it was
immediately eliminated from further consideration.
•
Geotechnical/terrain/hazards
VIGP requires a suitable gradient, appropriate geotechnical conditions to support the
loads being transferred to the foundations, and a location that is not exposed to major
natural hazards that would prevent VIGP from being a post-disaster facility. Sites with an
existing gradient less than 15% were considered, with preference for sites with a
gradient of less than 5%. Geotechnical and hazard aspects of the sites were considered
qualitatively.
2.2.1.2 Phase 2
The short-listed sites identified in Phase 1 were examined in more detail using information
gathered from site visits, discussions with government agencies, public data sources and a
variety of other sources. A numerical evaluation scheme was used to characterize the
suitability of each site considering key engineering and cost factors, and potential
environmental and health issues associated with the power plant and the development of
linear project facilities, namely the connections to a natural gas supply, a water supply, a
wastewater treatment and discharge outfall, and the power grid.
Table 2.2-1 lists the wide range of site attributes used in the VIGP site evaluation system,
grouped into three categories: engineering requirements and cost considerations; potential
environmental and health effects of the power plant; and potential environmental and health
effects of the linear project components. These site attributes were chosen based on
knowledge of the key site attributes that affect engineering design requirements and costs,
and environmental or other impacts. The rationale for rating of the various site attributes was
developed using professional judgement and experience from past studies of similar
projects. To better differentiate between good and poor site characteristics, the rating
system assigns a much higher rating to the best site characteristics than to poor site
characteristics. All attributes are rated equally. The resulting evaluation provides a
reasonable and objective yard stick for ranking the potential suitability of candidate sites and
narrowing down the list to a small number of “best” sites for site-specific analysis in Phase 3.
2.2.1.3 Phase 3
Phase 2 of the site selection process identified three promising sites for VIGP. Phase 3
included analysis to fill gaps in the site information and to proceed with discussions and
2-5
negotiations in regard to the terms and conditions of purchase of the property. Further
engineering, environmental and land analysis was also undertaken to more confidently
determine which of these sites was the most suitable.
Work undertaken to better characterize the potential environmental and design issues
included:
•
•
•
•
meetings with staff with local government agencies to identify any concerns about
development of the project on the sites;
reviews of past engineering and environmental studies for the sites to improve the
information needed for design, to characterize baseline environmental conditions on
and around the sites, to identify and assess the issues associated with development
and to determine site servicing options;
holding of open houses on February 6, 7 and 8, 2002 in Cedar and Nanaimo and on
Gabriola Island to discuss the site selection process, identify the short-listed sites and
indicate preference to locate VIGP in the Duke Point area near the Harmac Mill;
meetings with property owners to discuss their interest in selling the property and to
pursue negotiations on the terms and conditions of sale.
The additional information developed in Phase 3 was used in conjunction with results from
earlier phases of the site selection analysis to decide on the preferred site for VIGP.
2.2.2
Phase 1 Site Selection Results
A major source of information on the location of possible sites for VIGP was regional and
municipal government, including planning staff and elected officials. From discussions with
government contacts, real-estate agents and others, a long-list of alternative sites was
developed. Each of these sites was visited and information was gathered to allow a
screening level evaluation of site suitability and to develop an understanding of business,
development and regulatory issues that could affect progress with project development.
Initial investigations for Phase 1 identified a large number of possible areas and sites that
were then reduced to 17 potential sites for VIGP. These sites appeared to have sufficient
size, were close to some (but not necessarily all) the required infrastructure, may be
available for purchase and were likely suitable for building in terms of ground conditions,
terrain and natural hazards. The location of all of these sites, which are within an area
extending 100 km along the eastern side of Vancouver Island, are shown approximately in
Figure 2.2-2. The 17 sites are located in four different local government jurisdictions, as
summarized below:
• Regional District of Nanaimo: 4 sites.
• City of Nanaimo: 8 sites.
• Township of Ladysmith: 1 site.
• District of North Cowichan: 4 sites.
Upon closer examination of the 17 long-listed sites, 10 were concluded to be unsuitable
primarily because of incompatible zoning for VIGP, obstacles with gaining access to all the
required infrastructure connections and uncertainty regarding purchase of the property. The
remaining 7 sites were placed on the site short-list for consideration in Phase 2 of the site
selection process. These sites are the named sites shown in Figure 2.2-2.
2-6
Table 2.2-1
Phase 2 Site Evaluation Criteria
Criteria
Rating
Rationale for Ranking
Engineering Requirements & Cost Considerations:
-Site gradient
7
Optimal slope (0-3)
3
Intermediate slope (3.5-8%)
1
Moderate to high slope (>8%)
-Geohazard
7
Good ground conditions, mass stability and seismic response anticipated.
potential
3
Fair ground conditions, mass stability and/or seismic response anticipated.
1
Poor ground conditions, mass stability and seismic response anticipated.
- Geotechnical
7
Good conditions anticipated for excavation and foundation, as well as drainage.
design issues
3
Fair conditions anticipated for excavation and foundation, as well as drainage.
1
Poor conditions anticipated for excavation and foundation, or drainage. Requires ground
improvement.
- Water supply
7
Existing municipal water supply system capable of meeting peak summer demand
requiring less than 1 km pipeline.
3
Existing high quality surface water supply requiring 1.1-3 km pipeline.
1
Existing high quality surface water supply requiring >3 km pipeline.
- Wastewater
7
Existing industrial or municipal wastewater treatment system within 5 km of site
treatment
agreeable to treating and discharging wastewater, possibly with minor changes.
3
An existing environmentally acceptable wastewater outfall to marine or fresh water
exists within 3 km; substantial upgrading of existing water treatment system or a new
standalone treatment system may be required.
1
Marine or fresh water wastewater discharge sites exists 3 km or more from site and/or a
new outfall would be required.
- Natural gas supply
7
<0.5 km.
3
0.5- 2.0 km.
1
>2.0 km.
- Connection to
7
<0.5 km.
power grid.
3
0.5-2 km.
1
>2 km.
- Road access.
7
<0.5 km
3
0.5-1 km
1
>1 km
Potential Environmental and Health Effects:
Power Plant
- Air quality &
7
Substantial residential development > 2 km from plant stack.
health.
3
Substantial residential development 0.4-2 km from plant stack.
1
Substantial residential development <0.4 km from plant stack.
- AIr quality &
7
Land >75 m above site elevation >4 km from stack.
environment.
3
Land >75 m above site elevation 1.5-4 km from stack.
1
Land >75 m above site elevation <1.5 km from stack.
- Wastewater
7
For discharge to a river, the mean monthly minimum flowrate during summer low-flow
discharge.
conditions (e.g., in August) is >100 times the wastewater discharge rate. For discharge
to marine waters, an existing outfall can be used.
3
conditions (e.g., in August) is 30-100 times the wastewater discharge rate. For
discharge to marine waters, an upgraded existing outfall or new outfall can be used and
is 2-3 km away from sensitive receptors, such as commercial shellfish areas and
recreational beach areas.
1
conditions (e.g., in August) is less than 30 times the wastewater discharge rate. For
discharge to marine waters, a new outfall is needed and is <2 km away from sensitive
receptors, such as commercial shellfish areas and recreational beach areas.
2-7
Table 2.2-1
Phase 2 Site Evaluation Criteria (Continued)
Criteria
Rating
Rationale for Ranking
- Habitat loss and
7
Site is located in an industrial park or an area where the habitat has already been
disturbance to
removed or highly disturbed by development.
wildlife and
3
No critical or rare habitat, low to moderate biodiversity and low to moderate disturbance
vegetation.
from development.
1
Seasonally critical habitat, rare habitat, moderate to high biodiversity and nil to low
disturbance from development.
- Concern about
7
Site disturbance is > 100 m from sensitive fish bearing rivers, creeks, lakes or wetlands
effect of run-off
3
Site disturbance is < 100 m from sensitive fish bearing rivers, creeks, lakes or wetlands,
on fish habitat
but unlikely to affect habitat.
1
Site disturbance is < 100 m from sensitive fish bearing rivers, creeks, lakes or wetlands,
and could potentially affect habitat.
- Rare plant
7
Existing vegetative communities on site considered common to very common
communities
3
Existing vegetative communities on site considered rare or uncommon
sensitivity
1
Existing vegetative communities on site considered critically imperiled
- Rare element
7
Rare Elements have occurred or are thought to occur > 1km from proposed site
occurrence.
3
Rare Elements have occurred or are thought to occur < 1km from proposed site
1
Rare Elements have occurred or are thought to occur on site
- Proximity to
7
Site is > 500m from park or designated conservation area
parks or
3
Site is < 500m from park or designated conservation area
conservation
1
Site borders park or designated conservation area
area.
- Noise.
7
Nearest residence is >1 km from site boundary.
3
Nearest residence is 0.4-1 km from site boundary.
1
Nearest residence is <0.4 km, or nearest commercial business <0.2 km from site
boundary.
- Visibility and
7
Site surrounded by forest buffer and >1 km from urban development and major
visual aesthetics.
highways.
3
Site surrounded by a vegetated buffer area, 0.5-1 km from urban development and
major highways, or located near similar industrial facilities.
1
Site <0.5 km from urban development and major roads and without a vegetated buffer
area.
- Archaeological
7
Nil to low potential for any archaeological resources to be located on the site and/or low
resources and
potential for traditional uses by First Nations.
First Nations
3
Low to moderate potential for archaeological resources and/or First Nations traditional
traditional uses.
uses located on the site
1
Recorded archaeological resources, high potential for archaeological resources, or
moderate to high potential for First Nations traditional uses on the site.
