HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO 12/98REPORT TO COUNCIL
FROM: Thomas J. Quinn DATE: December 7,1998
Chief Administrative Officer
REPORT NUMBER: CAO 12 -98
SUBJECT: Biophysical Review & Environmental Action Plan - Pickering Nuclear Station
Final Report and Community Working Group Comments
File: UT 3000
RECOMMENDATION:
I. That Town Council receive Report to Council CAD 12 -98, dealing with Ontario Hydro's
Biophysical Review and Environmental Action Plan for the Pickering Nuclear Station.
2. That Town Council strongly encourage Ontario Hydro to:
a) continue to liaise with the Town, the community and other stakeholders on the
implementation of the Environmental Action Plan for the Pickering Nuclear Station;
and
b) immediately begin a subsequent study of all issues related to the operation of the
Pickering Nuclear Station not dealt with in the biophysical review, and that in
undertaking this study, Ontario Hydro involve the Town, the community, and other
stakeholders in meaningful consultation, including consultation on the terms of
reference for the study.
3. That a copy of this Report be forwarded to Ontario Hydro and the Atomic Energy Control
Board.
ORIGIN:
A biophysical review of the Pickering Nuclear Station was requested by the Atomic Energy
Control Board in March 1998, as one of the conditions for renewal of the licence to operate the
station. In June 1998, Ontario Hydro established a "Community Working Group" to assist in
this review.
AUTHORITY:
Licence renewal condition of the Atomic Energy Control Board requiring that Ontario Hydro
submit information on environmental protection policies and programs In existence at the
Pickering Nuclear Generating Station.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Not applicable
Ropod to Council CA012.98 Date: December 7,1998 41
Biophysical Review & Environmental Action Plan - Pickering Nuclear Station Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Earlier this year, Ontario Hydro commenced a biophysical review of the Pickering Nuclear
Station. To assist In this review, Hydro hired a technical consulting team ( SENES Consulting
Limited hi association with Gartner Lee Limited) and formed a Community Working Group to
provide community input to the review. The Town had representation on this Working Group
through the Executive Coordinator,
Ontario Hydro's review program resulted in the preparation of three reports, which have been
submitted to the Atomic Energy Control Board (and copies of which are available for viewing at
the Town, through the Executive Coordinator's office). The three reports are:
• Volume 1: Environmental Program Review, completed in June 1998.
• Volume 2: Biophysical Review and Environmental Action Plan, completed in
November 1998.
• Volume 3: Stakeholder Consultation Process, completed in November 1998.
The Community Working Group was formed in June 1998, after the completion of Volume 1.
The role of the Working Group was to provide community input to the remaining two
documents. Over the summer months, the Working Group met with Ontario Hydro and its
consultants on a number of occasions, and provided comments on the review process, the list of
issues to be considered, the prioritization of these issues, and the recommended action plan.
Ultimately, however, the final reports submitted to the Atomic Energy Control Board represent
the conclusions and recommendations of Ontario Hydro and its consultants. They do not
necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Working Group.
Of the three reports, Volume 2 is the most significant. It provides detailed commentary on a
number of important biophysical issues related to the Nuclear Station, including issues related to
contaminants, spills, waste management practices, emissions, and the regulatory framework
within which Ontario Hydro operates. Volume 2 also outlines an Environmental Action Plan,
which Ontario Hydro advises it will begin implementing in 1999. It is recommended that Hydro
continue to liaise with the Town and other stakeholders as it implements the Environmental
Action Plan.
Involving the community in a project of this type was a new effort for Ontario Hydro, and they
should be congratulated for this initiative. It represents a good starting point for future work to
be undertaken by Ontario Hydro. However, the biophysical review process had some significant
shortfalls and limitations that influenced the conclusions of the review, and constrained effective
community input. Ontario Hydro needs to learn from this experience, and make appropriate
adjustments in the future, to ensure that subsequent initiatives are even more meaningful and
productive.
BACKGROUND:
In March 1998, the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) requested a biophysical review of the
Pickering Nuclear Station, as part of the conditions for renewal of the licence to operate the
station. Ontario Hydro subsequently commenced a review, recognizing also that a biophysical
study would be consistent with Hydro's on -going interest in sustainable development, as well as
the community's strong interest in environmental matters related to the station.
