HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-076-10•
aeadt- ngrt<ew~~ REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: June 21, 2010 Resolution #: (;I~R-3Ga-/0 By-law #: N/A
Report #: PSD-076-10
File #: PLN 26.15
Subject: DARLINGTON NEW NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST FROM JOINT REVIEW PANEL
DATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
THAT Report PSD-076-10 be received and approved as the Municipality of Clarington's
response to the letter dated March 25, 2010 from Mr. Alan Graham, Chair of the Joint
Review Panel for the Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant Project;
2. THAT Council adopt the following resolution:
"WHEREAS the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station has been a significant part
of the Municipality of Clarington since the 1980s, and has provided many positive
benefits to the community with minimal adverse effects on the natural environment;
AND WHEREAS Municipality of Clarington Council and Staff have attended
numerous meetings and information sessions with respect to the Darlington New
.Nuclear Power Plant Project and are therefore very knowledgeable with respect to
the Project;
AND WHEREAS the Municipality of Clarington retained a qual~ed team of
professionals to undertake a detailed peer review of the draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant Project and, on the basis of
this peer review, can state with confidence that the Environmental Impact Statement
meets the requirements of the Guidelines for the preparation of the document and
that it satisfactorily addresses the Municipality's issues and concerns with respect
to the Project;
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
REPORT NO.: PSD-076-10
PAGE 2
AND WHEREAS the Council and the residents of the Municipality of Clarington
have been steadfast in their support for the proposed Darlington New Nuclear
Power Plant Project and are eager to have nuclear power generation continue as
positive presence in our community;
AND WHEREAS Council and the community of Clarington are very concerned that
the Joint Review Panel is considering the use of cooling towers for the Darlington
New Nuclear Power Plant Project in order to minimize the impact on aquatic
organisms and habitat;
AND WHEREAS the Municipality of Clarington's peer review of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant
Project agreed with the study's conclusions that the once-through lakewater cooling
system as recommended by Ontario Power Generation would operate with minimal
impact on the aquatic organisms and habitat in Lake Ontario, while the construction
and operation of cooling towers would result in long term adverse impacts on the
socio-economic environment of Clarington and Durham Region;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Municipality of
Clarington hereby advises the Joint Review Panel that it supports aonce-through
lakewater cooling system for the Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant Project and
strongly opposes the use of any cooling tower technology;
AND FURTHER THAT the Council of the Municipality of Clarington strongly urges
the Joint Review Panel to give appropriate consideration to the negative socio-
economic effects on the Municipality of Clarington and Durham Region that would
result from the construction and operation of cooling towers for the Darlington New
Nuclear Power Plant Project"; and
3. THAT a copy of Report PSD-076-10 and Council's decision be forwarded to the Joint
Review Panel for the Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant Project, Ontario Power
Generation, the Regional Municipality of Durham, the City of Oshawa, the Clarington
Board of Trade, and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority.
Submitted by: Reviewed by:
a e Langm , FCSLA, MCIP
ting Direc r of Planning Services
JAS/df
11 June 2010
F nklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
REPORT NO.: PSD-076-10 PAGE 3
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 In March 2010, the Municipality of Clarington received a letter from the Joint Review
Panel (JRP) established by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to undertake the regulatory review of the
Darlington New Nuclear Development (NND) Project (see Attachment 2). The letter
requested the Municipality to provide information regarding its responsibilities as they
relate to the NND Project, and also to provide the Municipality's comments on the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by Ontario Power Generation (OPG)
for the Project.
1.2 The purpose of this report is to provide the Municipality's response to the information
requested by the JRP in its March 25, 2010 letter.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 The Government of Ontario has directed OPG to initiate the federal approvals process
to construct new nuclear generating capacity at the existing Darlington Nuclear
Generating Station (DNGS) to help meet the Province's baseload electrical
requirements.
2.2 New nuclear power plant projects require the following licences under the federal
Nuclear Safety and Control Act. site preparation licence, construction licence, operating
licence (which is reviewed and renewed on a regular basis), decommissioning licence,
and a licence to abandon. OPG initiated the licensing process for the NND Project in
September 2006 by submitting a preliminary application for a site preparation licence to
the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
2.3 This application also triggered the need for OPG to undertake an Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the NND Project pursuant to the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act. OPG initiated work on the EA and the preparation of an EIS in
accordance with Guidelines issued by the federal government and formally submitted
the EIS and a revised application for a site preparation licence to the JRP on September
30, 2009.
2.4 Over the past several months, the JRP has requested OPG to provide additional
information on these two documents in response to queries from various federal review
agencies. A six month public review period was also initiated on November 16, 2009,
although the JRP has subsequently extended the length of the review period a number
of times to coincide with the information requests. Once the JRP is satisfied with the
completeness of the information presented in the EIS, it is expected to schedule the
hearing for the site preparation licence, with the hearing for the construction licence to
be held sometime later.
