Canadian Nuclear Commission canadienne Safety Commission ... · Safety Commission de sûreté nucléaire P.O. Box 1046 Station B 280 Slater Street Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1P 5S9 C.P

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 #:3422389 File/Dossier: 4.01

Date: August 24, 2009 Task #16200

MEETING

MINUTES SENT TO

*CEAA J. Adams R.L. Virtue D. Haddon *DFO B. Hood M-L. Tremblay L. Neil *NRCAN A. Dixit R. Sano

*MPMO S. Skocylas K. Mousseau *OPG L. Swami A. Webster R. MacDonald

*CNSC A. McAllister K. Lun L. Andrews M. de Vos D. Miller D. Wismer P. Wong S. Mihok M. Phaneuf M. Ilin H. Zhang Y. Zeng A. Banas A. Salway F. Harrison A. Gaw J. Churchill G. Smith V. Khotylev C. Laude S. Lei A. Mongeon

S. Munger Y. Zeng M. Xu P. Adams P. St Michael A. Bouchard P. Lahaie cc: D. Newland M. Couture L. Sigouin D. Howard A. Blahoianu R. Avadhanula G. Cherkas B. Schimmens H. Mulye S. Nguyen B. Dowsley A. Ray

SUBJECT

OBJET Workshop on Darlington New Nuclear Project – EIS and LTPS

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 280 Slater Street, Ottawa (Ontario)

(Room #14-032) Date: Monday, August 24, 2009

LOCATION OF

MEETING

ENDROIT DE LA RÉUNION

Time/Heure: 9 am to 5 pm

mailto:[email protected]�












REMARKS

REMARQUES

Attendees: Attendance Sheet is found under EDOCS # 3421098. All of the attendees were present for Session 1. For Session 2, only OPG and some CNSC staff were present. Session 1 OPG made a presentation to Federal Agencies/Departments located in the Ottawa Region. A similar presentation to the federal review team located in the Greater Toronto Area will be made on August 28, 2009. The presentation provided an overview of their EIS and LTPS submission. OPG plans to submit the EIS/LTPS package on September 30, 2009. The questions/comments raised during the presentation were addressed in a satisfactory manner and was within the scope of the presentation. The presentation package is found under EDOCS # 3421673 and 3421674. However, OPG will be issuing their own package to all attendees that includes copies of the presentations along with meeting minutes. Session 2 CNSC staff made a presentation to OPG on the following topics:

a. Overview of CNSC Project Management b. Overview of the CNSC Assessment Plan c. Documents generated as a result of Review d. General Information on Lessons from Bruce Power EIS/LTPS

Submission Comments/questions made during Session 2 are listed below:

1. Does CNSC interact with other federal agencies to coordinate the review of the EIS/LTPS submission (including issuing Information Requests [IRs])?

• Yes. CNSC will brief federal agencies on staff’s planned review approach so that other federal agencies review processes can better align with that of the staff. However, each department completes its own review and submits directly to the JRP.

2. Since CNSC has multiple projects ongoing (such as new mines,

refurbishment, etc), how do the reviews get prioritized? • CNSC has a management steering committee to decide which

project gets priority. CNSC has the adequate staffing resources to deal with the review of OPG’s EIS/LTPS.

3. OPG stated that their LTPS submission will only deal with issues up to

the point of concrete pour (i.e. foundation of the plant will not be laid). However, they will likely begin excavating the plant footprint regardless of that fact that technology has not yet been selected.

4. If incremental information (i.e. licensing related) for LTPS is

submitted during CNSC review, then the 6 month JRP review clock will be stopped since it’s considered new information.

5. OPG indicated that the managing of the clock during the Bruce JRP

process appeared confusing from an outsider’s perspective and was wondering how it would be managed for this review. CNSC staff indicated that the managing of the clock is at the discretion of the JRP; however, one could assume that the stopping of the clock could be made once the JRP receives a number of proposed IRs from various parties. Likewise, the clock could be started again once the JRP issued IRs were responded to.

6. Communication Protocol – Can OPG/CNSC contact each other

directly to obtain clarifications re: IRs, where information is located in their submissions, etc?

• This process will have to be clarified with the JRP panel once it has been formed. The JRP will also need to decide what is considered a clarification/right level of detail to be considered clarification.

• OPG will make a proposal to the JRP on these process related issues; the JRP will make the final decision whether or not the proposal should be adopted.