Linear Project Components
- Stream
7
No crossing of streams having year-round flows and significant fish values.
crossings on
3
Crossing of up to 8 minor streams and drainage channels of value as fish habitat.
aquatic habitat
1
Crossing of up to 1 major stream or river and/or over 8 minor streams and drainage
and fish.
channels of value as fish habitat.
- Habitat loss and
7
New linear facilities can re-use existing right of ways or will require clearing of vegetation
disturbance on
of low to moderate value to wildlife and that has a low potential for rare plants.
wildlife and
3
No critical or rare habitat, low to moderate biodiversity and low to moderate potential for
vegetation.
rare plants.
1
Seasonally critical habitat, rare habitat, moderate to high biodiversity and nil to low
disturbance from development.
- Archaeological
7
Nil to low potential for any archaeological resources to be located on the right of ways
resources and
and/or low potential for traditional uses by First Nations.
First Nations
3
Low to moderate potential for archaeological resources and/or First Nations traditional
traditional uses.
uses located on the right of ways
1
Recorded archaeological resources, high potential for archaeological resources, or
moderate to high potential for First Nations traditional uses on the right of ways.
2-8
2.2.3
Data was gathered for the seven short-listed sites identified in Phase 1 to evaluate and rate
the sites using the system described in Section 2.2.1.2. Information was also obtained to reevaluate the screening level test conducted for the sites in Phase 1 to ensure the sites met
the basic criteria for development.
Re-examination of the seven sites using improved site specific information lead to
elimination of the Dunsmuir, Peerless Road and Crofton sites from further consideration, for
the following reasons:
Site
Dunsmuir
Peerless Road
Crofton
Reasons for Elimination
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Zoning unsuitable for VIGP.
Major obstacles to development of water supply.
Major obstacles to development of wastewater discharge.
Zoning presently unsuitable for VIGP.
Developable area < 4 ha.
Major obstacles to development of water supply and wastewater
discharge.
Potential impacts to aquatic life and habitat due to clearing.
Developable area <4 ha.
Insufficient water pipeline capacity to provide VIGP with the
required water supply.
Residential area <100 m from available area for plant site
Application of the site evaluation system to the remaining four sites yielded the results
shown in Figure 2.2-3, with a high score indicating a favourable site evaluation. The
Harmac site has the highest rating, reflecting the advantages of access to existing water
supply, wastewater treatment and natural gas supply infrastructure, the reduced amount of
new habitat disturbance as a result of past site development and the location of the site
away from residential areas.
2-9
Note: Circles and star indicate Phase 1 sites; name labels indicate Phase 2 sites; and the star indicates the proposed site.
Figure 2.2-2 Map of All Alternative Sites Considered for VIGP
2-10
140
120
Rating Score
100
80
60
40
20
Bi
ng
s
C
re
ek
W
ay
Ph
oe
ni
x
R
oa
d
C
hu
rc
h
H
ar
m
ac
0
Total rating of environmental effects of linear project facilities.
Total rating for environmental effects of plant site
Total rating for infrastructure engineering
Figure 2.2-3
Phase 2 Site Evaluation Results
The two next highest ranking sites were those at the Church Road industrial park near
Parksville, and the Phoenix Way property being rezoned to an industrial park in Duke Point,
both of which had similar scores. The Bings Creek site had the lowest evaluation score,
resulting mainly from the following disadvantageous features of the site:
• Water would need to be provided from the District of North Cowichan’s water system,
which obtains water from wells beside the Cowichan River. A new well would need to be
developed in the well field to supply water needed by VIGP.
• The District of North Cowichan’s sewer system would need to be extended to service
VIGP and there are concerns about the capacity of the piping, the undesirability of
dilution of sewage with relatively clean effluent from VIGP, and the potential effects of
effluent discharge to the treatment system and Cowichan Bay.
• The potential for dispersion and air quality issues associated with the location of the site
at the foot of Mount Provost and within the Cowichan River Valley.
The three highest rated sites progressed to Phase 3 for further analysis and final site
selection.
2-11
2.2.4
Further evaluation of the suitability of the Harmac, Phoenix Way and Church Road sites was
completed in Phase 3 of the site selection process before concluding on the proposed site
for construction of VIGP. The key features of these sites are summarized Table 2.2-2.
The Harmac site is 10.1 ha in size and is located immediately south of the Harmac mill’s
secondary wastewater treatment system and north of Wave Place, the access road to the
mill. The site scored the highest in the evaluation of the short-listed sites in large part
because of the reduced amount of development and lower environmental impacts that
would result with use of existing water supply and wastewater treatment infrastructure, the
short pipeline connection to natural gas supply and distance from residential areas. The site
is located in an existing disturbed industrial area and further development of industrial
operations at the site is consistent with the official community plan.
Table 2.2-2
Features of the Candidate Sites Studied Further in Phase 3
Harmac
Area (ha)
10.1
Zoning
Heavy industrial
Water Supply
Existing Harmac water
licence for diversion from
the Nanaimo River
through existing
infrastructure.
Wastewater
Discharge
Existing Harmac
wastewater treatment
system and outfall to
Northumberland Channel.
VIGP would result in less
than 1% addition to
existing wastewater
volumes.
Natural Gas
Supply
<500 m pipeline to
Harmac lateral required.
The Harmac lateral has
sufficient supply capacity.
• air quality and health
• noise
Principal
environmental
issues:
Phoenix Way
26.1 (total)
21 (approx. available for
development)
Applied for rezoning to
heavy industrial but not
finalized.
Municipal water supply by
the Greater Nanaimo
Water District through
existing infrastructure.
Multi-user 450 mm diam.
outfall developed by
Westcoast Reduction and
planned to be operated by
the RDN. A new 1.8-2 km
long pipeline would
connect to the outfall. An
effluent permit at the point
of connection would be
required.
<500 m pipeline to
Harmac lateral required.
The Harmac lateral has
sufficient supply capacity.
• noise
• habitat loss and wildlife
impacts
Church Road
81 (total)
Unzoned
No current water supply
system. Options include
water wells and a new
intake structure and water
pipeline for the
Englishman River.
On-site wastewater
treatment and an
expansion of the outfall or
a new outfall would be
required as the French
Creek plant and outfall is
fully committed.
1-2.5 km pipeline required
to connect to Centra
mainline.
• noise
• impacts to fish and fish
habitat in the
Englishman River
• impacts to other water
licensees.
2-12
BC Hydro pursued negotiations with Pope & Talbot, while analysis continued to finalize the
evaluation of the remaining sites that advanced from Phase 2. Negotiations were
undertaken to secure an option to purchase the property, and to develop agreements on
water supply, wastewater treatment and other technical matters. At the time of this
application to the EAO, VIEC has reached agreement with Pope and Talbot Ltd. on an
option to purchase the property, and for the supply of water to VIGP and the treatment and
discharge of effluent from VIGP.
The Church Road site rated second highest in the site evaluations. The site is 81 ha in area
and is for sale in various sized lots for industrial development, although it is presently
unzoned. The site is relatively flat and located in the remains of a sand and gravel
extraction operation, which cleared the land and extensively disturbed the original soils and
habitat. It is located between the Island Highway (Hwy 19) on the north and the E&N railway
line to Port Alberni and the Alberni Highway (Hwy 4) on the south. The site is 1.8-2.1 km
from residential areas in Parksville and is 0.4-0.7 km from rural residents and commercial
businesses on Church Road and the Alberni Highway. Roads on the site have been aligned
and finished to subgrade. The site rated fairly highly because of the extent of current
clearing and development, its location in a fragmented area between linear developments
that isolate it at some distance from residential or commercial developments, and the
distance of the site from elevated terrain, or other impediments to dispersion of emissions.
The main technical and regulatory obstacles to development of VIGP at Church Road are
the lack of servicing infrastructure for water supply and wastewater discharge. These two
areas were investigated further, including discussions with staff at the Regional District of
Nanaimo and a review of available water supply studies. At the request of the Regional
District of Nanaimo (RDN), their consultant reviewed the capacity of the French Creek
wastewater treatment plant and the outfall to the ocean, which is the closest municipal
facility to the Church Road site. It was found that there is insufficient excess capacity in the
plant and the outfall to handle the wastewater flow from VIGP. Consequently, if VIGP were
to locate at the Church Road site, the French Creek facilities would have to be expanded, or
a new separate outfall would need to be constructed. With regard to water supply to the
Church Road site, discussions with RDN staff and review of the extensive studies used in
support of development of the Arrowsmith dam and a regional water supply system indicate
that:
•
there are no firm plans for supply of water to the Church Road area by the Arrowsmith
Water Service Joint Venture (Regional District of Nanaimo, City of Parksville and Town
of Qualicum Beach) which has a conditional water license for diversion from the
Englishman River and storage in Arrowsmith Lake;
•
although the 20 year capital plan identified a new water supply pipeline alignment
adjacent to the new Island Highway between Parksville and Qualicum Beach (close to
the Church Road site) that would draw water from a new intake structure close to the
confluence of the Englishman River and the South Englishman River, it is presently
unknown when, or if, these facilities would be developed;
•
the licensed water diversion is allocated to current and future domestic water supply to
the AWSJV communities, and it is unlikely that water would be made available to VIGP
for industrial use.
2-13
Based on the significant technical, environmental and regulatory issues associated with
water supply and wastewater discharge for the Church Road site, this site was eliminated
from further consideration.
The Phoenix site is 26.1 ha in total area and has a developable area of about 21 ha. The
rezoning plan allows for about 1.3 ha to remain in the agricultural land reserve for the
location of a shared constructed wetland. The western end of the property contains an
arboretum planted by MacMillan Bloedel for experimentation with tree species and is to be
transferred to the City of Nanaimo for park use. An application has been made by the owner
to rezone the site for heavy industrial use, with the intention of developing seven industrial
lots.