2.5 OPG provided funding to the Municipality of Clarington, as the host community, to retain
qualified professionals to undertake a peer review of the draft EIS prior to its submission
for federal review and approvals. This peer review is discussed in more detail in
Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of this report.
REPORT NO.: PSD-076-10 PAGE 4
3.0 OVERVIEW OF DARLINGTON NEW NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
3.1 Under the federal EA process, the EIS must identify the expected adverse effects of the
proposed NND Project and recommend mitigation measures to minimize these effects
to the point at which they are not considered to be significant. As such, the Project as
discussed in the EIS includes site preparation, the construction and operation of the
NND Project, a preliminary decommissioning plan plus a full suite of proposed
mitigation measures and follow up program.
3.2 In general terms, the Darlington NND Project involves the construction, operation, and
maintenance of as many as four nuclear reactor units supplying up to 4,800 megawatts
of electrical capacity for approximately 60 years each, and development planning for the
eventual decommissioning of the nuclear facilities. It is likely that two reactors will be
constructed in the initial phase of the Project, although the EIS addresses full reactor
build out. The construction and operation of a number of ancillary facilities, such as for
the management of used nuclear fuel, will also be required. The Project is proposed to
be located on approximately the eastern one-third of the existing Darlington Nuclear
site, bounded by the property limits to the east and north and by Holt Road on the west.
3.3 The provincial government is currently considering proposals from three vendors for
reactor designs; only one of the three designs will ultimately be constructed. Each
reactor design offers differing electrical outputs which will determine the number of
reactors required in order to meet the required electrical capacity:
• Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (ACR-1000) - four reactors required;
• AREVA NP (Pressurized water reactor) - three reactors required;
• Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (AP 1000) -four reactors required.
3.4 A reactor design had not been selected by the provincial government by the time the
EIS had been submitted to the JRP for review. In addition, there are a number of
specific Project elements that are independent of reactor design but which will have a
significant effect on site layout. Until a reactor vendor is selected and the detailed
design is complete, specifics regarding the scope and form of the overall site
development cannot be determined. In order to address these uncertainties, the EIS
defines the NND Project within a Plant Parameter Envelope (PPE) which is a bounding
framework that includes the full range and extent of possible variables and effects
associated with the Project, and essentially presents the most conservative (ie. worst
case) scenario.
The Project elements noted above that have yet to be determined include condenser
cooling and the management of excavated material. These elements are discussed in
more detail below.
3.5 Alternatives for Condenser Cooling
3.5.1 To condense the steam used to produce electricity, water drawn from Lake Ontario will
be circulated through the condensers to remove excess heat. The warmed water will
either be returned to the lake (once-through lakewater cooling) or returned to a cooling
REPORT NO.: PSD-076-10
PAGE 5
tower to be cooled and re-used (closed-loop atmospheric cooling). Four alternative
means of cooling are being considered for the NND Project, as discussed below.
3.5.2 Once-through Lakewater Cooling
Large volumes of lake water are circulated through the condensers and returned to the
lake through a diffuser discharge pipe. This is the system currently used at all of the
Canadian nuclear generating stations located on the Great Lakes, including the existing
Darlington Nuclear Generating Station.
3.5.3 Natural Draft Cooling Towers
This approach involves aclosed-loop system whereby water is
circulated through the condensers and returned to the towers to
be cooled by outside air drawn into the tower at its base. The
warmed moist air rises and exits from the top of the tower as a plume. Water not lost by
evaporation is re-used for cooling (about four times). Natural draft cooling towers are
typically a hyperbolic shape and extend to approximately 150 m above grade and just
as wide at the base.
3.5.4 Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers
This approach uses atmospheric cooling; however, the
cooling process is assisted through the use of fans located
either at the base or the top of the tower. The towers are
approximately 20 m in height and create a visible plume, and take up more land than
natural draft cooling towers.
3.5.3 Fan Assisted Natural Draft Cooling Towers
These hyperbolic-shaped towers have fans placed around the base
of the tower to increase the air flow rate. They have a slightly larger
base dimension than natural draft cooling towers, but are only about one-third
the height
(50m). Because they are a hybnd of the mechanical draft and natural draft cooling
towers, their environmental effects are similar to these options.
