BRUCE HEAVY WATER PLANT DECOMMISSIONING PROJECT

Bruce Heavy Water Plant Decommissioning
Environmental Assessment Study Report
Ontario Power Generation
Final Submission to CNSC
2.0 ALTERNATIVES
Section 16(2)(b) of the Act requires that this EA, being a Comprehensive Study, consider
alternative means of carrying out the project that are technically and economically feasible and
the environmental effects of any such alternative means.
The DDP (OPG, 2002) assessed the alternative means of carrying out the project in three steps as
outlined below.
• evaluation of five decommissioning strategies (options) to select a preferred option
• determination of the most effective means of carrying out the preferred option
• assessment of decommissioning methods for specific structures
2.1 Alternative Means Of Carrying Out The Project
Five possible decommissioning strategies were identified and evaluated to select the preferred
option for the BHWP Decommissioning Project. Four criteria (Safety, Environment, Cost, and
Program) were considered for each of the options. Each option was given a score ranging from
1 (poor) to 10 (excellent) based on its relative merit or impact for each criterion. Different
weights were assigned to each of these criteria to reflect the relative importance of the criteria.
Safety, both to the workforce and to the public, was assigned the highest weighting, followed by
consideration of environmental effects. Cost and program (i.e., timeframe or schedule) are
considered to be relatively less important and to some extent they are interdependent. The final
score is the product of the individual scores and the corresponding weight. The evaluation of
each option is provided in Table 2.1 and described in the following subsections.
2.1.1 Option 1: Mothballing and Deferred Decommissioning
Mothballing the plant would not remove any of the existing hazards and would offer no longterm
improvement to the environment. However, there would be no short-term adverse effects
on the environment. The plant structures and buildings would require considerable maintenance
to keep them in a safe state. This is particularly important on the tall structures, which could
pose a serious hazard if they are corroded by weather. Carrying out the appropriate level of care
and maintenance on the plant would be expensive and pose some risk to maintenance staff.
There is no benefit to be gained from delaying the decommissioning (the plant is not radioactive
so delay will not reduce hazards). It is unlikely that there will be sufficient future demand for
heavy water to warrant the cost and effort required to mothball the heavy water production
facilities (i.e. the process equipment and related buildings). OPG’s current inventory of heavy
water is sufficient to meet all of its foreseeable needs and the demand for heavy water on the
export market is expected to remain low for the foreseeable future. This option received the
lowest score.
2-1 December 2002