Water could be supplied to the Phoenix site by the Greater Nanaimo Water District using
existing infrastructure. Wastewater from VIGP could be treated on-site and piped to tie into
the new deep-water outfall in Northumberland Channel installed opposite the Regional
District of Nanaimo’s Duke Point Wastewater Treatment Plant. This outfall was installed by
Westcoast Reduction and is being granted to the RDN, which will become the long-term
operator. The intent is for the outfall to be a shared-use facility that can be used by other
operations in Duke Point under individual effluent discharge permits from the Ministry of
Water, Land and Air Protection. There are some operational concerns about discharging to
a single outfall regulated with multiple effluent permits and outfall capacity limitations during
peak seasonal flows from Westcoast Reduction’s plant that could limit VIGP’s discharge.
The Phoenix site is attractive because it is located in an industrial area away from residential
development, has access to water supply and wastewater discharge infrastructure, and has
sufficient size to be convenient for VIGP and allow a buffer area around the facility.
Negotiations were successfully undertaken with the owner and an option to purchase the
property was agreed. However, rezoning of the property to allow heavy industrial use has
not been completed.
The Harmac site is concluded to be the best site for VIGP, based on a thorough
consideration of engineering design, cost, environmental, health and socio-economic
factors, and is the site proposed for development in this Application.
2-14
3. PROJECT FACILITIES AND DESIGN
3.1
PROJECT COMPONENTS
The Vancouver Island Generation Project (VIGP) encompasses the construction, start-up
and operation of the following facilities:
•
A natural gas fired combined cycle power plant with a nominal base power output of 265
MW without duct firing, and a peak power output of 295 MW with duct firing;
•
A 440 m long, 219 mm diameter natural gas service line supplying the plant with natural
gas routed from Centra's existing Harmac lateral pipeline;
•
An 850 m long water supply pipeline within an existing right-of-way beside Wave Place
to transport raw water from the existing Harmac mill water reservoir to the plant;
•
A 325 m long pipeline within the VIGP and Harmac plant site areas to transport
wastewater from VIGP to the existing Harmac mill wastewater treatment system, where
it will be combined with mill effluent, treated to meet existing effluent permit
requirements, then discharged to Northumberland Channel through an existing outfall;
•
An upgrade of the existing power transmission line circuits that presently provide power
to industrial users in the Duke Point area, involving addition of a new 3 km circuit from
the Harewood tap at the mainline to the Harewood substation and the upgrade of 6 km
portion of the circuit from the Harewood substation to VIGP;
•
Temporary construction space and works needed during construction and startup of the
project facilities. Laydown area for the VIGP plant will be located on the proposed plant
site, while work space for the linear developments will be in the existing right-of-ways, or
on already developed land.
Figure 3.1-1 shows the location of the proposed VIGP plant site, the natural gas service line
from the existing Harmac lateral and the existing 9 km of transmission line that will be
upgraded to handle the power generated by VIGP. The VIGP plant site is within the current
boundaries of Pope & Talbot’s Harmac Pulp Operations mill (Harmac), which will provide
water to VIGP and treat and discharge wastewater from VIGP.
Figure 3.1-2 illustrates the layout of the VIGP plant site, showing the proposed access road
from existing roads, major buildings, the on-site meeting station and connection to the
natural gas feeder. Figure 3.1-3 shows the details of the plant layout and identifies major
equipment.
A large scale drawing of the project facilities and property boundaries and roads overlain on
an aerial photograph of the area is included in the map pocket at the back of this
Application.
3-1
Figure 3.1-1
Map showing the VIGP Plant Site and Linear Project Components in the Study Area
3-2
3.2
POWER PLANT DESIGN
3.2.1
General Description and Layout
The proposed VIGP power plant will have a nominal power output of 265 MW without duct
firing and 295 MW with duct firing, net of the power requirements of ancillary equipment. A
high-efficiency combined cycle configuration will be used which involves integrated
operation of a natural gas fired Combustion Gas Turbine with a nominal rating of 170 MW
and a steam turbine with a nominal rating of 95 MW. A summary of the key design
parameters for the plant is provided in Table 3.2-1
The process flow for the main components of the power plant will be interconnected as
illustrated schematically in Figure 3.2-1. The power plant will include:
•
a GE 7FA natural gas fired combustion turbine generator (CTG) equipped with dry low
NOx (and low CO) combustors;
•
a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) with duct burners that will provide additional
heat input and steam generation during peak electricity demand periods;
•
a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) unit with an aqueous ammonia storage and
handling system to reduce NOX emissions to the atmosphere;
•
a single condensing steam turbine generator (STG);
•
a surface condenser, cooling water circuit and wet cooling tower to condense the
exhaust steam from the STG and vent this heat to the atmosphere;
•
a water pipeline from the Harmac mill and a feedwater treatment system;
•
a wastewater collection system and pipeline to the Harmac mill wastewater treatment
system;
•
a small package sanitary sewage treatment unit and an effluent pipeline to the Harmac
mill outfall;
•
electrical switchgear; and
•
ancillary equipment, buildings and a main stack.
The proposed combined cycle power plant will convert approximately 55% of the lower
heating value of natural gas into electricity for supply to the BC Hydro grid. This high energy
conversion efficiency can be achieved by the use of an advanced gas turbine, combined
with a HRSG and steam turbine to generate additional electricity from the hot gas turbine
exhaust gases. This design is commonly referred to as a combined cycle gas turbine, or
CCGT.
The steam power cycle will be designed to achieve high efficiency. The HRSG will generate
high pressure steam at 11,467 kPa and 563ºC, as well as intermediate pressure steam
blended with hot reheat at 2,771 kPa and 566ºC. Natural gas fired duct burners will be
installed in the duct at the inlet to the HRSG to provide operational flexibility by allowing the
inlet gas temperature to be increased and additional steam and electricity to be generated
when needed to meet power demand.
3-5
Table 3.2-1
Summary of Nominal Plant Design Basis
Nominal Power Output:
Without duct firing:
Combustion Turbine
Steam Turbine
Rated Total Power Output
170 MW
95 MW
265 MW
With duct firing:
Combustion Turbine
170 MW
Steam Turbine
Rated Power Output
125 MW
295 MW
Supply Voltage to B.C. Hydro
138 kV
Primary Fuel
Natural Gas
Back-Up Fuel
None
Major Indoor Equipment
Combustion turbine and generator.
Steam turbine and generator.
Feedwater treatment
Major Outdoor Equipment
Heat recovery steam generator
Exhaust stack (45.7 m above ground)
Cooling tower
Switchyard
Water tank
Emission Controls
Dry Low-NOX and Low-CO gas turbine
combustor.
Selective Catalytic Reduction using aqueous
ammonia injection.
Site Area
10.1 ha
The power plant is expected to be available to generate electricity typically 95% of the time.
Electricity will be generated at 18 kV by the CTG, and at 13.8 kV by the STG. The electrical
voltage will be stepped up to 138 kV through transformers for delivery to the transmission
line circuits and the BC Hydro grid.
3-6
NATURAL GAS
AIR
HEAT RECOVERY STEAM GENERATOR
(HRSG) & INTEGRAL NOx CONTROL
600 C
GENERATOR
81 C
EXHAUST GASES
TO STACK
COMBUSTION GAS TURBINE
STEAM
Case:
265 MW power output without duct firing.
WATER
22 C
567 C
STEAM
CONDENSER
WATER VAPOUR
26 C
COOLING TOWER
GENERATOR
COOLING WATER
CIRCUIT
STEAM TURBINE
29 C
Ambient Air 11 C
17 C
Figure 3.2-1 Simplified Process Schematic Diagram and Typical Stream Temperatures for the
3-7
3.2.2
Material and Energy Balances
Nominal material and energy balances have been developed from preliminary engineering
that is underway for the proposed power plant. This preliminary design information has been
used to determine an energy balance and inputs and discharges for the plant that are
pertinent to the environmental impact assessment. Energy and material balance data are
shown for operation at -3.3ºC (26ºF) to represent a cold winter operating condition, and at
27.2ºC (81ºF) to represent a hot summer operating condition.
3.2.2.1
Water Balance
Fresh water will be required for the following equipment and uses at the proposed plant:
•
•
•
•
Cooling tower makeup and to offset losses from evapouration and drift;
Boiler makeup;
General cleanup water and miscellaneous use;
Domestic potable water supply (separate from utility water system).
Approximately 98% of the total water requirements for the VIGP will be for the cooling
system used to condense and cool steam exhausted from the steam turbine. Energy
removed from the condensing steam will increase the temperature of the cooling water,
which will then be circulated through a wet, mechanical-draft cooling tower to release this
unrecoverable energy to the atmosphere. A shower spray of warm inlet water will fall from
the top to the bottom of the cooling tower, resulting in natural evapouration of part of this
flow and cooling of the balance to a temperature suitable for re-use in the condenser.
Makeup water will need to be added to the cooling water system to compensate for
evapouration of water and a very small amount of drift of water droplets from the cooling
tower.
The balance of the plant’s water requirements will be for the sources other than the cooling
tower. Of these smaller requirements, the main one is boiler make-up water.
Potable water will be required for domestic purposes on-site at a rate of approximately 4
L/min (1.09 US gpm). Raw water from the Harmac mill will be treated to produce a potable
water supply for VIGP.
Water requirements for the proposed plant are shown in Table 3.2-2 for operation at 100%
load and an annual average ambient air temperature of 11°C (52°F) with and without duct
firing. The plant may be operated up to 100% of the time with duct firing, depending on
electricity supply and demand, and on fuel supply constraints, however, it is most likely that
the plant will operate with duct firing less than 50% of the time. Operation with duct firing
increases the water demand. Water demand will decrease with decreasing ambient
temperature because of the reduced evapourative cooling load, and vise versa.