3.5.5 OPG Preferred Option for Condenser Cooling
OPG has identified once-through Lakewater cooling as its preferred approach to
providing condenser cooling for the NND Project. This decision was based on a
comparative analysis of each approach that determined, on balance, that once-through
cooling had fewer adverse impacts on the environment than cooling towers, as
summarized below:
Air quality: Once-through Lakewater cooling creates no emissions to the
atmosphere, while cooling towers would discharge a visible vapour plume, heat, salt,
and water treatment chemicals;
Noise: Once-through Lakewater cooling does not generate any sound, while fans
associated with cooling towers would require workers to wear hearing protection;
REPORT NO.: PSD-076-10
PAGE 6
• Water quality: Cooling water in the once-through approach has very limited contact
with contaminants, while cooling tower discharges will contain contaminants that will
require treatment;
• Water consumption: Virtually all the water drawn from Lake Ontario for once-
through cooling would be returned to the lake, while cooling towers would result in
the permanent loss of lakewater to the atmosphere (approximately 400 million litres
per day) through evaporation;
• Vegetation and mammals: Once-through lakewater cooling would result in the least
amount of natural habitat to be cleared on the Darlington site;
Birds: Cooling towers would present a substantial risk of bird strikes;
• Land use and visual setting: The visual dominance of the cooling towers and the
associated vapour plumes would permanently alter the visual character of the area;
• Transportation systems: Once-through lakewater cooling would require the least
amount of soil to be excavated and transported off-site, thereby minimizing the
negative effects on the local road network and local road users; and
• Costs: Once-through cooling is considerably less expensive than cooling towers
with respect to power consumption, construction, operations and maintenance.
3.6 Management of Excavated Material
3.6.1 Site preparation for the NND Project will require the excavation and management of
large quantities of soil and rock. In the absence of a known reactor design and
condenser cooling approach, the actual quantities of material to be excavated and the
strategies for its management cannot be determined yet. Consistent with the PPE
approach to Project definition, the EIS presented a series of potential layout scenarios;
however, this approach results in a substantial range in the quantity of material to be
excavated and managed.
3.6.2 The options available for the management of the excavated material are limited to on-
site use and disposal, and the transport of surplus soil for off-site disposal. Options for
on-site disposal include placing the material in the Northeast Landfill (east of Holt Road
and south of South Service Road), the Northwest Landfill (west of Park Road and south
of South Service Road), and using the material as lakefill. The volume of excavated
material for the three site layout scenarios developed by OPG are set out in the table
below.
REPORT NO.: PSD-076-10
PAGE 7
3.6.3 Given the space requirements of the NND Project and the existing physical constraints
on the Darlington site, including the CN railway corridor, lake infill is considered by OPG
to be an integral part of the NND Project. As such, all of the site layout scenarios involve
the infilling of a portion of the Lake Ontario shoreline in front of the entire Darlington
Nuclear site. Lake infilling is also needed for protection of the site from environmental
effects such as flooding, and to provide enhanced lakeside security for both the existing
and new power stations. OPG has estimated that the maximum infilled area would be
40 ha.
3.6.4 Excavated material that cannot be used for lakefill or stored on-site will be transported
off-site by trucks, although the final destination for this material has not yet been
determined. It is estimated that, for the maximum excavation scenario involving cooling
towers, 200 truck trips per day (400 return trips) would be required during site
preparation to transport excavated material off-site.
3.6.5 OPG has identified Scenario 1 as its preferred approach for the management of
excavated material. Reasons for this decision include a lower volume of truck traffic on
area roads along with the reduced nuisance and safety effects.
4.0 RESPONSE TO JOINT REVIEW PANEL LETTER
4.1 The Municipality's responses to the specific information requested by the Joint Review
Panel in its March 25, 2010 letter requests are provided below.
4.2 Responsibilities of the Municipality of Clarington
4.2.1 The JRP requested details of the legislative, policy or other directives under the
responsibility of the Municipality of Clarington that may relate to the proposed Darlington
NND Project.
REPORT NO.: PSD-076-10 PAGE 8
4.2.2 The Municipality of Clarington is one of eight area municipalities within the Regional
Municipality of Durham, which has atwo-tier governance structure. The Municipality
exercises a broad range of responsibilities under authority provided by a number of
provincial statutes that relate directly and indirectly to the proposed NND Project. The
most significant of these responsibilities are noted below; however, a full outline of the
Municipality's responsibilities is provided in Attachment 3 to this report:
• The Municipal Act: Borrowing of money for capital expenditure, economic
development and tourism, maintenance of the local road network, parks and
recreation services;
• The Planning Act: Community and land use planning, official plans, zoning by-laws,
site plan control;
• The Emergency Plans Act, The Fire Prevention and Protection Act, Ontario Fire
Code, etc: Emergency management, fire and emergency services;
• Highway Traffic Act: Traffic routing; and
• Ontario Buiiding Code Act. Review of building applications and issuance of building
permits.
4.2.3 The Regional Municipality of Durham, as the upper-tier government, provides broader
scale services such as water and sewer, solid waste management, policing, health and
social services, and the overall planning framework for the Region.