7. OPG wanted clarification on what is completeness review and what is

technical sufficiency review in the Conformity Review process. Completeness Review is checking to make sure information in EIS/LTPS guidelines are submitted while technical sufficiency review would check to ensure enough technical information is available to execute SRGs. Staff clarified that staff’s Conformity Review was not to be confused with the 2 week period that the JRP has to determine whether to commence the 6 month review once they receive the EIS and LTPS submissions (as per the JRP Agreement).

8. Clarification was provided regarding the need for Review Summary

Report and why there was a need to have unresolved IRs included. CNSC staff stated that this is needed as it provides the NMFLD/EAD officer with a complete picture of what issues need to be addressed when working on the EIS PMD and LTPS CMD.

9. CNSC staff will clarify issues related to billing for the JRP.

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

NOTICE OF MEETINGE-Docs #:3414912 File/Dossier: 2.01

Date: August 24, 2009 Task #16200

*CEAA J. Adams R.L. Virtue D. Haddon *DFO B. Hood K. Code M-L. Tremblay *NRCAN A. Dixit R. Sano Assisting to session 1

*MPMO S. Skocylas *OPG L. Mitchell L. Swami A. Webster Assisting to both sessions

*CNSC A. McAllister K. Lun L. Andrews M. De Vos D. Miller G. Schwarz G. Cherkas H. Mulye D. Wismer P. Wong S. Mihok M. Phaneuf

M. Ilin H. Zhang A. Mongeon Y. Zeng A. Banas D. Newland G. Smith A. Salway F. Harrison C. Dodkin A. Gaw J. Churchill

TO A

* PLEASE REPORT TO THE RECEPTIONIST ON THE 2ND FLOOR UPON ARRIVAL.

SUBJECT OBJET Workshop on Darlington New Nuclear Project – EIS and LTPS

Session 1 1. Introduction 2. OPG Presentation to Government Department/Agencies

a. Roadmap to Environmental Impact Statement and Associated Technical Support Documents

i. Presentation ii. Question and Answer Period

15 minutes 60 minutes 30 minutes

Break 15 minutes b. Roadmap to License to Prepare a Site Application

and Associated Technical Support Documents i. Presentation ii. Question and Answer Period

30 minutes 30 minutes 60 minutes

Lunch 60 minutes

AGENDA

OR REMARKS

ORDRE DU JOUR

OU REMARQUES

Session 2 3. CNSC Presentation to OPG

a. Overview of CNSC Project Management b. Overview of the CNSC Assessment Plan c. Documents generated as a result of Review d. General Information on Lessons from Bruce Power

EIS/LTPS Submission that are applicable to OPG/Federal interactions

20 minutes

2 hours

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

280 Slater Street, Ottawa (Ontario) (Room #14-032)

Date: Monday, August 24, 2009

LOCATION OF

MEETING

ENDROIT DE LA RÉUNION

mailto:[email protected]












Time/Heure: 9 am to 5 pm ARRANGED BY ORGANISÉ PAR

Name/Nom: K. Lun / A. McAllister

Tel: 947-9924 / 943-9650



August 21, 2009

OPG New Nuclear at Darlington Project Contact Information for Federal Authorities

Name Contact Area of Responsibility Laurie Swami (905) 837-4540

Ext. 5203 Director Licensing and Environment

Irene Dias (905) 837-4540 Ext. 5219

Admin. Assistant to L. Swami

Leslie Mitchell (905) 837-4540 Ext. 5233

Manager Licensing and Approvals

John Peters (905) 837-4540 Ext. 5202

Manager Overall Environmental Assessment, EIS, Physical Environment Assessment

Donna Pawlowski (905) 837-4540 Ext. 5201

Manager Consultation, Communications, Aboriginal Relations

Don Williams (905) 837-4540 Ext. 5204

Manager Design and Engineering

www.opg.com/newbuild

WELCOME!

We are here to:n� Share information about the New Nuclear at Darlington project

n� Update you on the progress of the EA

n� Answer any questions you may have

n� Get your feedback on our:

• Preliminaryresults

• Approachtothedeterminationofsignificance

OPGstaffandtechnicalspecialistsareonhandtoansweryourquestions – look for their nametags.

This is an opportunity to learn more about the project and discuss your views and provide input.

Pleasetakeafewminutestotalktotheteamandfilloutcommentsheets while you are here.

Welcome to Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG’s) fifth round of Community Information Sessions on the environmental assessment (EA) for OPG’s New Nuclear at Darlington project.