A simplified water flow schematic is presented in Figure 3.2-2, showing typical water
requirements and wastewater flowrates during summer and winter seasons. The estimated
peak water requirement when operating at the highest recorded ambient temperature (35°C)
and peak power output is 6,480 L/min (1,712 US gpm).
3-8
Table 3.2-2
Design Annual Average Water Requirements at 100% Load
Water Use
Typical Without Duct Firing*
265 MW output
Cooling Water Makeup
Boiler Water Makeup
Balance of Plant
Total
Typical With Duct Firing*
285 MW output
(US gpm)
(L/min)
(US gpm)
(L/min)
920
20
1
941
3,484
76
4
3,564
1,063
22
3
1,088
4,024
83
11
4,118
* At 11ºC ambient temperature and excluding water for fire fighting.
The following measures are planned in the design and operation of the plant to reduce water
requirements:
•
Reuse of boiler water blowdown water in the cooling water system;
•
Use of low-flow fixtures in the plant potable water system;
•
Use of a very low steam turbine exhaust pressure to maximize system energy recovery
and minimize the residual energy vented to the atmosphere as water vapour by the
cooling tower;
•
Care during operations in the use of wash water for plant and equipment cleanup.
3.2.2.2
Energy Balance
The power plant will be exclusively natural gas fired. The natural gas requirement with a net
power output of 265 MW is 1,698 GJ/h (LHV), and increases to 1,941 GJ/h with a net power
output of 295 MW. These energy requirements are equivalent to 1,174,400 m3/day of natural
gas at 265 MW and 1,342,500 m3/d at 295 MW, based on the average lower heating value
of natural gas used on Vancouver Island in 2001 (Table 3.4-1).
Figure 3.2-3 shows the plant energy balances when operating with duct firing during
summer and winter ambient temperatures. The net electricity output to the grid will be 279
MW to 295 MW, for these two operating scenarios and ambient temperatures. Natural gas
input energy and the net heat rate are reported based on the lower heating value of the
natural gas. Under these and most other operating conditions, the net electrical generation
efficiency of the plant will be about 55%, which is approaching the efficiency limit of
advanced commercial combined-cycle technology. The energy efficiency of VIGP will be
much higher than the efficiency of natural gas fired power plants using subcritical pressure
boiler technology (~35-37%), or supercritical pressure boiler technology (~40-42%).
3.2.3
3.2.3.1
Description and Specifications of Major Plant Equipment
Gas Combustion Turbine Generator
An advanced, dry low-NOx General Electric 7FA combustion turbine generator (CTG) is
proposed for VIGP to yield low emissions of NOx and CO. Thermal energy is produced in the
CTG through the controlled combustion of natural gas, which is converted into mechanical
3-9
energy as the combustion gases at high temperature pressure expand to lower pressure
through the turbine. The produced mechanical energy drives the electric generator, as well
as the combustion turbine compressor, which provides air for combustion.
Air needed by the CTG is first filtered, then supplied through ductwork to the turbine’s
compressor. Air and natural gas are injected into a staged pre-mixed combustor under
carefully controlled conditions and ignited. The produced gases expand through the turbine,
generating the mechanical energy for the generator and the air compressor. The GE 7FA
turbine technology first became available in the late 1980s, and has since been further
developed to improve performance and achieve low emission levels. A set of combustors
are used on the 7FA turbines, each designed for staged pre-mixed combustion to minimize
formation of thermal NOX at the high combustion temperatures needed for efficient turbine
operation.
The proposed GE 7FA gas turbine has the following emission characteristics at 50% to
100% load, corrected to 15% O2 in the exhaust gas, but without heat rate or ISO reference
condition corrections.
NOx
CO
Unburned Hydrocarbons
9 ppmv, dry
9 ppmv, dry
7 ppmv, wet
It is proposed that selective catalytic reduction (SCR) equipment will be installed to reduce
the concentration of NOX in the turbine exhaust gases to not more than 3.5 ppmvd at 15%
O2, prior to discharge of these gases to the atmosphere.
General Electric provided the concentration and emission rates for the GE 7FA turbine over
the load range from zero to 100% load for use in preliminary engineering design and the
environmental assessment. The NOX concentration in the turbine exhaust gases remains
constant at 9 ppmvd from 100% to 50% load. During transient startup and shutdown periods
the turbine will pass through the zone from light-off to 50% load. NOX concentrations in this
range will be above 9 ppmvd (at 15% oxygen). Total NOx emissions for startup or shutdown
from flame to full speed (no load) or vise versa were estimated by GE to be 4.1-4.5 kg. CO
concentrations are also stable at 9 ppmvd from 100% to 50% load, then increase
significantly below this. Total mass emissions of CO were estimated by GE to be 113 kg
from flame to full speed (no load) during startup. CO emissions during shutdown were
estimated to be 12 kg. NOX and CO emission concentrations and flow rates vary
considerably over the range from 0-50% load and are best considered on a mass emission
per event basis for startup and shutdown situations. Section 10.3.2 presents data on the
emission rates during startup of the gas turbine that were used in the air quality impact
assessment.
The CTG system consists of a stationary combustion turbine generator, supporting systems,
and associated auxiliary equipment. The following accessories will be included for safe and
reliable operation:
•
•
•
•
•
inlet air filters;
lube oil cooler;
compressor wash system;
fire detection and protection system; and
fuel heating system.
3-10
4 L/min
Potable Water
Potable Water
System
Package Sanitary
SewageTreatment
Fire water
System
Fire Water Supply
Fire water
Backup
Fire Water
Use
W: 2,837 S:5,005 L/min
Evaporation and
Drift
Cooling
Tower
Cooling Tower
Blowdown
To Atmosphere
W: 309 S: 550 L/min
W:345
L/min
W: 138 S:196 L/min
Raw Water
Supply
W: 3,200
S: 5,700
L/min
To Harmac Mill
Outfall
Backwash and Regeneration W: 3 S: 5 L/min
W:89 S:179 L/min
Demin Water
Treatment
Steam Cycle
Makeup
S:588
L/min
HRSG/Steam cycle
Blowdown
To Harmac Mill
Wastewater
Treatment System
washwater
and fogging
Combustion
Turbines
4 L/min
Plant
Washwater
Basis:
W: Winter; -3°C Ambient temperature with
duct firing.
S: Summer; 27°C Ambient temperature with
duct firing.
Net Electrical Output to Grid
W: 295 MW
S: 279 MW
All flowrates shown equal the calculated water
balance values plus 10%.
Washwater
Oil/Water
Separator
Parking Lot
Drains
Oil/Water
Separator
Roof/Floor
Drains
Detention
Pond
W:33 S:33 L/min
Discharge to
Natural Drainage
Figure 3.2-2 Typical VIGP Water Balance for Winter and Summer Temperatures with Duct Firing
3-11
Thermal, Mechanical and Generation Energy Losses,
Excluding Internal Power Use
W: 853 GJ/h (44.0%)
S: 809 GJ/h (44.1%)
W: 169 GJ/h (LHV)
S: 171 GJ/h (LHV)
Duct Burner Fuel
Natural Gas
W: 1,770 GJ/h
S: 1,662 GJ/h
(LHV)
Combustion Turbine
Generator
Electric
Power
Hot Gases
Cooling Tower Heat
Release
Stack Gases
Heat Recovery
Steam Generator
Steam
Steam Turbine
Generator
Electric
Power
W:182,091 kW
S: 167,758 kW
W:119,519 kW
S: 116,653 kW
Internal Plant
Power Use
W: 6,226 kW
S: 5,879 kW
-3°C Ambient Dry Bulb temperature,
with duct firing.
S: Summer; 27°C Ambient Dry Bulb temperature,
with duct firing.
W: Winter;
Net Electrical
Output to Grid
W: 295 MW
S: 279 MW
Heat Rate (on LHV basis):
W: 6,227 BTU/kWh (54.8% Efficiency)
S: 6,242 BTU/kWh (54.7% efficiency)
Note: All values include gas turbine performance degradation
due to fouling, which increases heat rate and reduces output.
Figure 3.2-3 Typical VIGP Energy Balance for Winter and Summer Temperatures with Duct Firing
3-12
The combustion turbine will be contained within an acoustical attenuation enclosure to
reduce noise levels. The enclosure will be specifically designed for this type of application.
3.2.3.2
Heat Recovery Steam Generator
The Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) will recover energy from the turbine exhaust
gases. It will be a three-pressure, natural circulation unit equipped with inlet and outlet
ductwork, insulation, lagging, and an exhaust stack. The HRSG will be equipped with lowNOX (43 ng NOx/J input) natural gas fired duct burners to increase steam output and
associated generation capability when needed to meet electricity demand. Duct burners will
also provide greater operating flexibility and improved steam temperature control.
Major components of the HRSG include a low pressure (LP) economizer, LP drum, LP
evapourator, LP superheater, intermediate pressure (IP) economizer, IP evapourator, IP
drum, IP superheater, high pressure (HP) economizer, HP evapourator, HP drum and HP
superheaters. The LP economizer receives condensate from the condenser hot well via the
condensate pumps. The LP economizer is the final heat transfer section to receive heat
from the combustion gases prior to their exhausting to the atmosphere.
A selective catalytic reduction module will be integrated into the HRSG downstream of the
duct burners, where the gas temperature regime is optimal for the chemical reaction of NOX
with ammonia to produce nitrogen and water vapour. This emission control equipment will
reduce the NOX concentration in the combustion gases to 3.5 ppmvd (at 15% oxygen), prior
to discharge to the atmosphere. An aqueous ammonia handling, storage and flow control
system will be included in the plant for the SCR.