4.3 Municipality of Clarington Comments on the EIS
4.3.1 The JRP requested the Municipality to provide a review of the EIS and supplementary
information, as appropriate, from the perspective of the mandate of the Municipality of
Clarington, in particular whether the EIS and application documents sufficiently address
the requirements contained in the EIS guidelines issued to OPG. The JRP also
requested an assessment of whether the Municipality agrees with OPG's conclusions
and proposed mitigation measures within the realm of the Municipality's areas of
responsibility and/or expertise.
4.3.2 As noted previously, the Municipality of Clarington retained the consulting firm Morrison
Hershfield in January 2009, with funding provided by OPG, to undertake a peer review
of the draft EIS prior to its submission to the JRP. The peer review focused on the
Municipality's core areas of interest, as follows:
• Socio-economic environment, including community services, infrastructure
improvements, municipal finance, employment opportunities, and community image;
• Emergency preparedness;
• Transportation, including increased road traffic and the potential impacts to the
municipal road network;
• Natural environment, including the terrestrial, aquatic, and atmospheric
environments, and groundwater and surface water.
REPORT NO.: PSD-076-10
PAGE 9
4.3.3 For each of these aspects of the environment, the peer review evaluated how the EIS
addressed:
• The environmental effects of the Project, the likely cumulative effects of the Project
in combination with other projects, and the significance of these effects;
• The measures proposed to mitigate adverse environmental effects; and
• The requirements of a follow-up program in respect of the Project.
4.3.4 The peer review found that OPG had comprehensively addressed all aspects of the
NND Project. Morrison Hershfield and Staff provided numerous comments and OPG
made significant revisions to the draft EIS in response to these comments. All
comments were dispositioned to the satisfaction of the peer review team and Staff.
Council approved the final peer review report in July 2009 as the Municipality's
comments on the draft EIS (Staff Report PSD-073-09). A copy of the report and
Council's decision have been provided to both OPG and the JRP.
4.3.5 On the basis of the peer review undertaken in 2009, the Municipality can advise the JRP
that the EI5 and supplementary information for the Darlington NND Project sufficiently
addresses the requirements of the EIS Guidelines from the perspective of the
Municipality's mandate. The Municipality also advises the JRP that it agrees with
OPG's conclusions and proposed mitigation measures within the realm of the
Municipality's areas of responsibility and/or expertise.
4.3.6 However, the potential for the Darlington NND Project to be implemented with cooling
towers is of particular importance to the Municipality of Clarington and warrants
additional discussion in this staff report.
4.4 Additional Comments on Condenser Cooling Technology
4.4.1 Much of the discussion related to condenser cooling technologies has focused on the
impacts to the aquatic environment and the socio-economic environment. Impacts to
the aquatic environment include the disturbance of the lakebed (fish habitat) from the
construction of the larger intake and discharge structures, the entrainment and
impingement of aquatic organisms by the high flow rate on the intake, and the thermal
impact of the warmed discharge water. The primary effects on the socio-economic
environment would derive from the negative impact on community character and the
visual landscape from the construction and operation of cooling towers.
4.4.2 The Municipality's peer review concurred with the conclusions in the EIS that the
impacts to the aquatic environment can be effectively mitigated and compensated for
through a Comprehensive Fish Habitat Compensation Plan. The peer review agreed
that, if the NND Project is implemented with natural draft cooling towers, the towers
would be a visually dominant feature of the landscape, particularly in the immediate
vicinity of the Project site, and would result in a negative change in the character of
communities in the Local and Regional Study Areas. Although natural draft towers
would be more highly visible than mechanical draft towers, the vapor plumes emanating
from both would be highly visible from a considerable distance and, as such, the visual
REPORT NO.: PSD-076-10 PAGE 10
effects of either natural draft or mechanical draft cooling towers cannot be effectively
mitigated.
4.4.3 It is worthy to note that a significant number of Information Requests from the JRP to
OPG have related to the impact of the various cooling technologies on the aquatic
environment in Lake Ontario. Examples of requested information includes a full
assessment of the fish mortality risks for once-through cooling, and the feasibility of
relocating the CN rail line to increase the available area on-site to accommodate cooling
towers. OPG responses to the Information Requests have been thorough and detailed
and have, in the Municipality's opinion, provided sufficient justification far OPG's
preference for once-through lakewater cooling over atmospheric cooling.
4.4.4 By comparison, very few of the Information Requests have dealt with the socio-
economic effects of cooling towers. This is most likely a reflection of the mandate of the
various federal agencies reviewing the EIS (e.g. Department of Fisheries and Oceans,
Environment Canada). Nonetheless, the Municipality is concerned that the JRP is not
receiving a balanced perspective on the relative benefits and disadvantages of the
various cooling water technologies, and in particular the significant negative effects of
cooling towers on community image.
