Page 1 of 2

Canadian Nuclear Commission canadienne Safety Commission de sûreté nucléaire

P.O. Box 1046 Station B 280 Slater Street Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1P 5S9

C.P. 1046 Succursale B 280, rue Slater Ottawa (Ontario) Canada K1P 5S9

Meeting MinutesE-Docs #:3507296 File/Dossier:2.01

CEAR #: 07-05-29525Date: February 25, 2010

SUBJECT OBJET

Presentation to Federal Review Team – Application of Ontario Power Generations Plant Parameter Envelope to the Environmental Impact

Assessment

ATTENDEES

PARTICIPANTS

OPG Leslie Mitchell John Peters Donna Pawlowski MPMO Stephan Skocylas EC Sandro Leonardelli Duck Kim Dave Broadhurst Adelaide Wan

DFO Stephen Haayen Lisa Fowler Laurie Wood HC Melanie Lalani (phone) Kitty Ma (phone)

CNSC Andrew McAllister Sarah Watt Doug Miller (phone) CEA Agency Jill Adams Robyn-Lynne Virtue

LOCATION OF MEETING

ENDROIT DE LA RÉUNION

OPG Head Office 700 University Avenue

Toronto, Ontario Canada, M5G 1X6

Conference Room #4 (Mezzanine Level)

DATE February 25, 2010

TIME/HEURE 12:30 pm – 3:00pm

REMARKS

REMARQUES

1. Introductions, purpose of the meeting

The attendees introduced themselves and OPG went over the purpose of the meeting.

2. OPG Presentation to Government Department/Agencies Leslie Mitchell and John Peters (OPG) went through the presentation entitled “Purpose of the Plant Parameter Envelope within the New Nuclear at Darlington Environmental Assessment”. See attached.

3. Discussion

The discussion focused on the purpose of the Plant Parameter Envelope (PPE) and the information expected in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Licence to Prepare Site (LTPS).

The attendees discussed the development of the PPE approach. The discussions covered the following topics: sources of information for the PPE; environmental performance, space for site layout and level of detail

Page 2 of 2

needed for the EIS.

The use of the bounding PPE for components of the project that are independent of the reactor technology, such as cooling technologies, were discussed. The attendees discussed how these were dealt with in the EIS with respect to the bounding PPE / assessment of alternative means.

Leslie Mitchell (OPG) explained the Infrastructure Ontario procurement process, including items such as length of process and timing of design details.

Doug Miller (CNSC) provided an overview of the mandate of the CNSC, how CNSC is reviewing the EIS and the LTPS and the mechanisms that link the two reviews. Andrew McAllister (CNSC) to provide a copy of CNSC Regulatory Policy P-223 to participants.

The attendees discussed their involvement in the EIS review and its implications for their approval and permitting of the project. This led to a discussion of the JRP process and how their reviews and recommendations could fit into the overall process.

MINUTES WRITTEN BY

Name(s)/Nom(s) : Sarah Watt

Purpose of the Plant Parameter Envelope within the New Nuclear at Darlington

Environmental Assessment

February, 2010

1

CNSC Licensing requirements for NND

NND Project for EA purposes

Plant Parameter Envelope description

Bounding framework and model plant layouts

Review Licensing steps & timelines for NND

Summary

Outline of the Presentation

2 Technology Selection

In 2007 Infrastructure Ontario commenced the competitive bid process to select the preferred vendor who will deploy their standard design and construct NND.

Selection of the preferred vendor is being determined in a timeframe in parallel but independent of the EA schedule, on the understanding that the EA is the earliest step in the licensing process.

OPG has developed an approach that meets the EIS Guidelines without a technology specified

Once the preferred design is selected OPG will:

Receive, review and accept the detailed design;

Use results of the EA to confirm and inform the safety analysis and design as necessary;

Confirm the EA is bounding of the final design as part of the subsequent licensing processes.