The HRSG transfers heat from the exhaust gases to the feed water to produce steam for the
steam turbine operation. The feed water is converted to superheated steam and delivered to
the Steam Turbine Generator (STG) at the high, intermediate and low pressures. The use of
multiple steam delivery pressure increases the cycle efficiency and flexibility. The use of
these pressure levels to supply steam to the appropriate section of the steam turbine are
illustrated in Figure 3.2-1 provided at the front of this section.
Boiler water quality will be monitored at various points in the HRSG steam cycle and provide
sufficient data to operating personnel for detection of deviations from control limits so that
corrective action can be taken. The samples will be routed to a sample panel where
pressure and temperature will be reduced as required. At the sample panel, samples will be
directed to automatic analyzers for continuous monitoring, and grab samples will be
provided for wet chemical analysis. Monitored values will be indicated at the sample panel.
Automatic analyzers will monitor conductivity, pH and specific conductance.
3.2.3.3
Steam Turbine Generator
The steam turbine generator (STG) will consist of a reheat condensing steam turbine, gland
steam system, lubricating oil system, hydraulic control system and steam
admission/induction valving. Steam from the HRSG HP, IP and LP superheater will enter the
associated steam turbine sections through the inlet steam system. The steam expands
through the turbine blading, driving the generator. On exiting the turbine, the steam is
condensed under vacuum in the condenser to fully extract all available energy.
3-13
3.2.3.4
Cooling Water System and Cooling Tower
The plant cooling system will consist of a surface condenser, cooling tower and cooling
water system.
Steam under vacuum will leave the low pressure section of the steam turbine as wet
saturated steam, then pass through a surface condenser, releasing heat to the cooling water
as the steam condenses. Because the steam turbine exhausts under vacuum (nominally 5
kPa absolute pressure compared to 101.3 kPa ambient pressure at sea level) the
temperature of the condensate from the steam turbine will be low, ranging approximately
from 26ºC in winter to 38ºC in summer. The condensate will then be delivered to the HRSG
feed water system for reuse.
The warm cooling water will circulate through a mechanical-draft cooling tower which uses
electric motor-driven fans to draw air through a spray of cooling water droplets. The heat
removed in the condenser will be discharged to the atmosphere by heating the air and by
evapouration of some of the cooling water.
The cooling tower will have multiple variable-speed fan-driven cells. Operation at less than
full load will be accommodated by turning off one or more cells, and/or by slowing or turning
off the fans.
3.2.3.5
Water Supply and Feedwater Treatment
Cooling Water
Makeup water for the cooling water system will be taken from the water supply header. A
chemical feed system will supply conditioning chemicals to this water to minimize corrosion,
and control the formation of mineral scale and biofouling. Depending on raw water quality,
sulfuric acid may be fed into the circulating water system for alkalinity reduction to control
formation of scale in the piping within an acceptable range. The acid feed equipment, if
required, will consist of a bulk sulfuric acid storage tank and two full-capacity sulfuric acid
metering pumps.
To further inhibit scale formation, a scaling inhibitor solution may be fed into the circulating
water system in an amount proportional to the circulating water blowdown flow. The inhibitor
feed equipment will consist of a chemical solution bulk storage tank and two inhibitormetering pumps. To prevent biofouling in the circulating water system, the water will be
chlorinated and the chlorine level will be at a level similar or lower than that used in drinking
water.
Service Water
Service water includes all water uses at the plant, except for the circulating water previously
discussed and the demineralized water used in the HRSG.
Makeup Water for the HRSG
Makeup water for the HRSG will be taken from the raw water supply. The expected
treatment methods may include filtration, reverse osmosis, and demineralization to improve
water quality, and will be selected during final plant design. The demineralized water will be
stored in a demineralized water storage tank. This capacity provides approximately 24 hours
3-14
of supply, during interruption of the normal supply of water from the demineralized water
supply system. HRSG makeup water will be drawn from the demineralized water storage
tank.
The demineralized water in the HRSG will be conditioned to minimize corrosion and scale
formation. A system will feed an oxygen scavenger to the feedwater for dissolved oxygen
control and sodium phosphate or other commonly used water treatment chemicals to the
feedwater for pH control.
3.2.3.6
Switchyard
An electrical switchyard will be installed on the VIGP plant site and include generator stepup transformers, a station-fed transformer, 138 kV circuit breakers, lightning arrestors,
disconnect switches and associated switches required to support the connection to the BC
Hydro grid.
3.2.3.7
Plant Auxiliaries
Lighting
A lighting system will provide illumination for operation under normal conditions and for
egress under emergency conditions. The system will include emergency lighting to perform
manual operations during an outage of the normal power source.
Grounding
The electrical system is susceptible to ground faults, lightning and switching surges that
result in high voltage hazards to site personnel and electrical equipment. A station
grounding system will be designed to provide an adequate path to dissipate current created
by these events.
The grid spacing will be such that safe voltage gradients are maintained. Bare conductors
will be installed below grade in a grid pattern. Ground resistivity readings will be used to
determine the necessary numbers of ground rods and grid spacing to ensure safe step and
touch potentials under severe fault conditions. Grounding stingers will be brought from the
ground grid to connect building steel and non-energized metallic parts of electrical
equipment.
Distributed Control and Information System
A Distributed Control System (DCS) or Integrated Control System (ICS) will be included in
the plant design to provide modulating control, digital control, monitoring and indicating
functions for the plant power block systems. The following functions will be provided:
•
•
•
•
•
control of the STG, CTG, HRSG and other systems;
control the balance-of-plant systems in response to plant demands;
monitor of controlled plant equipment and process parameters and delivery of this
information to plant operators;
control displays for signals generated or received;
consolidated plant process status information through displays presented in a timely and
meaningful manner;
3-15
•
•
alarms; and
storage and retrieval of historical data.
The distributed control and information system will be a redundant microprocessor-based
system and will consist of the following major components:
The DCS will have a functionally distributed architecture comprised of a group of similar
redundant processing units linked to a group of operator consoles and the engineer work
station by redundant data highways. Each processor will be programmed to perform specific
dedicated tasks for control information, data acquisition, annunciation and historical
purposes. By being redundant, no single processor failure can cause or prevent a unit trip.
The DCS will interface with the digital governor control systems furnished by the combustion
turbine and steam turbine suppliers to provide remote control capabilities, as well as data
acquisition, annunciation and historical storage of turbine and generator operating
information.
The system will be designed with sufficient redundancy to preclude a single device failure
from significantly affecting overall plant control and operation. This also will allow critical
control and safety systems to have redundancy of controls, as well as an uninterruptible
power source.
Cathodic Protection
The cathodic protection system will be designed to control the electrochemical corrosion of
designated metal piping buried in the soil.
Freeze Protection
The freeze protection system will provide heating to protect various outdoor piping, gauges,
pressure switches, and other devices from freezing.
3.2.3.8
Geotechnical Design
Geotechnical conditions are expected to be favourable with respect to the development of
the VIGP. Site reconnaissance and nearby subsurface exploration indicate that the project
area is underlain at shallow depths with bedrock. This bedrock has provided suitable
foundation bearing conditions for the heavy industrial structures associated with the nearby
Harmac mill.
Klohn Leonoff (1991) conducted geotechnical exploration on the site in 1991 for the Harmac
mill’s existing Effluent Treatment Facility. This facility is located approximately 100 m north
of the proposed VIGP site. Their subsurface exploration work determined that the total
overburden thickness across the site area ranged from nil at local bedrock outcrops to a
maximum of about 3 m. Refusal to test pit excavation with a rubber tire mounted backhoe
was met within approximately 0.5 m of the bedrock surface. Klohn Leonoff provided a
recommended allowable net bearing pressures for design of foundations supported directly
on bedrock of 20 ksf (958 kPa).
Although not encountered during the 1991 assessment, the presence of fine grained gouge
material up to approximately 75 mm thick has been encountered between competent beds
of sandstone at both the nearby mill site and the adjacent Greater Water District of
3-16
Nanaimo’s reservoir. The possible presence, distribution and implications of gouge material
to the foundation design of the VIGP would be proven through further detailed geotechnical
investigation.
Earthquakes have been identified as a natural hazard on Vancouver Island and parts of
British Columbia. Current seismic design aspects of construction in British Columbia are
based on the 1998 British Columbia Building Code, in which seismic design criteria are
provided in Section 4.1.9, “Live Loads due to Earthquakes”, and in Commentary J, a
supplement to the 1990 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC). VIGP would be
designed in accordance with the objectives and requirements of the NBCC.
The Nanaimo area has a history of underground coal mining dating back to the mid-1800’s.
A review of summary plans prepared by Island Geotechnical Services (1979) indicated that
the site is not underlain by abandoned mine workings. The closest recorded abandoned
workings are shown to belong to the Reserve Mine and are located approximately 1 km to
the southwest of the site. The abandoned workings at the east end of the mine, the side
closest to the site, were recorded to be approximately 300 m below sea level. As a result of
their depth and distance from the site, the potential for these recorded abandoned
mineworkings to impact the site or influence the foundation design is considered to be very
low.
3.2.3.9
Office and Support Facilities
The VIGP power plant facility will include an office and administration area for the following
uses:
•
•
•
•
•
Reception/secretarial work area;
Several administration offices;
Lunch room;
Meeting room; and
Parking lot for workers and visitors.
3.2.4
3.2.4.1
Proposed Environmental Controls and Monitoring
Emission Controls
Emissions to the atmosphere from the proposed power plant will be at or below the emission
criteria set by WLAP discharges from natural gas fired turbines having a capacity exceeding
25 MW, which are presented in Table 3.2-3.
It is proposed that NOX emissions from the plant will be controlled to low levels by use of a
dry low-NOX gas turbine followed by selective catalytic reduction (SCR) equipment. This
approach will minimize NOX emissions from the stack originating from the gas turbine and
the duct burners.