In June 1998, a Volume 1 document was prepared for Ontario Hydro by SENES Consultants
Ltd., and submitted to the AECB. The Volume 1 document contains background information
and a review of past and current environmental performance of the Pickering Nuclear Station.
4@port to Council CAO 12 -98 Date: December 7, 1998
Biophysical Review & Environmental Action Plan - Pickering Nuclear Station Page 3
After the completion of Volume 1, Ontario Hydro established a "Community Working Group" to
provide Input into subsequent work associated with the biophysical review.
The Community Working Group was established by Ontario Hydro in June 1998. Membership
on the Working Group included:
• Durham Nuclear Awareness
• Durham Region Health Department
• Durham Region Works Department
• Liverpool West Community Association
• Mayor's Task Force on the Waterfront
• Pickering Ajax Citizens Together
• Pickering Fast Shore Community Association
• Pickering Naturalists
• Pickering Ontario Hydro Liaison Committee
• Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
• Town ofAjax
• Town of Pickering
• West Rouge Community Association
Ontario Hydro also agreed to engage the services of an Independent Reviewer, Professor Nick
Eyles of the University of Toronto, Scarborough Campus, to provide Ontario Hydro and the
Community Working Group with independent comments on the review process, and the related
technical reports.
Between June and October 1998, the Community Working Group met with Ontario Hydro and
SENES Consultants Ltd. on a number of occasions. In October 1998, an additional two reports
were completed in draft form by the consultants, for comment by Ontario Hydro and the
Community Working Group members. Following the receipt of comments, final versions of
these two documents were completed and submitted to the AEC13 (in November 1998), and to
the Community Working Group members (in early December).
The two additional documents prepared by Ontario Hydro are:
Volume 2: Biophysical Review and Environmental Action Plan, prepared for Ontario
Hydro by SENES Consultants Limited in association with Gartner Lee
Associates.
Volume 3: Public Issues and Concerns, prepared by Hardy Stevenson and Associates
Ltd. in association with MAS Consulting Group.
Volume 2 presents the main findings of the biophysical study. It identifies 160 issues raised
during the course of the study, and makes suggestions on actions that are either being taken by
Ontario Hydro, or are recommended for Ontario Hydra's consideration. Volume 2 also provides
a technical ranking of the importance of the biophysical issues (immediate importance, short-
term importance, or longer -term importance), and for a number of issues provides detailed
comments, including:
a technical interpretation of the nature of the issue;
comments on environmental pathways (for issues involving releases to the
environment);
an identification of potential receptors;
the biophysical effects analysis;
conclusions on the relative importance of the issue; and
a description of Ontario Hydro's current program to address the issue; and
recommended actions for Hydro to consider.
Volume 3 provides information on the public process and the activities of the Community
Working Group, including the Working Group's prioritization of the 160 issues.
The main role of the Community Working Group was to Identify environmental issues, and rank
their importance (from the community's perspective). The conclusions and recommendations
outlined in Volumes 2 and 3 of the study are Ontario Hydra's and its consultants'. They do not
necessarily reflect the opinions and/or positions of the individual Working Group members. The
Report to Council CAO 12.98 Date: December 7,1998
Biophysical Review & Environmental Action Plan • Pickering Nuclear Station Page 4 43
final copies of Volumes 2 and 3 are available for viewing through the Executive Coordinator's
Office,
ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE REVIEW:
In the review, a total of 160 issues were identified by Ontario Hydro, its consultants and the
Community Working Group. One hundred and twenty-three of these issues were related to
biophysical effects, while the remaining 37 issues dealt with various non - biophysical Issues of
concern to the community, The issues were grouped into categories, in accordance with the
following framework:
1. Contaminants
a) Inherited contaminant sources
b) Present day on -site point and non -point contaminant sources:
i) arising from routine emissions, storage and maintenance
ii) arising from spills, leaks and accidents
c) Potential contaminant sources
i) arising from certain factors listed by the Community Working Group
ii) arising from decommissioning of Pickering Nuclear
iii) arising from all current waste management practices
2. Pathways
a) Surface waters
1) direct discharges to Lake Ontario and other bodies of water from plant operations
ii) indirect discharges via sewage system, contaminated surface runoff from leachate springs
on landfills, roofs, stacks, parking lots, snow dumps, maintenance yards, chemical storage
facilities, overflows and pump -outs from operations, etc.