Regulatory Guidance – Licensing

Guidance provided indicates specific design need not be

selected at this licensing stage – high level design

information only:

CNSC INFO-0756 Licensing Process for Nuclear Power

Plants in Canada, section 4.2.1:

“An application for a Licence to Prepare Site does not require detailed

information or determination of a reactor design; however, high level design

information is required for the environmental assessment that precedes the

licensing decision for a Licence to Prepare Site. An application for a Licence to

Construct must contain more detailed information about the reactor design and

a supporting safety case”

OPG developed our Plant Parameter Envelope (PPE)

approach consistent with this direction.

3

Regulatory Guidance – Licensing – cont’d

CNSC RD-346 Site Evaluation for New Nuclear

Power Plants

Section 4.0: “as the first step in establishing a new NPP, site evaluation

takes into account all phases of the NPP life cycle, from site preparation

to abandonment.”

Figure 4.1 indicates high level design information required at this stage.

4

Section 5.1: “Proposed NPP designs

are evaluated against applicable

safety goals, taking into account the

characteristics of the site, the risks

associated with external hazards,

and the potential impact of the NPP

on the environment.”

Regulatory Guidance – Licensing – cont’d

EIS Guidelines Appendix 2 (guidance on LTPS

Application requirements) notes the possibility of

more than one type of plant/design being under

consideration

For General Nuclear Safety and Control Regulation

3(1)(d), guidance indicates that “the plant description

should include:

List of plant types/designs under consideration3”

(footnote indicates this is not mandatory information for the LTPS)

OPG developed our Plant Parameter Envelope (PPE)

approach consistent with this direction.

5

Regulatory Guidance – EA

CEAA provides the following

Purpose of the Act:

4.(1)(a) “to ensure that projects are considered in a careful and precautionary

manner before federal authorities take action in connection with them, in

order to ensure that such projects do not cause significant adverse

environmental effects”

Timing of Assessment:

11. (1) Where an environmental assessment of a project is required, the

federal authority referred to in section 5 in relation to the project shall ensure

that the environmental assessment is conducted as early as is practicable in

the planning stages of the project and before irrevocable decisions are made,

and shall be referred to in this Act as the responsible authority in relation to

the project.

OPG commenced EA as directed by the Province of Ontario, as early as

practical in the planning stages of the project consistent with the CEAA

direction.

6

Regulatory Guidance – EA Guidelines

2.1 Environmental Assessment as a Planning Tool:

“Environmental assessment is a planning tool used to ensure that projects are

considered in a careful and precautionary manner in order to avoid or mitigate the

possible adverse effects of development on the environment and to encourage

decision-makers to take actions that promote sustainable development and thereby

achieve or maintain a healthy environment and a healthy economy.”

7.2 Alternatives to the Project:

“An analysis of alternatives to the project must describe functionally different ways to

meet the project’s need and achieve the project’s purpose from the perspective of the

proponent. This section must therefore identify and discuss other technically and

economically feasible methods of producing electricity other than the construction and

operation of the OPG Darlington NNPP that are within the control and/or interests of

OPG.”

7.3 Alternative Means of Carrying out the Project:

“The EIS must identify and describe alternative means to carry out the project that are,

from the perspective of the proponent, technically and economically feasible.”

7

8 Scope of the Project for EA Purposes

• Preparation of the Darlington Nuclear Site for up to four nuclear power reactors and associated facilities;

• Construction of the nuclear reactors and associated facilities;

• Construction of the appropriate nuclear waste management facilities;

• Operation and maintenance of the new nuclear reactors for approximately 60 years of full power electricity production

• Operation and maintenance of the appropriate nuclear waste management facilities; and

• Prepare preliminary plan for decommissioning and eventual abandonment of the nuclear reactors and associated facilities.

Note: The Project Scope for EA Purposes is defined for this stage of the planning process.

9 Organization of the PPE

The PPE groups over 200 prorated values:

Site parameters;

Reactor Class Specific parameters;

Vendor Design Specific parameters.