4.4.5 In addition, there has been a recent trend by nuclear regulators, particularly in the
United States, towards requiring nuclear power plants to use cooling towers. A "Phase
1 Rule" passed by the federal government in 2001 essentially eliminates the use of
once-through cooling systems for new reactors at greenfield sites in the United States.
A "Phase II Rule" passed in 2004 (presently under court challenge) would apply to all
existing cooling water intake structures for large thermal electric plants. The state of
California has adopted a policy requiring all coastal power plants to phase out the use of
once-through cooling, while New York and New Jersey have introduced draft policies
that would require nuclear power plants to construct cooling towers.
4.4.6 The Municipality acknowledges the aquatic impacts associated with the once-through
cooling option. However, it urges the JRP to give equal consideration to the significant
and very real impacts to community character that would be created by the construction
and operation of cooling towers at the Darlington NND site. The plume from cooling
towers would be visible 800 m above the site approximately 80% to 90% of the time.
Although the plume would consist only of water vapour, there can be a misperception
among some members of the public that the plume would contain radioactive material.
The plume could make Clarington less attractive to tourists, and to businesses and
residents from outside the community looking to relocate.
4.4.7 As noted in Section 3.6.2, the construction of cooling towers would require an additional
3 million cubic metres of material to be excavated and removed from the Darlington
NND site. This increased volume would translate into a significant number of additional
truck trips on the local road network, which would increase the nuisance effects on the
community from noise and dust as well as an increased risk of accidents.
REPORT NO.: PSD-076-10
PAGE 11
4.5 Additional Comments on Nuclear Waste Management
4.5.1 The Municipality's peer review did not address the issue of the management of
radioactive waste that would be created through the Darlington NND Project as this is
an issue that does not relate directly to the Municipality's core areas of responsibility.
However, it is appropriate for the Municipality to advise the JRP of its position on this
issue.
4.5.2 OPG assessed two alternatives in the EIS for the management of low and intermediate-
level waste -management of the waste on-site in a new facility, and transporting the
waste to a licensed facility elsewhere. However, in either scenario, some of the waste
would likely remain on-site (e.g. over-sized components such as steam generators
resulting from mid-life refurbishment activities).
4.5.3 High level nuclear waste (i.e. used fuel) is proposed to be managed in a manner similar
to that used at the existing Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. Used fuel will be
transferred from the reactor to awater-filled storage pool in which the fuel will be stored
for a period of decay and cooling, typically 10 years. Once sufficiently cooled, the used
fuel will be transferred into dry-storage containers and stored on-site in a specially
designed and built facility.
4.5.4 OPG has demonstrated an exemplary record with the management of both the low and
intermediate level waste and the spent fuel rods at the existing Darlington Nuclear
Station and the Municipality is confident that waste from the Darlington NND Project will
be managed in a similar manner. The Municipality is also confident that the Nuclear
Waste Management Organization will be successful in developing and implementing a
long term solution for the management of the used nuclear fuel.
4.5.5 In this regard, the Municipality of Caarington currently has no concerns with the manner
in which OPG has proposed to manage radioactive waste and used nuclear fuel from
the Darlington NND Project.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
5.1 The peer review undertaken by the Municipality on the draft EIS for the Darlington NND
Project allowed for the EIS to be substantially revised to address the Municipality's
concerns prior to its submission to the Joint Review Panel. As such, the Municipality
advises the JRP that it supports the conclusions and the proposed mitigation measures
provided in the EIS prepared by Ontario Power Generation.
5.2 In particular, the Municipality emphasizes its support for OPG's position to use once-
through condenser cooling for the NND Project. In this regard, it urges the JRP to give
full and proper consideration to the concept of "community well-being" used in the EIS
as the overall analytical framework to assess the impacts of the NND Project.
Staff Contact: Janice Szwarz
REPORT NO.: PSD-076-10
PAGE 12
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Glossary of Terms
Attachment 2 - Letter from Joint Review Panel
Attachment 3A - Table of Municipal Responsibilities
Attachment 3B - Legislation Affecting the Fire Service
List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision:
Ms. Debra Myles, Panel Co-Manager
Ms. Kelly McGee, Panel Co-Manager
Ms. Laurie Swami. Ontario Power Generation
Russ Powell, CLOC
P.M. Madill, Clerk, Region of Durham
Sandra Kranc, Clerk, City of Oshawa
Sheila Hall, Clarington Board of Trade
Attachment 1
To Report PSD-076-10
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Baseload The amount of power required to meet minimum electricity
demands
EA Environmental Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Study
NND New Nuclear Development
OPG Ontario Power Generation
PPE Plant Perimeter Envelope
JRP Joint Review Panel
Attachment 2
To Report PSD-076-10
Dar/ington New Nuc%ar Power P/ant Project
Joint Review Pane/
March 25, 2010
Franklin Wu
Chief Administrative Officer
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville. ON L1C 3A6
Subject: Information Required from the Municipality of Clarington
to Inform the Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant Project
Joint Review Panel Process
Dear Mr. Wu:
As you know, the Joint Review Panel for the Darlington New Nuclear Power
Plant project announced the start of the six month review period of Ontario
Power Generation's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Application for a
Licence to Prepare a Site on November 16, 2009. These two documents and all
other records relating to the environmental assessment are available on the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry Internet site at www.ceaa.gc.ca
under reference number 07-05-29525. The Darlington panel process is being
conducted pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and
because the project is within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.