b) Subsurface waters
c) Atmospheric
3. Receoton & Effects
a) Water
b) Air -based receptors including vegetation, soil, organisms including humans (respiration intake,
ingestion of dust, ingestion of food - plant and animal)
c) Effects
i) identification of sites of negative impact on any part of the biophysical environment
arising from any contaminant listed under Category 1 above, involving degradation of air
quality, ground and surface water quality and habitat destruction arising from plant
construction, operation and decommissioning
it) human and non -human species health and sustainability, psycho-social well being of
human populations
4. General Issues
a) Adequacy ofregulatory framework under which Pickering Nuclear operates
b) Status and effectiveness of the Environmental Division within Pickering Nuclear
c) Adequacy of environmental awareness and training among employees
d) Socio- economic aspects
e) Emergency preparedness
f) Other
v -4 4 Report to Council CAO 12.98 Date: December 7, 1998
Biophysical Review & Environmental Action Plan - Pickering Nuclear Station Page 5
SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL ANALYSIS:
Ontario Hydro's consultants ranked the 160 identified issues as follows:
• 37 issues were given a High rating (i.e. considered an immediate priority)
• 47 issues were given a Medium rating (i.e. considered a short-teen priority; 14 years)
• 41 issues were given a Low rating (i.e. longer -term priority; after 4 years)
Thirty -five of the issues were not ranked by the consulting team because they did not directly
relate to biophysical effects. For all but five of the issues, those rated High technically were also
rated to be of High or Medium/High priority by the Community Working Group,
The technical consulting team concluded that Hydro currently has a number of environmentally
related administrative policies in place, and numerous environmental monitoring programs.
Nonetheless, the consulting team also noted that the biophysical review idcntified some
regulatory issues that need to be addressed, as well as some issues with the potential for
biophysical effects.
In the biophysical review, the concept of "valued ecosystem components" was also introduced.
The concept is based on the premise that "valued ecosystem components" represent those parts
of the environment that if protected, the environment as a whole will also be protected. In
relation to the Pickering Nuclear station, five "valued ecosystem components" were idcntified:
(i) Groundwater resources;
(ii) Lake Ontario surface and drinking water;
(iii) Air quality;
(iv) Inshore and lake wide fish populations; and
(v) Frenchman's Bay and Hydro Marsh.
Appendix I to this Report provides a summary of the consulting team's comments on the effects
of the Pickering Nuclear station on these five "valued ecosystem components".
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PLAN
The technical consultants observed that with a few exceptions, the Pickering Nuclear station is
operating in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The consultants also noted that
although the station appears to be operating well below both the current acid the proposed new
standards for allowable radioactive doses to the public, Ontario Hydro may need to adopt
different approaches to monitoring in order to demonstrate compliance with the new standards.
The consultants also concluded that the nuclear station has varying effects on the environment
around the station, including non - radioactive discharges that may produce biophysical effects.
They also recognized that some of these effects are not fully understood, and more work is
required (e.g. data collection, monitoring and analysis) to determine the importance of certain
issues. The biophysical review also identified certain opportunities where Ontario Hydro may
act to improve the biophysical environment surrounding the station (e.g. Hydro Marsh).
The consultants recommend an Environmental Action Plan that consists of ten main program
areas, some of which are already in place or are underway.
1) Improving environmental data gathering and environmental monitoring
systems, including an inventory of potential sources of emissions, and
comprehensive groundwater monitoring,
r,`.
f;
Reporfto Council CAO 12 -98 Doti: December7,1998
Biophysical Review & Environmental Action Plan - Pickering Nuclear St bn Page 6
2) Actions to reduce and further control emissions, especially with respect to
hydrazine, chlorine, copper /zinc, carbon -14, radioactive gases, and other
emissions.
