Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout74-323 ).1' Report #7 : to the Members of the Planning Advisory Committee Town of Newcastle From: John Layng, Planning Consultant May 7th, 1974 RE: COMMENTS TO THE MINISTER OF ENERGY ON THE PROPOSED WESLEYVILLE GENERATING STATION During the week of April 22nd, 1974, large advertisements appeared in the local newspapers stating that the Minister of Energy would receive comments up to May 16th, 1974 on the proposed Ontario Hydra Generating Station at Wesleyville. The basis of discussion is the REPORT, revised to March, 1974, on the PROPOSED GENERATING STATION FOR WESLEYVILLE. A previous REPORT, dated April 1973, and two public meetings in August and September 1973, were to acquaint the interested public with the proposals of Ontario Hydro. Reactions of those attending the meetings centred on the environmental impact of the combustion products on air, water and vegetation, exemption from zoning by- -laws, oil consumption, place of energy need, and export of energy to the U.S.A. The Wesleyville site comprises some 1568 acres in Lots 25 to 31, inclusive, in the Broken Front Concession and to the north boundary of Concession 1, Township of Hope. Egress transmission lines are in Lots 27 and 28, Concessions 1, 2 and 3• RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS BE CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE FOR ACCEPTANCE, AND FORWARDED TO THE MINISTER OF ENERGY BEFORE MAY 16, 1974. Respectfully submitted, John Layng, Planning Consultant 1. COMMENTS TO THE MINISTER OF ENERGY FROM THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM, ON THE PROPOSED ONTARIO HYDRO WESLEYVILLE GENERATING STATION. The town of Newcastle has a concern in this proposed generating station because the emitted pollutants will have an effect upon its lands and people within a twenty mile radius of Wesleyville. Pastures, croplands, grains, orchards, corn, tobacco, shorelines and the Ganaraska Forest and other wooded areas will be damaged in varying degrees. The new Town of Newcastle reaches 18.4 miles from the Township of Hope to the City of Oshawa; and from Lake Ontario north some 13.5 miles. PROPOSED PROJECT: Item 3.1 states that this site has been acquired for the location of an energy centre of up to 12,000 megawatts, ultimate generating capacity; but item 3.2.1 says the plant will consist of 4 generating units for a total generation of 2,152 MW. Item 3.3 assumes that the average annual capacity factor will be 52% in the first ten years, and 44% thereafter. To outsiders, these are conflicting statements. Contrasting a generating capacity of 44% of the 2,152 MW generating capability after ten years to an ultimate generating capacity of 12,000 megawatts can only mean that this site is really intended for something 6 times as powerful as now presented. This fact should be publicized more and fully understood by the people concerned. The magnitude is of crucial importance. THE NEED FOR NEW GENERATION: of 7% per annum up to 1982. 2. Page 5, forecasts a load growth This projection must be qualified by the decline of population growth, by the certainty of continuing increases in the unit costs of electrical energy to each consumer, and by an increasing awareness for the mandatory measures to conserve the expenditures of fuels for energy. Because of its introverted position in the matter, Ontario Hydro cannot be expected to be prudent in its assessment of the actual need for 1982. In the face of new facts, Ontario Hydro seems to be inflexible in its revisions to this Report. RELIABILITY OF SUPPLY: As a further facet of need, the Report lists 10 factors affecting the reliability of bulk electrical supply. It would appear, however, that building a 2,152 MW generating station, partly as a 27% reserve for the East System in 1979, against the listed problems would be unconscionably expensive compared to dealing objectively with each factor affecting realibility to reduce its single impact on supply from existing generating sources. 3. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES: The statement on the probability of demand, in paragraph 4.1, has not been changed since April 1973 in spite of the energy problems of late 1973. It repeats beliefs that are not necessarily true today. There could be an economic depression, inflation is apparently uncontrollable, and the consumers may be quite willing to decrease their demands voluntarily so that a reserve for realibility can be achieved without this generating station. Non - emergency export of electrical energy to the U.S.A. may become practically and politically unfeasible. ALTERNATIVE SOURCES: The statement on Hydraulic Capacity, 4.2(b), may not apply to -day as it did in 1973. Every possibility of using hydraulic sources should be exhausted as a means of lessening the cost and dependency on fossil fuels. As the fuel costs rise the cost-distance issue for further hydraulic generation may be much less significant. Repeating the des gn of the Lennox oilfired station as a matter of expediency may be an expensive error of policy. Surely the difference of one year in starting service can be bridged by other applications. 