3-17
Table 3.2-3
BC Emission Criteria and Monitoring Requirements for Gas Turbines
with a Capacity Greater than 25 MWa
Contaminant
Fuel
Criteria
3
(mg/m )
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NO2)
Natural Gas
Carbon Monoxide
Any
c
(ppm)
17
9
48b
25b
58
51
c
c
Averaging
Period
Monitoring
Requirement
1 hour
Continuous
1 hour
Continuous
Ammonia
Any
7
10
1 hour
Continuous
Note: Reference conditions of 20°C (68°F), 101.325 kPa (14.70 psia), and dry gas concentration
corrected to flue gas oxygen content of 15% by volume.
a As stated in “Emission Criteria for Gas Turbines” , Air Resources Branch, Environmental
Protection Division, B.C. Environment, dated December , 1992. (now the Ministry of Water, Land
and Air Protection)
b Apply to gas pipeline application and other installations where selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
is demonstrated to be inappropriate.
c If ammonia injection for selective catalytic reduction of NOx emissions is applied.
The proposed gas turbine will produce exhaust gases containing 9 ppmvd (dry) NOX at
standard conditions of 20ºC, 101.325 kPa and 15% oxygen. This NOX emission level meets
the current BC emissions criteria (Table 3.2-3). The SCR will reduce the NOX concentration
in the exhaust gases to 3.5 ppmvd (dry) NOX at standard conditions of 20ºC, 101.325 kPa
and 15% oxygen prior to release to the atmosphere. This NOX concentration is 60% less
than the current BC emission criteria for gas turbines.
An SCR reduces NOX emissions by selectively reacting this contaminant with ammonia
(NH3) over a catalyst. Nitrogen oxides, NH3 and O2 (oxygen) react on the surface of the
catalyst to form nitrogen (N2) and water vapour (H2O), both natural constituents of ambient
air. The exhaust gas must contain a minimum amount of O2 and be within a particular
temperature range (typically 230 to 450°C) in order for the SCR system to operate
efficiently. The temperature range is dictated by the catalyst, typically made from noble
metals, base metal oxides such as vanadium and titanium, or zeolite-based material.
The dominant component of NOX in exhaust gases from a high temperature combustion
source such as a gas turbine is NO, with NO2 making up the balance. The primary chemical
reactions that take place over the catalyst in SCR emission control equipment are:
4 NO + 4 NH3 + O2
4 N2 + 6 H2O
2 NO2+ 4 NH3 + O2
3 N2 + 6 H2O
The operating temperature of the catalyst is between 230 and 450ºC (450 to 850ºF). The
SCR will be located within the HRSG where the desired temperatures are achieved. The
SCR will reduce inlet NOX by up to about 90%.
The ammonia injection rate will be monitored and automatically controlled to achieve the
desired NOx concentration in the stack gases with the minimum use of ammonia. Not all the
NH3 injected into the inlet of the SCR reacts with NOX, resulting in low concentrations of
ammonia in the SCR exit gases. This unreacted NH3 is typically referred to as ammonia slip.
3-18
For the proposed plant, the concentration of ammonia in the combustion gases emitted to
the atmosphere will average less than 5 ppmvd, corrected to 15% oxygen, and not be
greater than 5 ppmvd during normal plant operation.
Aqueous ammonia will be used as the source of ammonia for the SCR and is usually used
in this application at a concentration of 19 to 28% by weight. VIGP proposes to use aqueous
ammonia at 19% by weight. The aqueous ammonia will be stored on-site in a sealed 150 m3
(40,000 US gal) bullet tank designed for a pressure of 345 kPa. The tank will hold up to 140
tonnes of aqueous ammonia, which equates to approximately 26.5 tonnes of ammonia at a
19% concentration in water. Ammonia consumption (as NH3) for reduction of NOx, and
allowing for ammonia slip at 5 ppmvd, will range from 269 kg/day at 265 MW in summer to
360 kg/day at 295 MW in winter, with an average rate of about 315 kg/day. One can deliver
26.5 m3 of aqueous ammonia, or 4.7 t NH3, per truck load. Two truck deliveries of this
volume of aqueous ammonia are expected to occur approximately once per month. The
delivery frequency will depend on the delivery volume and the concentration of ammonia in
solution, as well as the plant usage rate.
3.2.4.2
Wastewater and Site Runoff Handling and Discharge
There will be three separate wastewater collection systems. One system will collect process
wastewater streams, including combined blowdown from the HRSG and cooling tower,
demineralization neutralizer wastewater, and other process streams. This effluent will be
piped to the Harmac mill effluent system for treatment and discharge. A second wastewater
system will collect sanitary wastewater from sinks, toilets, and other sanitary facilities and
discharge it into a on-site packaged wastewater treatment system at VIGP prior to discharge
through the Harmac outfall. The third stream, consisting of run-off from parking lot drains,
building/roof drains and stormwater, will pass through an oil and water separator and then a
retention pond prior to being discharged to natural drainage.
The Harmac mill effluent treatment system already treats and discharges effluent from its
own boilers, feedwater treatment system and floor drains that will be similar in quality to the
effluent from the VIGP.
The combined process wastewater will be monitored continuously on-site for pH,
temperature, conductivity and flowrate.
Descriptions of the plant wastewater streams, and the planned collection and treatment
processes for these streams are provided below:
Cooling Water Blowdown
Cooling water blowdown will constitute the largest wastewater stream, and will consist of
periodic or continuous purges of cooling water required to prevent build-up of contaminants
and adverse effects of system operation. The wastewater will be relatively clean warm water
and only contain residual concentrations of water treatment chemicals added to the
circulating water. Water treatment chemicals control scaling and biofouling of the cooling
tower as well as corrosion of the circulating water piping and condenser tubes.
Floor and Roof Drains – Oil/Water Separator
Miscellaneous open drains will collect water from area washdown, sample drains, drainage
from facility equipment areas and building roofs. Water from these areas will be collected in
3-19
a system of drains, sumps and piping, and routed to the primary wastewater collection
system. Drains that potentially could contain oil or grease will be routed through an oil/water
separator. Sediment traps will be used as appropriate. Water from the plant drains will be
discharged to the process sewer via the same underground pipeline that carries the cooling
tower blowdown. Curbs will be used around pumps, tankage and other process equipment
to contain spills and direct any contaminated runoff in the curbed area to the process sewer
for treatment.
Boiler Feedwater Treatment Wastes
Wastewater from the feedwater treatment system may consist of the reject stream from a
Reverse Osmosis (RO) unit or neutralized waste streams from regeneration of ion resin
exchange beds and/or backwash water from the multi-media filters. These waste streams
will be collected in a central neutralization facility where the combined stream will be treated
before discharge to the process sewer.
HRSG Blowdown
HRSG blowdown consists of boiler water that is discharged to control the concentration of
dissolved solids to within acceptable limits. All HRSG blowdown wastewater will be sent to
the cooling tower water circuit for reuse in the cooling water system.
Surface Water Run-Off (During operation)
Where location and finished grade of the terrain on the VIGP site permit, stormwater run-off
from paved non-process areas, paved roadways other than for vehicle parking, gravelled
areas and undeveloped parts of the site will be directed through ditches, culverts and natural
drainage channels off the site. Appropriate stormwater runoff controls will be implemented
during operation as described in Section 11.2 to manage stormwater flows.
3.2.4.3
Noise Control
All applicable noise regulations will be met, including relevant parts of the Workers’
Compensation Act of British Columbia and the Industrial Health and Safety Regulations. In
addition to meeting the above regulations, the VIGP facility will not exceed noise levels as
set out in Table 3.2-4.
Table 3.2-4
Maximum Noise Levels from VIGP Plant Site During Normal Operation
Condition
Limit (dBA)
1.
At 100 m from the property boundary
55*
2.
At 1 m (3 ft) from equipment enclosures (WCB requirement)
85
*
Design specification and basis for compliance. Under calm (< 2 km/h), clear and stable atmospheric
conditions and similar background conditions to those during the noise baseline survey reported in this
Application.
Based on a review of typical industrial construction methods that would be used during the
construction phase, a guideline will be provided to the construction contractor which sets out
the requirements to mitigate the potential noise impacts on the community during the
3-20
construction period. Construction guidelines will be followed during construction to mitigate
construction noise impacts. These guidelines are listed in Section 11.1.3 of this Application.
Steam blowing will be required during plant startups or emergency situations. A noise
(silencer will be installed on the steam vent that is designed to meet the noise specification
stated in Section 11.1.1).
3.2.4.4
Waste Management (Conformance with Waste Management Plan)
Waste management will be conducted in conformance with the Nanaimo Regional District
waste management plan. Waste generation will be minimized at source to the extent
practical. Recyclable materials will be recycled through local independent contractors and
businesses.
There will be a variety of chemicals stored and used during construction and operation of
the VIGP. These will be transported, stored and disposed of in accordance with applicable
provincial and federal regulations and legislation. The main chemicals that may be used in
the operation of the facility are widely used in these applications and include the following:
Cooling Water System and Cooling Towers
Corrosion inhibitors (Ortho-phosphate or equivalent).
Scaling inhibitors.
Chlorination to control algae growth.
pH controller.
Boiler Feedwater/Steam System Conditioning Chemicals
Oxygen scavenger.
pH controller.
Corrosion inhibitors (filming amines or equivalent).
Sulphuric acid (to regenerate ion exchange beds, if selected).
Sodium hydroxide (to regenerate ion exchange beds, if selected).
Sodium chloride (to regenerate the organic trap).
SCR
Ammonia (aqueous at 19% concentration by weight)
Lubricating Oils
Lubricating oils and grease for lubricating equipment with moving parts.
Annual Maintenance
Annual maintenance may include acid cleaning of heat exchangers and piping to remove
scale build-up.
Initial Start-up
HRSG and piping will be chemically cleaned prior to start-up which may include an acid
flush.