In reference to the Municipality of Clarington's Staff Report PSD-123-08
(November 17, 2008), the Joint Review Panel assumes that the Municipality has
engaged a consultant to review Ontario Power Generation's EIS. The Panel
requests that full consideration be given to its information needs, as follows, in
this review and submission to the Panel:
1. The Panel requires the details of the legislative, policy or other directives
under the responsibility of the Municipality of Clarington that may relate to the
proposed Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant project.
The Panel requires a review of the EIS and supplementary information, as
appropriate, from the perspective of the mandate of the Municipality of
Clarington. At this stage of the process, the Panel is focused on determining
whether the EIS and application documents sufficiently address the
Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant Project Joint Review Panei
Cl0 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Place Bell Canada, 22ntl Floor, 160 Elgin Street,
Ottawa, ON K1A OH3
requirements contained in the guidelines that were issued to the proponent
on August 22, 2008. The Panel will also require an assessment of whether
the Municipality of Clarington agrees with the proponent's conclusions and
proposed mitigation measures within the realm of your areas of responsibility
.and/or expertise.
3. Have your delegate contact one of the Panel Co-Managers at the earliest
possible date and in advance of April 15, 2010, to discuss timelines for the
provision of the requested information, above.
The Panel Co-Managers are available to respond to any questions that you may
have about this request or the joint panel review process. Please contact either
Kelly McGee at (613) 947-3710 or Debra Myles at (613) 957-0626. Thank you in
advance for your attention to this matter.
Yours truly,
~~ , 3 ,:.~
Mr. Alan R. Graham
Chair, Joint Review Panel
c.c.: Ms. Jocelyne Beaudet, Member, Joint Review Panel
Mr. Joseph Kenneth Pereira, Joint Review Panel Member
Ms. Janice Auger Szwarz, Senior Planner, Municipality of Clarington
2
Attachment 3A
To Report PSD-076-10
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON RESPONSIBILITIES
•b ~ ~
,- ~w ~ v - - ..~.
Bnrrouv~Ygof„ eyfo'~i`CapitalExpenditures.X, Municipal.Act,
~401 '-"~' -;{
~ ~
~
,
F
.
Community and Land Use Planning including: the Planning Act (including the Provincial Policy
Official Plan and implementation thereof; Statements and the Region's Official Plan made
industrial, commercial and residential thereunder);
development approvals; comments on Land 'Greenbelt Act 2005; Oak Ridges Moraine
Division applications; administration of Conservation Act, 2001: Lake Simcoe Protection Act,
development charges; strategic land use 2008; Places to Grow Act, 2005; Development
planning; plan of subdivision and condominium Charges Act 1997.
approvals; and site plan application commenting
function. '
Site.Plan Control Area Approval + ~`'~ kn~-°
Pldnning;4ct R $.0.1990, By-law 2005-135
..: ~-
"eleg~t'~d~tttority>~ ,.
,.
,~. r°
_.
r
~:,
Planning Application Completeness Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Conservation Land Statute
Determination. (Delegated Authority) i
Amendment Act, 2006, By-law 2007-131
E iibdivi$n/Cctldommitn~lpproUal~Authority s Planning Act, By-law 2001-072
~
(Delegated Authority) rr~ :k
=
~
s.,~ ;%
~.
Heritage Conservation District Plan Authority Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, By-law 2006-102
(Delegated Authority)
Community 1 p~ovement Plan authori#y "~ Planning Act, R:S:O. 1990, Municipal Act, 2001~.~
([~elegate~Authti~ity) sir. ,`~,~ ~
..
r
..