4. ALTERNATIVES FOR STATION LOCATION: The statement (4.3) is indicative of further expediency. Wesleyville is claimed to be an appropriate site because it is owned by Ontario Hydro, and because it is situated close to the load it will serve, the Toronto - Hamilton area. These are not convincing or acceptable statements for Central Ontario. PROJECT CAPITAL COSTS: The estimated cost escalation from 503 millions in 1974 to 667 millions in 1980 may be insufficient. With an increase of at least 15% each year, on the remaining materials and labour and with a reasonable contingency, a 1980 figure of 800 millions of dollars could be more realistic. Since the consumers and the tax payers of Ontario eventually pay these costs, it is essential that the 1980 costs of construction be calculated as accurately as possible and publicized. The costs will undoubtedly have a considerable bearing upon the decision whether this generating station should be built at Wesleyville. The present Ontario Hydro bonds payable indebtedness of about 4 billions of dollars does not permit large errors in capital expenditures. 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The present clean air quality here, now free from industry, will be reduced in quality by concentrations of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, acid smuts and some particulate from stack emissions. It is a most regrettable observation that because this air is now clean it offers a more extended range of air pollution without exceeding the maximum legal limits for generating station sites. Ontario Hydro claims that these concentrations can be controlled by operation to meet provincial and federal legal standards. All the effects of winds, inversion heights, topography and long-term exposures on crops, garden produce, tobacco and conifers are as yet unknown. Some damage to fish life will occur from entrainment during the operation of the plant and from the increase of up to 19 °F in the discharged cooling water at the shore. The Ministry of Natural Resources notes the effects of sulphur dioxide on the 17,000 acres of coniferous and other forests within a 25 mile radius of the proposed generating station; and recommends more stringent observations and controls of air pollutants. This Ministry is also concerned with the long term damage to the acquatic ecosystem from the higher temperatures of inshore discharge, with the damage to plankton and small fish in the condenser cooling units and with the projected changes to the unique wet marshes on the site, and recommends further study before construction. 6. The cumulative effect on the water, land, air and people from the four intended generating stations from Lennox to Pickering (Pickering and Bowmanville only 20 miles apart; Bowmanville and Wesleyville only 15 miles apart) is unknown, and, therefore, disturbing. The influx of 1300 temporary workers, some with families, will likely have a critical physical result upon the present urban communities in the new Town of Newcastle and in the Township of Hope. Housing will be short, and rents high. The temporary need will likely produce panic solutions. In the eastern parts of the Town of Newcastle, there are no municipal water and sewer services; and in the larger villages and towns these services are now at their limits. Other extra ordinary costs would be for road construction and maintenance, extra policing, extra school space, and local inflation in the costs of supplies and food. The economic benefits of the permanent operating staff of 250 and their families, and the grants-in-lieu of taxes to the Township of Hope, may be lost in the damage to and changes forced upon the farms by the continuing effect of the known and unknown pollutants. 7. The unanswered problems of need and the unanswerable problems of environmental impact create an unfair and tensive situation for all of the people of the communities affected. It would be irresponsible of Ontario Hydro to proceed with the Wesleyville Generating Station without being able to tell much more of its effects. THEREFORE AND BECAUSE OF (a) the uncertainties of the extent of the need for new generation, (b) the possibility of other approaches for the reliability of supply, (c) other possible alternatives, (d) the distances between the source and the demand, (e) the escalation of capital costs of plant, (f) the diminishing, half capacity, operation, and (g) the presently unsolved and unanswered environmental impact questions. S The Planning Advisory Committee and the Council of the Town of Newcastle respectfully request that the Minister of Energy require from Ontario Hydro published answers to the above listed comments, satisfactory to all the municipalities involved, before any committment for the proposed Wesleyville Generating Station is made. Kirk Entwisle Chairman, Planning Advisory Committee Garnet B. Rickard Mayor, Town of Newcastle