3) Actions to improve waste management control, including the development of
an overall waste management plan, and a comprehensive inventory of all
wastes.
4) Measures to protect and enhance "valued ecosystem components" and
biodiversity, including the adoption of a biodivemity plan, contaminated site
clean -up and implementation of a stormwater improvement plan.
5) The introduction of new, risk - based, management tools such as "Statistical
Process Control" and "Facility Risk Management" to provide early
identification of unusual trends and spills.
6) Improved public communication and consultation with the local community,
including terms of reference for long -term consultation on environmental
matters, and improved environmental reporting.
7) Continuation of training programs to raise a•vmeness of the importance of the
environment among staff of the nuclear station.
8) The development of a five -year plan to address biophysical issues.
9) The development of a plan to address non - biophysical issues.
10) The integration of all environmental activities and actions into an
environmental management system that is consistent with the requirements for
15014001 registration.
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP COMMENTS:
During the course of the review, the Community Working Group provided numerous comments
and suggestions to Ontario Hydro and its technical consultants. The Working Group also
identified additional issues that it felt warranted consideration by Ontario Ilydro, including a
number of non - biophysical issues (e.g. social, cultural and economic effect of the nuclear station
on the community), as well as issues related to catastrophic events (e.g. earthquakes, major
flooding, etc.).
Different members of the Working Group had different perspectives on the overall success of the
process. Some members were pleased that Ontario Hydro had initiated a consultation process,
but were concerned with the relatively short timeframe within which the consultation was taking
place. Other Working Group members were much less satisfied with the process, seeing it more
as a "catch -up" exercise to effect compliance with existing regulations, than a true commitment
to public consultation and enhanced performance of the station. There was also a concern
expressed by a few members of the Community Working Group in some areas as to the technical
validity of various data end conclusions.
ti
fy
4 #epos to Council CAO 12.98 Date: Deeember 7,1998
Biophysical Review &. Environmental Action Plan - PIckering Nucl..ar Station Page 7
STAFF COMMENTS:
Ontario Hydro should be commended for undertaking a biophysical review of the station.
However, much work still needs to be done by Hydro, to address all issues of concern to the
community and other stakeholders, and a future process needs to be developed that overcomes
the limitations and shortfalls of the biophysical review process.
The biophysical review suffered from a number of important shortfalls and limitations (and these
are acknowledged by Hydro and its consultants). First, it dealt almost exclusively with
biophysical effects (i.e. the station's impact9 on the plants and animals around the station). It did
not directly address other issues of importance to the community, including public health, socio-
economics, and psychological issues. Although Ontario Hydro has given a commitment to
address these other issues in a subsequent study, Council should strongly encourage that this
subsequent study be undertaken immediately, with full and meaningful community consultation,
including consultation on the terms of reference for the study.
A second shortfall of the review is that it relied on existing information. No new technical data
was collected by the consultants. This shortfall needs to be addressed, particularly with respect
to important community concerns, such as the need to identify all contaminated sites and all
contaminants, as well as the need to undertake a comprehensive groundwater modeling program.
Another limitation of the review was that the process occurred over a relatively short timeframe,
mainly over the summer months. Working Group members had to read and understand a large
amount of technical information, and provide effective comments and suggestions. The process
would have benefited from additional time to allow for meaningful dialogue amongst the
Working Group members, and between the Working Group and the technical consultants.
Another shortfall of the review is that the recommended Environmental Action Plan provides an
indication of the kinds of activities that may be undertaken by Ontario Hydro, but it does not
provide a detailed course of action. As a result, a budget and strategy for implementing the
Action Plan still needs to be developed by Hydro. This should be done in consultation with the
community.
In conclusion, it is recommended that Town Council strongly encourage Ontario Hydro to
undertake two initiatives:
1. to continue to liaise with the Town, the community and other stakeholders on
the implementation program for the Environmental Action Plan; and
2. to immediately initiate a subsequent study of all non-biophysical issues
concerning the Nuclear Station, and that this subsequent study involve
extensive and meaningful community consultation.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Appendix 1: Effects of the Pickering Nuclear Station on "Valued Ecosystem Components" -
Summary of Technical Comments
Reporf to Cooncil CAO 12.98 Date: December 7,1998 Iyr
Biophysical Review & Environmental Action Plan - Pickering Nuclear Station Page 8
Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By:
4 camas E Me muk omas J. inn
Executive C rdinator Chief Administrative CO..