.:
Economic Development and Tourism Municipal Act, 2001
EmergeOcyManagemertt
r~~ Emergency Plans Act
4
Fire and Emergency Services Fire Prevention and Protection Act, 1997 (FPPAJ,
Building Code, Technical Standards Safety Association,
Electrical Safety Authority, Crimino! Code, Ontario Fire
Code
==Munial Sewices inc),~ding administration of Development Charges Act, 1997;.... Mup~cipal~Act, 2001;
Regional contract for waste management, Ontario Water'Resources Art; Sofe Dunking Wgterr~~...
inctu"ding diversion; recycling; compostables, Act 2002; and Clean Water, Act, 2006_
yard,waste, white goods and bulk items. .,
..
:mss a$.
Maintenance of the Local Road Network, . Municipal Act, 2001; Planning Act R.S.O. 1990,•
~ncluding Snow Removal and Sidewalks Nighway Traffic Act; Development Charges Act, 1997.
I
H:IREPORT552010 reportsVune 21-10.doc1PSD-076-10 Attachment 3.doc
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON RESPONSIBILITIES
Road Closures
~! (Delegated Authority)
Charges Act,
By-law 82-32
1990
!' _ ~
.,...
.. • Tu".:.. .~
{Street Signs Authority to place or erect By-law 91-58, as amended
(Delegated Authority)
Municipal By-law Enforcement Numero Acts and Regaonafarid Municipal By fo _ ~'~
..,.
~: ; °. ~n~- .:
Development Charges ~ Development Charges Act
Assessment Review Board- Municipal Appeals By-law 2003-031
.:(Delegated Authority) :: w; ~ . 7 `"p~
t. ;;~ :...: a ~}
.. .... -~
Library Services Public Libraries ACT, R.S.O. 1990
n..,
Pounds Acth" " "'
'""``" 'Livestockldentificdfi
y; Livestock, Poultry an
~~' Ontario Society fo
' ~`$
Animals Act
Statutory Powers Pn
Protectior
~ntipn of
Arts & Culture Municipal Act, 2001
f~+Furi)c dial Tax Co~lect)~ara~,, Municipal Aet 2001 ~'°"
~.
~s ~
Accessibility Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005
Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001
Municipal Elections Act, 1996
_... , -~ ,
Marnag Cicen~d ~ Marriage Act r,,; .
Civil Marriage Ceremonies' ~,
Death Certificates Municipal and Abandoned Cemeteries Act
Cemeteries Vita! Statistics Act
Fi~edvm on Infa~mafiah and Protection of "By-1aw90-193'and Resolution GPA8i5-90 ~
Privacy (Delegated Authority) ~ .;
Order to Restrain Appeal Hearing (Delegated Municipal Act, 2001 as amended By-law 2005 225
H:IREPORTS12070 reportsW une 21-10.doc\PSD-076-10 Attachment 3.doc
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON RESPONSIBILITIES
,. .g ,
Authority)
~~fazi lig~nse A~p)tcat~4n Wirth Criminal Record .tBy=faw 2005-205 ~~ -°
(Delegated ~uthorityj~ ~ :~
Animal Adoption Fees -Approval to reduce By-law 2007-208
(Delegated Authority)
`Park~'ard Recr~on services including the Muircipal Act, 2001
"provision of re~rdation facilities, parks, open ;A :. DevelopmenCharges Act, 1997
`y
spaces, trails, programs and,~ervices to our"
,
.
. ~.
.
r.
,
r
.
res~t{i~s _ ~.
~~ ~ 3~
~'
~
~~,
Building Permits Ontario Building Code Act
School l'rpssirrg Guard Program Highway TraffrcAet ' ~ ~ ~~=
~, _.
Municipal and School Board Elections
i Municipal Elections Act, 2006
References to Acts include references to applicable Regulations and Plans. Additionally, the Region has
numerous agreements with public-sector partners that may govern the activities noted above, in
addition to Council-adopted policies and initiatives that may be applicable, including:
a. Municipal Strategic Plan 2007-2011
b. Clarington Official Plan
c. Emergency Services Plan
d. Community Services Department Strategic Plan, 2008
e. Library Services Plan
While this list is not exhaustive, it does not include the key documents that lay out the framework for
the Region's infrastructure and relevant services.
I
H:\REPORTS52010 reportsVune 21-10.doc\PSD-076-10 Attachment 3.doc
Attachment 3B
To Report PSD-076-10
What legislation affects the fire servioe?
Legislation Affecting the Fire Service
The operation of a f re department in Ontario is affected by both provincial and federal
Iegislaton. There are also international standards that are commonly used by the fire
service throughout North America. It is important that fire service leaders are
knowledgeable with the context of all the acts cr regulations affecting the operations and
liability of a municipality and its fire department.