Derivation of the PPE for NND EA

PPE is a composite representation constructed to describe a range of

different nuclear plant designs by using the most limiting values provided

by the vendors of the different designs under consideration for each

parameter in the PPE;

Limiting values range from specific values, to ranges, or may be generic,

e.g., “meets regulatory requirements”;

Result is a “Model Plant” that provides a composite description based on

the bounding limit of reactor design impact for the range of plants designs

and the associated facilities included in the PPE;

Composite PPE Model Plant will have greatest effects based on the limiting

PPE design parameters, while the effects of an actual plant once designed

for the site will be less that the impact predicted based on PPE.

EA assessment of the effects of Model Plant will be bounding for any

specific plant that falls within the range of the composite PPE values.

10

11 Summary of PPE Parameters used by NND

Site Parameters – parameters related to the impact of

the site on the plant, as assumed in the plant designs

Examples: snow load, earthquakes, design basis tornado

Reactor Class Specific (RCS) – parameters that are

similar within each reactor class (PWR, PHR)

Examples: fuel enrichment, total mass of zirconium alloy in core,

heaviest construction shipment

Vendor Design Specific – parameters which address

radiological effects due to nuclear fuel

Examples: Airborne effluent, liquid radwaste, solid radwaste

12 Sample Site Parameters

Parameter Limiting ValueLimiting Reactor

Maximum rain fall rate 400 mm/d

100 mm/h

30 mm/15 min

ACR-1000

Snow and ice load 3000 Pa ACR-1000

Peak ground acceleration

0.3 g EPR, AP1000, ACR-1000

Maximum ground water -1 m EPR

Basic wind speed 232 km/h EPR, AP1000

Design Basis Tornado (DBT) max wind speed

368 km/h EPR

DBT radius of maximum rotational speed

46 m ACR-1000

DBT max pressure drop 8274 Pa EPR

13

Sample Reactor Class Specific Parameters:

Plant Characteristics

Parameter PWR

Limiting Value

PWR Limiting Reactor

PHR

(ACR-1000)

Electrical Output

1708 MW EPR 1165 MW gross

1085 MW net

Thermal Power

4590 MW EPR 3200 MW

Capacity Factor

94% EPR >95% annual

>90% lifetime

Design Life 60 years All 60 years

Building Height

71.3 m AP1000 65.8 m

Foundation Embedment

12.7 m EPR 13.5 m

14

Sample Reactor Class Specific Parameters:

Construction

ParameterPWR

Limiting value

PWR Limiting Reactor

PHR

(ACR-1000)

Module dimensions

Length 28.35 m

Width 25 m

Height 27.43 m

Diam. 39.62 m

AP-1000 Length 17.37 m

Width 10.1 m

Height 10.45 m

Longest item Length 40 m

Heaviest construction shipment

861.8 metric tons

AP-1000 422 metric tons

(on land)

1600 metric tons

(by water)

800 metric tons

(calandria)

Laydown area

12.6 acres EPR 32.9 acres

Construction population

4200 EPR 2000 to 2500

15

Sample Vendor Design Specific Parameters:

Normal Operating Source Term

Parameter EPR AP-1000 ACR-1000

Normal gaseous emission source term

1.77 1015 Bq/y 4.08 1014 Bq/y 5.9 1013 Bq/y

Gaseous H-3 emission

6.67 1012 Bq/y 1.295 1013 Bq/y 5.0 1013 Bq/y

Liquid source term

7.15 109 Bq/y 9.46 109 Bq/y 2.1 1010 Bq/y

Liquid H-3 source term

6.14 1013 Bq/y 3.74 1013 Bq/y 1.2 1014 Bq/y

16 Sample PPE Values and Usage

Parameter Value Where Used

1.1.1 Building Height

71.3 m

(AP1000)

LTPS / EIS: Site Evaluation of the OPG New Nuclear at Darlington – Part 2: Dispersion of Radioactive Materials In Air and Water