TM:
Attachments
Copy:
w
48
APPENDIXI
REPORT TO COUNCIL CAO 12-98
Effects of the Pickering Nuclear Station on "Valued Ecosystem Components"
Summary of Technical Comments
Ontario Hydro's Biophysical Review, November 1998
In relation to the Pickering Nuclear station, five "valued ecosystem components" have
been identified in Ontario Hydro's November 1998, Biophysical Review:"
(i) Groundwater resources;
(ii) Lake Ontario surface and drinking water,
(iii) Air quality;
(iv) Inshore and lake wide fish populations; and
(v) Frenchman's Bay and Hydro Marsh.
Below is a summary of the comments provided by Ontario Hydro's technical consultants
concerning the effects of the Pickering Nuclear station on these five `valued ecosystem
components
1. Effects on Groundwater
The most significant sources of groundwater contamination appear to be the irradiated
fuel bays, existing and historic landfills, the historic and operational releases from the
Heavy Watcr Upgrading Plant, areas of known or potentially contaminated soils
throughout the site, and on -going operational releases (e.g. leaks and spills).
• Irradiated Fuel Bays: Some samples show elevated tritium levels in the north -east comer
of the Irradiated Fuel Bay - A building. Subsequent analysis suggests that neither human
health nor ecological effects are likely.
• Landfills: Hydro's landfills contribute contaminants to the groundwater, but the levels and
significance of such contamination are below MOE Guidelines for the West landfill and the
East Landfill. There is some evidence of a soil and groundwater contamination problems
associated with the inert landfills situated on the south -east site (copper, zinc and mercury
concentrations above provincial guidelines).
• Heavy Water Upgrading Plant: Groundwater contamination from the Upgrading Plant has
been well - defined (see August 1998, Ontario Hydro's UPP Groundwater Remediation
Project prepared by CH2M Gore and Storrie). Tritium levels in several samples are above
guideline. However, neither human health nor ecological effects are likely from tritium in
groundwater.
• Other Contaminated Areas: A total of 173 areas of potential contamination were
identified In 1997, many of which contain multiple contaminants or unknown contaminants.
Soil and groundwater sampling in these areas have not yet been undertaken by Hydro, and
therefore the full extent of contamination is not yet known. Key concerns relate to
radionuclides, gas/diesel, oiUgrease, organics, PCBs, chlorinated organics or solvents,
pesticides, metals, other inorganics, and unknown contaminants.
• Stormwater and Ground Interaction: The low soil permeability and high degree of
coverage of impervious surfaces at the site will tend to minimize impacts of storm water on
groundwater.
!3
• Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effect on groundwater, flow patterns on -site and the
potential for off -site movement remain uncertain. The level of contamination is likely to
vary significantly across the site. It cannot be assumed that all potentially contaminated
areas have or are likely to have a significant effect on groundwater quality. The key
Potential environmental concern with respect to groundwater is its loadings to Lake Ontario
waters and sediment, and their potential effects on water quality and local bicta.
2. Effects on Lake Ontario and prinking Water
Pickering Nuclear contributes a wide range of contaminants to Lake Ontario which
require treatment at water supply plants. The presence of the nuclear station may affect
Lake Ontario (and drinking water) through increased sedimentation, and from
radionuclide and chemical emissions to surface water and groundwater that discharges
into the lake.
• Effects of Original Construction and Sedimentation: The original construction affected
the nearshore wave climate, and augmented the natural process of longshore transport of
sediments. The armouring of the shoreline eliminated the process of natural erosion.
However, the presence of nearshore sand bars in Frenchman's Bay suggest that the station
has not caused any serious effects on the shoreline sediment transport to the west. As well,
offshore sediments do not appear to have changed significantly. To the east, there is no
evidence that the outfalislchannels on the Hydro property are causing or significantly
contributing to the erosion and sedimentation process.