Provincial Legislation
Le islation r- ---
Areas of scopelconcern__ --
iMinistry Responsible
Fire Protection and Prevention ed authori2es both the OFM
Mandates a Community Safety &
Act, 1997 and Ontario Fire p
and munici aBties Correcticnal Services
I Code Part IX is generally the responslbi;iry of ~
the Ministry of Labour, except whore
~
~
terms and conditions in colladive
agreements may adverse{y affect the '
rovision of fire protection
Provincial Offences Act ~ ~. Assistants to the Fire Marshal are Attorney General
'~. ''~ Provincial Offences Officers under the
j Act for the purpose of smoko alarm
'~ related offences. i
__ _ __
Municipal Act, 2001 _
T Authorizes the passing of by-laws which it Municipal Affairs 8
~ include those necessary for fhe provision I Housing
of fire protection
Occupatianaf Health snd Safoty Human Resources Labour
Act and tho various re ulations Oxu tional Health 8 Safet
Environmental Protection ACt Requires fre department personnel to Environment
F.(Ontario ~ _„_ __ re ort s ills to MOE __ _ _ __
Dangerous Goods Govems the transportation of dangerous Transportation
Transportation Act (Ontario oods
Emergency Management and Requires municipalities to have an Community Safety 8
''i Civil Protection Act emergency plan and a trained Conactional Services
' Community Emergency Management
I Coordinator
t
Territorial Divisions Act ~ Defines municipal boundaries Which Municipal Affairs 8
includes fre protection areas for which Housing
j the municipality has responsibility
_____ .__! __ -_ _____.. _.__ .y
Building Cede Act, 1992 Provides authority for munidpalities [o Mumapal Affairs &
~
appant certain fire personnel as building Housing f
inspectors
~~
~. Highway Traffic Act Governs the response of fire5ghtors on ~ Transporta[ion
roads that have been dosed by police,
', i the use of flashing green lights on i
firefighters' personal vehicles, and
controlling traffe at accident scenes.
Contains regulated requirement to log I
hours of service in a log for operation of
commercial motor vehicles. '~
essentlais of MunlGpai Firc Prolec6oo Pege 8
Foe fire service Leasers
.zzuro
- ----.
Forest Fire Prevsnrion Acf
t Applies only to "Fire Regions" as dehred
T Natura Resources
in the act. Controls outdoor fires in I
'', ' "Restricted Fire Zones'. it requires
i! municipalities to extinguish grass, brush ',
or /orest fires within their limits. Provides ~I
authority for appointment of "Vdardens"
"
'
'~
and
Officer
by the Minister. Also
~
Regulation 207/96 controls outdoor fres
_ :outside of restricted fre zones.
''. Development Charges Acf
~ Provides the authority for portions of 'Municipal Affairs 8
development chames to be allocated to i Housing
~
~ afire services '
,Coroners Act i Regulates the control of bodies. I Community Safety & ',
' ,Authorizes; regulates Coroners' inquests ' Correctional Services i
~_
- and Coroners inquest recommendations
~ __-
bay Nursrnes ACt
Defines tha approvals from the fire ch~et ~-_
Community and Soda!
that -are requuad ie operate a day care Services
facility i ~
' E~oymenr StandaNs AC. :. _
Hcman Resources tLabour
Human Rgfits Gode befines haw boards of inquiry, Management Board of
complaints, discrimination and ,
Cabinet
~
'~.. _ enforcement are to be handled '
Ladour Relations Aet _
I Human Resources
- .~ Labour
r Mvnicrpal Freedom of
~ tnformation and Pr
t
ti
f . _
_..
To provide access to information held by
tit
i
ti
d
Management Board of
~
o
on o
ec
~ ns
u
ons an
to protect the privacy of Cabinet
Ptlvacy Aet individuals with respect [o personal
information about themselves heVd by
insfitutlons
~
Pesticidos Aot Makes mandatory the reporting of ent -~
~. wholesale and retail pesticides to the tiro '~
tnsurance Act accidents and provide and
training
Fire Protection & Prevention Act. 1997 f FPPA)
The Fire Protection and PrevenUOn Act, 1997 (FPPA) name into force in October 9997.
It is an act to promote fre prevention and public safety in Ontario and as such, ii
addressor such things as kYYe delivery of f re suppression, fire prevention, fire safety
education, communication, training of persons involved in the provision of f re protection.
seruices, and rescue and emergency services.
The Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 (FPPA):
+ Establishes the authority of the fire chief of a municipality to carry out his or her
duties in enforcing the act;
• Defines the role of the Office of the Fire Marshal and defines its relationship with
municipal fire departments; and
• Defines the mandates of both the OFM and municipalities.
There are a number of parts to the act, but the sections that form the basis of this
seminar include - Part I Defnitions, Part II Responsibility for fire protection services and
methods of service, and Part III -Fire Marshal The full act is available on e-laws.
E59anlials of Mu..^.ici WI Fb9 Protoc0en Page
Por Fire 5ernce :e2itea
v. 2. 2a?0