EIS: Section 3.1, Table 3.1-2 – Airborne Release Parameters (for estimation of public dose due to normal operation)

(Table 2) Number of Reactor Units On Site

3 EPR

4 AP1000

4 ACR-1000

LTPS / EIS :Exclusion Zone Determination for Darlington New Nuclear Project

LTPS: Section 4.0 Conclusions

2.6.2 Cooling Water Flow Rate (once-through cooling)

228,400 L/s

(4 ACR-1000)

EIS: Aquatic Environment Assessment of Environmental Effects TSD NND EA, Section 2.2.1, Project Basis for Assessment, page 2-2

17

The PPE is a tabular set of data that:

Creates a Model Plant derived from publicly available

vendor information for multiple reactor designs being

considered;

Model Plant as defined includes range of design elements to

identify the most limiting values for assessment purposes;

Provides a bounding envelope of plant design and site

parameter values for use in the Licence To Prepare Site

(LTPS) Application and Environmental Assessment (EA);

Plant Parameter Envelope Summary

18 PPE & Alternative Means

Plant Parameter Envelope approach allows EA to examine any of the potential designs within the bounding envelope of the Model Plant;

Practicable ways of completing the project are bounded by the model plant – in some cases, additional options are considered;

Bounding envelope was found to not result in significant adverse effects on the environment;

Advantages and disadvantages of alternative means described in EIS were assessed in the following manner:

Radiological emissions, accidents and malfunctions were considered for each of the proposed designs. Reactor designs and number of units are incorporated in the Model Plant and not considered as options.

Used Fuel Interim Storage is part of the specific design and not considered as options.

Low and Intermediate Radioactive Waste Interim storage locations options considered. Volume determined from the PPE Model Plant

Excavated material management options considered and volumes derived from bounding site layouts.

Condenser Cooling options compared and preference selected.

19 PPE & Model Plant Layouts

PPE values used to derive Model Plant were also used

to derive bounding site development layouts;

Model Plant Layouts described are reasonable maximum

extent of key layout parameters:

Maximum footprint of four reactors;

Maximum extent of land required for atmospheric cooling;

Maximum soil excavation required.

Maximum values were derived for various works and activities and

used for assessment of effects (e.g., maximum soil excavated) for

the individual environmental components;

EA bounds the conditions defined collectively by the three model

plant layout scenarios (a composite Model Plant Layout).

20 PPE Conclusions

The PPE provides bounding values for “Model Plant” based on

multiple vendor inputs:

defines the bounding conditions to capture the worst case

environmental effects for consideration in the EA;

Model Plant facilitates robust evaluations before a reactor design has

been selected, and ensures actual design will have less effects;

Approach is consistent with CNSC licensing requirements.

PPE used by OPG to support the EA and the LTPS Application for the

OPG NND Project:

PPE is a living document which OPG will maintain;

PPE represents licensing limits within a modern regulatory framework

that features built-in margins;

PPE will be used to confirm selected technology is bounded by

present/updated evaluations.

21 CNSC Licensing Steps going forward

Once EA approval granted, there are several

subsequent licensing steps

Each licence may contain conditions OPG must

adhere to, or hold points where approval must be

obtained to proceed

New Nuclear Power Plant:

• Licence to Prepare Site

• Construction Licence

• Operating Licence

New Nuclear Waste Facility

• Construction Licence

• Operating Licence

The Licensing Review Process22

EA & Licensing Process Overview

(CNSC INFO-0756)23

Conclusion

In initial planning phases, EA and Licence to Prepare

Site can be approved without a specific technology

being selected;

PPE approach ensures the EA adequately considers

alternatives, assessing the “worst case” Model

Plant;

Subsequent licensing steps provide adequate

opportunity to ensure the actual design fits within

the bounding scenarios,

Effects are minimized through appropriate licence /

permits / authorization process

24