• Effects of Surface Water Inputs:
Hydrazine - total emissions have begun to increase but there is no evidence
of biophysical effects (but there is a concern over these releases and the
occasional exceedances over approved discharge limits)
Other Radioactive Releases - elevated tritium levels in the Unit I inactive
sump were detected in July 1998, a problem that was traced to the sewer
line; although the line was capped, some contaminated water has continued
to enter the line, suggesting that groundwater is the most likely source
=> Chlorine for Zebra Mussel Control - residual chlorine levels at the outfall
discharge are at or are below the Provincial Water Quality Objective for the
protection of aquatic life; it is nevertheless Hydro's objective to enhance
zebra mussel control systems with alternative technologies where possible
by 2001/2003
to wate - there is some uncertainty regarding the quality of stormwater
runoff from the station and adjacent Hydro properties, based on Hydro's
1995/96 Stormwater Control Study (SWCS). The results of the SWCS
indicate that the quality of stormwater from nine drainage areas can be
considered 'Poor', with two area identified as having significant problems
(from oil/grease and salt).
Condenser Cooling Water Emissions - small amounts of heavy metals such
as copper, zinc, lead and arsenic are released to Lake Ontario via the
Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) due to the corrosion of admiralty brass
condenser tubes and the discharge of chemicals, oils and radionuclides
present in the cooling waters; copper concentrations in unfiltered water from
Lake Ontario exceeded drinking water objectives; copper and lead
concentrations in unfiltered water from Frenchman's Bay exceed drinking
water objectives; condenser cooling water discharged via the fish farm
(Coolwater Farms) had been a source of contamination, but this is no longer
the case, since Hydro no longer supplies water to the fish farm
Effects of Groundwater Inputs: Groundwater has been adversely affected by a variety of
operations. A concern Is the potential for the direct release of tritium, liquid oil, and fuel or
solvents via buried sewers and piping.
rs[. it
50
• Cumulative Effects on Luke Ontario and Drinking Water: The full range of
contaminants contributed to the waters of Lake Ontario are not fully known. In general,
however, the water supply plants serving Durham currently meet or exceed all present and
expected More water quality standards. Tritium levels at the water supply plants in recent
years am not substantially different from provincial background levels, although elevations
due to non-routine events and spills have been noted. Gross beta levels at the water supply
Plants show a slight decrease, but levels in the lake in close proximity to the station are
increasing (for reasons that cannot be ascertained from current monitoring data).
3. Effects on Air uality apd O ,
Air quality in the vicinity of Pickering Nuclear has been affected by a variety of
Operations, including radioactive emissions, acid gases, ozone depleting substances, and
other chemicals such as hydrazine and methane. Plant operations also contribute to noise
levels in the local community.
• Radioactive Emissions to the Air. Radioactive gases are released via the stacks during
routine operations; the gases include tritium, C -14, noble gases and iodine and particulates.
• Specific Biophysical Issues Related to Carbon -14 Releases to the Air: In 1997, the
radiation dose to members of the "hypothetical critical group" from C -14 released from the
station was about 20% of the total dose (and is still well below the proposed regulatory dose
limits). No environmental effect on biota from C -14 releases is expected.
• Acid Gas Emissions and Ozone [Depleting Substances: Freon is released through spills
and leaks. The last reportable event was in 1994. Combustion turbine units on site bum fuel
oil and emit carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, sulphur dioxide and
hydrocarbons and particulates. Non - radiological emissions to the air are managed in
accordance with MOE certificates of approval.
• Other Emissions: Hydrazine may be released to air through the ventilation system during
reactor start-up. Methane gas can be produced in landfills. Noise from the venting of steam
and standby generators and other activities is transmitted through the air.
• Cumulative Effects: Total emissions to the air of non•radiological contaminants are
generally minor and well controlled. The cumulative effects of radioactive air emissions
from the station has been determined with reasonable certainty and in 1997, the dose to
members of the hypothetical critical group was well below current and proposed regulatory
limits. The doses to real critical group members are only a small fraction of the annual dose
from nitural and manmade background radiation.