3-21
There will be a minor amount of waste and/or recyclables generated during routine
maintenance of the facility (e.g., solvents, lubricating oils). Wastes will be typical of power
generation operations, including oily rags, broken and scrap metal and machine parts,
defective or broken electrical materials, empty containers, and domestic solid wastes (lunch
room/administrative areas).
3.2.4.5
Environmental Management During Operation
An environmental management plan will be developed for use during operation of the VIGP
facility. Periodic reviews will be conducted to identify areas where improvement in
environmental performance can be achieved and to monitor the effectiveness of
environmental controls. This will be accomplished through both continuous monitoring (air
emissions), and audits (noise, waste management). Treated effluent will be monitored as
part of the Harmac’s effluent permit requirements.
Environmental monitoring will be the responsibility of plant operating personnel, and the
facility manager will ensure reviews of monitoring results and corrective action for any
problems are conducted where necessary.
3.2.4.6
Emergency Response Plan
An emergency response plan (ERP) will be prepared to address potential emergency
situations for the proposed facilities. This plan will serve to protect personnel and plant
property, the general public and the environment. The ERP will be prepared in consultation
with appropriate regulatory agencies to ensure effective and timely response to any potential
emergencies. Types of potential emergencies will be defined in the ERP, with plant
personnel being assigned specific duties and responsibilities in the event of an emergency.
The contents of the ERP will be developed following applicable provincial guidelines for
emergency response contingency plans (WLAP, 1992) and national standards (CAN/CSA,
1995). A preliminary outline for the ERP is provided below:
•
Pre-emergency planning:
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
•
hazard identification;
risk analysis;
identification of applicable legislation and industry standards;
emergency organization and responsibilities;
identification of local assistance such as fire and police departments;
establishment of internal communication network and procedures;
establishment of external communication network and procedures;
Emergency response:
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
establishment of emergency operations centre;
emergency classifications;
plan activation and response mobilization procedures;
incident reporting;
incident site security;
response action/containment/cleanup plan;
evacuation plan;
3-22
−
•
post incident evaluation and site remediation plan;
Relevant checklists of:
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
response team members and key company personnel;
contacts for local, provincial and federal agencies;
local residents;
contacts for medical emergencies;
emergency evacuation procedures;
emergency response and facility shut-down procedures;
reporting forms;
emergency equipment, its location and maintenance schedules;
chemicals and material safety data sheets;
ERP distribution list;
communications and reporting;
maps of facility and region.
The proposed VIGP will be designed to comply with applicable government and industrial
insurance underwriters’ guidelines and recommendations concerning fire and explosion
hazards. Communication equipment will be installed to enable the establishment of vital
communication links during emergencies.
The operations staff at the proposed power plant will be equipped with appropriate
emergency response equipment. Staff will be trained to handle potential emergency
situations according to appropriate procedures set out in the ERP. Hazards prevention and
emergency preparedness will be fostered through regular employee training in emergency
response procedures and in the use of all emergency equipment. To familiarize personnel
with response procedures, training sessions and drills will be conducted regularly. In
addition, training in general safe work practices and specific training areas including
Workplace Hazardous Material Information System (WHMIS), Transportation of Dangerous
Goods and Safety Oriented First Aid will be provided.
Potential emergencies associated with the natural gas supply and operations of the on-site
electrical sub-station will also be addressed in the ERP. Periodic reviews and updates of the
ERP will be carried out to ensure it is effective and that it meets all applicable regulatory and
insurers’ emergency response planning requirements.
3.2.5
Plant Security
The VIGP plant site will have security fencing around its perimeter, and entry through the
access gate will be controlled by use of security passes/magnetic cards.
3.3
ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE
3.3.1
General Description and Location
There is presently one 138 kV transmission line, circuit 1L112, which supplies electricity
from BC Hydro’s Jingle Pot Substation to the Duke Point area for the Harmac mill, Island
Phoenix mill and the Nexen plant loads. In addition the Jingle Pot Substation also supplies,
via circuit 1L138, electricity to the Harewood Substation for local residential and commercial
3-23
loads. If unchanged, this existing transmission system cannot accommodate the power
generated by the new generating station.
Jingle Pot Substation is located just inside the Nanaimo City boundary on Jingle Pot Road.
Harewood Substation is also located within the Nanaimo City limits off of Tenth Street. The
customer substations of Nexen, Harmac and Island Phoenix are all located in the Duke
Point industrial area.
Four transmission lines exit on the south side of Jingle Pot Substation:
•
138 kV circuit 1L112, a wood pole line which runs to the Harmac mill, Island Phoenix mill
and Nexen plant. This circuit is approximately 15 km in length.
•
138 kV circuit 1L138, a wood pole line that runs to Vancouver Island Terminal (VIT) near
Duncan. Approximately 6 km south of Jingle Pot Substation, this circuit taps into the
Harewood Substation.
•
138 kV circuits 1L109 and 1L122, two lines on double circuit steel lattice towers. These
circuits terminate at VIT.
The transmission line project upgrade for VIGP is divided into two segments as shown in
Figure 3.1-1:
–
Harewood tap junction to Harewood Substation, approximately 3 km east of the tap
junction.
–
Harewood Substation to the Harmac, Island Phoenix, Nexen, and the proposed
VIGP, approximately 6 km east of Harewood Substation.
Nine transmission options were identified by BC Hydro to transfer the additional capacity
from VIGP to the BC Hydro system. The transmission options range from upgrading the
existing circuit 1L112, building a new 138 kV line, building two 138 kV circuits on a double
circuit line and building a single circuit 230 kV line. The substation options examined to
accommodate the new transmission included additions and upgrading of equipment at the
Harewood Substation and the possible construction of a new substation in the vicinity of the
VIGP plant.
Based on the analysis of options, BC Hydro is proposing to upgrade the existing circuit
1L112 from the Harewood substation to the Duke Point area to a 138 kV double circuit to
carry 400 MW in each circuit, one circuit to supply Harmac, Island Phoenix and Nexen
directly, the other circuit to connect VIGP, and to build a new 3 km 138 kV tap line from
circuit 1L138 to loop into the Harewood substation. The type of work involved in this
upgrade is:
•
Installation of 3 km of new 138 kV line in the existing BC Hydro right-of-way to the
Harwood substation from the Harewood Tap at the existing circuit 1L138 main line. The
existing circuit 1L112 is to terminate at the Harewood substation.
•
Installation of a new double circuit line and towers in the existing BC Hydro right-of-way
to replace 6 km of circuit 1L112 to provide two 400 MW lines. Because of the narrow
right-of-way corridor in this segment, a temporary by-pass line will be built in the existing
right-of-way to carry one to two phases of existing 1L112, then this by-pass will be
removed once the permanent towers and circuit have been commissioned. Also included
3-24
in the work is the addition of a seven breaker 138 kV ring bus to terminate existing lines,
existing transformers, and new lines at Harewood Substation.
3.3.2
Transmission Line Design
The structure requirements are influenced by the conductor selection. However, after the
necessary conductor strength and clearance requirements of the voltage are met, various
structure material and configuration options are available. These options can provide
variation in the general appearance of the line, as well as affect the amount of necessary
vegetation clearing along the right-of-way. Not only is it the function of the structure to keep
the conductors at a safe operating distance above the ground, but each of the three
conductors have to also be kept a safe operating distance apart. Clearances from the
conductors to the structure and guys must also be maintained.
Traditionally, most of the wood poles used in BC Hydro’s transmission system utilize
Western Red Cedar poles. However, for this project, the use of single piece, 12 sided steel
poles, as shown below, is planned.
These steel poles, while generally more expensive than wood, offer the advantage of
greater strength and less maintenance. The finish on the poles is galvanized.
It is intended that the poles would be direct buried, similar to the installation of woodpole
structures. It is anticipated that there will be no need for large reinforced concrete
foundations. Some structures however, may require barrels or metal culverts installed at the
pole base to increase the strength of the foundation.
Angle structures will have guys and guy anchors. The guy anchors will be standard 2.5
metre log buried between 1.8 m and 2.5 m in the ground.
The existing 9 km 138 kV transmission line to be upgraded for VIGP is situated on BC Hydro
rights-of-way that vary from 26 m to 68 m in width. From Harwood Tap to Harewood
Substation the width is 68 m, and from the Harewood Substation to Harmac the width is 26
m.
There are no identified areas of hazards along the proposed route, (i.e. on the existing rightof-way of 1L112). The operating experience of existing 1L112 is such that there is no
reason to consider that a double circuit option would be less reliable than two single circuit
lines. The right-of-way from Harewood station to the substations in the Duke Point area can
only accommodate one circuit or a double circuit line, not two single circuit lines.
3-25
To ensure the safe reliable operation of a transmission line, any vegetation that could come
into close proximity of the conductors must be removed. The amount, or width, of clearing
required within the existing right-of-way and the need for removal of danger trees depends
on:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ground slope,
horizontal conductor spacing, (distance to outside conductor from centreline),
conductor swing,
conductor height above ground,
tree height,
tree species and growth rate,
health, or condition, of the tree,
line reliability requirements.
For example, in areas with short, slow growing trees, the clearing boundaries may be
narrow. In areas with tall timber and steep ground slopes, the clearing boundary is likely
required to be wider. In some areas where the conductor is well above the average tree
height, particularly across gullies and streams, clearing is often not required. Sometimes in
areas where clearing width is a concern, some thinning, or trimming of selected trees may
also be carried out. Trees outside of the that are taller than the predominant tree height are
also individually removed if they pose a hazard to the transmission line. These are referred
to as danger, or hazard, trees. Removal of hazard trees affecting the temporary by-pass line
will be done under the supervision of an arborist.
Access for the upgrade of the transmission line will be by roads present along the existing
right-of-way. In the unusual situation where ground access is deemed to be inappropriate,
or not possible due to potential environmental impact or physical constraints, helicopters
would be used. This method of access is not anticipated to be necessary for VIGP.
Within the restrictive 26 m wide right-of-way it will be necessary to construct a temporary bypass line(s) to carry one or two phases of the existing circuit from Harewood Substation to
Harmac, Island Phoenix and Nexen customers. This is necessary to maintain continuous
electrical supply to these customers since no lengthy outages can be planned for.
Relocating the phases of the existing line will allow for the new double circuit steel poles to
be constructed near the centreline of the existing right-of-way
3.4
NATURAL GAS SUPPLY
3.4.1
General Description and Location
Natural gas required by the plant will be provided through the Centra Gas transmission
system. A short service line will be installed as part of the proposed project to connect the
plant to the existing six-inch diameter Harmac lateral to the mill. The tie-in to the Harmac
lateral will be close to the Phoenix Way overpass. The new pipeline routing willl be in a
westerly direction on the north side of the existing Centra Gas distribution right-of-way
turning northwest just before an existing underground 3-phase power line. This power line
runs south from the Weyerhaeuser transformer station located close to the southeast corner
of the proposed plant site to Wave Place, then west towards Hooker Road. The pipeline will
then run parallel to the underground power line under Wave Place in a north-westerly
3-26
direction to a point just north of the transformer station, then run between the transformer
station and substation in a westerly direction to the plant, as illustrated in Figure 3.4-1.
A gravelled service road will be constructed beside, and sharing right-of-way with that used
for the natural gas service line to provide vehicle access from Wave Place into the
Weyerhaeuser transformer station.
At the plant site, natural gas will flow through gas separator/filtering equipment, a fuel gas
heater, gas pressure regulating equipment and flow metering equipment prior to entering the
combustion turbines. This equipment will be located in a fenced area approximately 25 m x
25 m in the South-east corner of the proposed VIGP site. Additional pressure reduction
equipment and a low-pressure gas distribution system will provide low-pressure gas for the
HRSG duct burner systems.
3.4.2
Natural Gas Specifications
A typical composition and heating value for the natural gas that would be used by VIGP is
provided in Table 3.4-1
Table 3.4-1
Typical Composition and Properties of Natural Gas used on Vancouver
Island in 2001.
Compound Name
Methane
(CH4)
(%)
Ethane
(C2H6)
(%)
Propane
(C3H8)
(%)
Butane
(C4H10)
(%)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
(%)
Nitrogen
(N2)
(%)
Relative Density
(air = 1)
2
Higher Heating Value
(MJ/m3)
2
Lower Heating Value
(MJ/m3)
Minimum1
94.53
1.48
0.32
0.13
0.07
0.63
0.574
38.19
34.37
Maximum1
96.88
3.06
0.92
0.35
0.35
1.03
0.591
39.13
35.22
Average1
95.90
2.13
0.56
0.20
0.20
0.93
0.581
38.56
34.70
Source: BC Gas – Based on monthly statistics provided for 2001 for natural gas used on Vancouver Island and
in the greater Vancouver area.
1
2
Since values in the table represent the minimum, maximum and average for each constituent, the sum of
natural gas constituents in each column does not add up to 100%.
At 15°C and 101.325 kPa.
Market natural gas produced in BC meets a total sulphur content specification of <23 mg/m3.
Natural gas currently sold on Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland has a total sulphur
content of about 11.3 mg/m3 , based on data from BC Gas.
3-27
202047
3.4.3
Pipeline Design
The pipeline maximum pressure will be 2160 psig. The pipeline will be approximately 440 m
long and have a diameter of 219.1 mm (NPS 8). The pipe will be buried at a safe depth in
accordance with accepted practice. The maximum supply pressure to the plant, downstream
of the regulation is 500 psig, which is a suitable inlet pressure for the gas turbine and should
not require on-site compression equipment.
The pipeline crossing of Wave Place will be developed by boring underneath the road.
The pipeline systems will be designed and constructed in accordance with the latest edition
of the following codes and regulations:
Pipeline:
CAN/CSA Z662 Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems;
Government of British Columbia, “Pipeline Act”;
Line pipe:
CAN/CSA Z245.1-M98;
Valves:
CAN/CSA Z245.15-M96 Steel Valves on Oil and Gas Pipeline
Systems;
Fittings:
CAN/CSA Z245.11-M96, Steel Fittings;
Flanges:
CAN/CSA Z245.12-M96, Steel Flanges;
Electrical:
CAN/CSA C22.2, Canadian Electrical Code - Part I
3.5
CONSTRUCTION PLANS
3.5.1
Construction Management
Engineering and construction contractors will provide design, construction, and startup
services for the facility. Subcontractors will be selected by the general contractor for
specialty work as needed. Detailed construction plans will be developed by the engineering
and construction contractors for review and approval by VIGP, with input from appropriate
permitting agencies.
The VIEC will provide a Construction Manager who will oversee all activities of the
construction contractor and require compliance with environmental, engineering,
construction and safety standards, permits and conditions of the project approval certificate.
VIEC plans to store the steam turbine and other major equipment on the proposed site from
fall 2002. The area where this equipment will be located is in an existing cleared and graded
area that is being used by for a building and outside storage by the current owner. No new
construction earthwork would be undertaken, but minor grading and the application of a
gravelled surface will be needed.
3.5.2
Site Preparation and Construction Areas
The project site is cleared of trees in the areas where construction activities will take place.
Hooker Road currently provides access to the west side of the property, while secondary
access is available from Wave Place.
3-29
Initial site development will involve site clearing, site grading, soil stabilization and
application of aggregate surfacing. Construction activities will also include the following:
•
Upgrade the stretch of Hooker Road, adjacent to the project site, to municipal standards;
•
Construct an access road on the property according to the site plan drawing
(Figure 3.2-1);
•
Prepare a laydown area needed during construction. This area will be landscaped after
construction is completed.
The construction site will be fenced to provide protection and security. Mobile trailers will be
used to provide the general contractor and the VIEC with office space during construction.
3.5.3
Environmental Management During Construction
Construction activities will be planned to mitigate potential environmental impacts.
Environmental performance specifications will be prepared for the engineering and
construction contractor and cover adherence to all applicable permits, use and handling of
approved materials, construction practices and in particular, current best practices for
environmental protection during construction, housekeeping, proper disposal of wastes, and
conformance to WHMIS and other pertinent regulations. The contract will state the
responsibilities of the contractor and subcontractors and specify the environmental
monitoring requirements that must be applied on the construction sites.
All special wastes will be handled, stored, transported, treated, and disposed of in
accordance with applicable national, provincial, and local regulations; procedures will be
established to ensure proper storage, labelling, handling, and disposal of hazardous wastes
in accordance with Workers’ Compensation Board and WHMIS regulations, including
procedures for record keeping and waste minimization.
3.5.4
Schedule
Figure 3.6-1 presents a preliminary construction schedule based on commercial operation of
the VIGP being achieved by November, 2004.
3.5.5
Workforce Estimates
The VIGP will provide 239 person-years of construction employment. The peak workforce at
the site is estimated to be 250 people. Where possible, construction workers will be hired
from the local workforce. When the power plant is operational it will provide full-time
employment for 20 people for the projected 25-year operating life of the power plant.
3.5.6
Construction Related Traffic
The construction of the VIGP will result in some increase in traffic in Duke Point. Although
there is no trucking use by-law for Duke Point, there is a City of Nanaimo noise by-law (No.
4750) that restricts construction hours from 7:00 a.m. through 9:00 p.m. Monday through
Saturday, and 9:00 a.m. through 9:00 p.m. on Sunday and statutory holidays. It is expected
3-30
that truck traffic generated by construction of the proposed VIGP will occur primarily on
weekdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
It is estimated that there will be approximately 3000 truck deliveries during construction, with
most taking place during months 5 through 13 of the construction period. During this ninemonth period, deliveries will peak at approximately 300/month for a three month period.
Barge traffic resulting from the construction of the VIGP facility is expected to increase,
taking advantage of the site’s proximity to excellent marine shipping facilities. The number of
deliveries by water to the site has been estimated presently at six to eight barges and one
heavy lift ship, however, this could increase if this mode of shipment offers cost advantages.
Commuter traffic volumes will likely increase somewhat during facility construction as up to
250 construction workers could be on the site at any one time.
3.5.7
Capital and Operating Costs
The overall project cost could be in the order of $370 million. The final project cost will not
be determined until all contracts are signed and all equipment has been purchased.
Approximately $70 million of the cost of construction is expected to be spent in British
Columbia.
Annual direct operating and maintenance costs are estimated at about $104 million per
year. This total is comprised at $90 million per year for natural gas, $12 million per year for
operating and maintenance costs and $2.3 million per year for wages and benefits.
3.6
ACCESS AND TRAFFIC PLAN
Access to the VIGP plant site during construction and normal operation will be primarily from
Hooker Road. Wave Place will be used as a secondary access.
3-31
Description
2002
2003
2004
J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
Engineering
Procurement
Site Preparation
Construction
Commissioning
Testing
Start Commercial
Operations
♦
Figure 3.6-1 Proposed Vancouver Island Generation Project Schedule
3-32

Table of Contents - Province of British Columbia

Transcription

Similar documents

Certificate of Registration Glasseal Products Inc.

Certificate of Registration Glasseal Products Inc.

April 12, 2000 To whom it may concern, Re: Mr. Elliot Yehia Since

fechaduras de madeira do corvo - centro regional de apoio ao

- Healthy Aboriginal Network

Fred Unleashed

3_Adventure Playground.indd

parathom - Stillwaters Law Firm

Coastal (09.13.13).cdr