4. Effects on fa -Shore and Lake -Wide Fish Populations
Both beneficial and adverse changes in inshore and lakewide fish species have occurred
because of the presence and operation of the Pickering Nuclear Station.
• Effects of Shoreline Modification and Sedimentation: Approximately 20 ha of original
shoreline was lost in developing the station. However, the creation of the intake channels
and new shoreline resulted in a virtual doubling of the original length of shore, as well as a
change in character of the shoreline, and a change to the type and quality of habitats
available. As a result, there is now more habitat available than was present before.
• Effects of Impingement/Entralument: A 1992 study demonstrated minimal impacts to
inshore fish species after considering losses due to impingement and egg/larval entrainment.
• Effects From Surface Water Inputs:
Thermal Plume Effects - the presence of a thermal discharge provides a
more stable regime that is attractive team and cold waters species at
various times of the year, this has resulted in the creation of a nearshore
recreational fishery; sufficient data am not available to quantify the
$1
magnitude of effect of the warm water discharge on fish populations
Qemical end ctormwater h%hUW- stormwater discharges to fake
Ontario will be rapidly diluted and have little effect on water quality in the
Lake; contaminated groundwater from the station is also not likely to have a
significant effect on lake water quality due to dilution; a greater concern is
the on -going exposure offish to potentially contaminated water and
sediments in the nearshore area as a result of condenser cooling water
emissions and groundwater inputs (e.g. the possible bfo-accumulation of
copper and lead)
• Cumulative Effects: There are gaps in knowledge concerning the cumulative effects of the
changes in aquatic habitats, changes in fish species populations, spawning conditions and
reproductive success
5. Effects on Frenchman's Bay and Hydro Marsh
The sediments, water quality, terrestrial and aquatic biota at Frenchman's Bay and Hydro
Marsh have been adversely affected by a variety of operations at Pickering Nuclear.
• Effects of Original Construction: The original construction activities resulted in a direct
loss of about 15 ha of wetland habitat, a reduction in the quality of the remaining habitat, the
conversion of meadow, and the introduction of sediments into the remaining wetland.
• Effects from Surface Water Inputs and Sediments: The direct effects of the station on
Frenchman's Bay relate to past discharges of wane water, metals and others released
through the Coolwater Farms aquaculture facility (which no longer receives condenser
cooling water from the station). A screening level assessment indicates that copper and in
some cases lead levels in Lake Ontario and Frenchman's Bay sediment have the potential to
affect aquatic biots. More data is required regarding urban stormwater runoff to fully assess
the relative influence of the station'i condenser cooling water emissions compared to other
sources. Frenchman's Bay may also potentially be affected by the thermal plume from the
station. The combination of low permeability soils and the amount of developed area within
the nuclear site creates large volumes of stormwater runoff from the site, most of which
reaches Lake Ontario, although some runoff enters Hydro Marsh. The quality of storm water
at the station is generally poor.
• Effects from Groundwater Inputs: Groundwater from the station generally flows in a
southerly direction and discharges to the Lake. There is also some potential for shallow
groundwater inputs to Hydro Marsh, although investigations at Alex Robertson Park found
no signs of a contamination problem. Leachate from the West Landfill is also not likely to
be a significant source of contamination from groundwater discharges to Hydro Marsh. In
addition, groundwater investigations at the Heavy Water Upgrading Plant indicated that
tritiated groundwater is not present in areas between 90 and 300 m of the UPP and that the
only possibility of exposure to tritium in terrestrial or aquatic biota in Hydro Marsh is from
contaminated rainwater or from consuming prey from the UPP site. It is concluded that the
risk of exposure of any organism to levels of tritium in the groundwater is negligible.
• Effects from Exposure to Contaminants in the Air. Because total emissions are generally
minor and well controlled, the effects on Frenchman's Bay and Hydro Marsh are expected to
be insignificant.
• Cumulative Effects: Overall, there have been and continue to be a great many influences
upon the biophysical conditions of Frenchman's Bay and Hydro Marsh both from the station
and from other uses and landowners in the area.
IV