IndICatIvE tIMELInE and KEy MILEstOnEs

Infrastructure OntarioInfrastructureOntarioisresponsibleforNuclearProcurement–managing a competitive request for proposal process to select a nuclear reactor vendor and technology. Three vendors are participating: n�� AREVANP n�� AECL n�� Westinghouse Electric Company A preferred vendor is to be selected in 2009, as per the Infrastructure Ontario schedule and will be responsible for the construction of the new nuclear power plant.

Ontario Power GenerationOntarioPowerGenerationisresponsibleforthefederalapprovalsprocess for the new nuclear power plant at Darlington, including: n�� An environmental assessment (EA) n�� LicencetoPrepareSite n�� Licence to Construct

OntarioPowerGenerationwillprovideoversighttotheconstructionoftheplant.OntarioPowerGenerationwillbetheoperator of the new plant, once it is commissioned.

Joint Review PanelTheJointReviewPanelisresponsiblefortheconductoftheenvironmentalassessmentoftheProjectandreviewstheApplicationfortheLicencetoPreparetheSite.TheJointReviewPanelwillissueinstructionsandatimetableforthereviewthatwill include a public hearing. When complete, the Joint Review PanelwillprepareaJointReviewPanelReportandsubmitittothe Minister of the Environment.


FEdEraL EnvIrOnMEntaL assEssMEnt rOLEs and rEspOnsIbILItIEs

Federal Responsibilities

Review Panel Responsibilities

Proponent Responsibilities

Opportunities for Public Input

Federal Authorities

Federal EA is required when:• A Federal Authority provides a licence, permit or approval enabling a project to be carried out.

Announcement of EA Commencement -

Comprehensive Study (April 2007)

• Determination of whether Project will be referred to a Review Panel (March 2008)• Determination of Responsible Federal Authorities (August 2007)• Determination of Participant Funding (April 2008)

• Participant FundingPhase 2

Issue for Public Review:• EA Guidelines - Scope of Proposed Project - Factors to be Considered

• Panel Terms of Reference - Review Steps and Procedures - Timelines

Panel Established

Panel holds PublicConsultations on the Adequacy of the EIS

Panel determinationif additional

information is required

Notice of Public Hearings

Public Hearing

Submits Report toFederal Minister of Environment and

Responsible Authorities and

is released to Public

Cabinet Responds to PanelRecommendations and

Determines Acceptability of EA

• Submitted Application for Site Preparation (September 2006)

• Submitted Project Description (April 2007)

Prepares and submits

Environmental Impact

Statement based on EIS guidelines

Providesadditional

information

Responds to Questions from

Review Paneland other

Participants

Review Panel OPG (Proponent)


LICEnCEs

TheLicencetoPrepareSiteensuresthatthesite characteristics which have an impact on health, safety, security and the environment can, and will be taken into consideration in the design and operation of the new nuclear power plant. The Licence permits works and activities that result in being ready to start construction. The application must meet the requirements of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and includes information on:

n� Applicant,Purpose,SiteDescriptionn� �QualityAssuranceProgram,including

oversight of contractorsn� SiteEvaluationandEnvironmentalEffectsn� PublicConsultationProgramn� NuclearSecurityProgram

TherevisedLicencetoPrepareSiteApplication is expected to be submitted at the same time as the Environmental Impact Statement. The application will be subject to the same public hearing process under the JointReviewPanel.

The Licence to Construct permits the works and activities to construct the new reactors and associated buildings. The Licence to Construct application is expected to be submitted in 2010.


ELEMEnts In anEnvIrOnMEntaL assEssMEnt

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

DETERMINE HOW THE PROJECT

INTERACTS WITHTHE ENVIRONMENT

Environmental Effects – Mitigations – Residual Effects

• CUMULATIVE EFFECTS• SIGNIFICANCE OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS

• FOLLOW-UP AND MONITORING PROGRAMS

Summer 2007 – Spring 2008

Fall 2008 – Spring 2009

2009

MALFUNCTIONSAND ACCIDENTS

DESCRIBE THE PROJECT

Project Scope Alternatives• Reactor • Site Layout

• Condenser Cooling • Nuclear Waste• Used Fuel

Project Phases• Site Preparation & Construction

• Operations• Decommissioning

DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENT

Study Areas -• Site, Local and Regional

Environmental ComponentsBaseline Characterization/Studies

Valued Ecosystem Components

EFFECTS OFENVIRONMENTON PROJECT


prOjECt OvErvIEW WOrKs and aCtIvItIEs

For EA purposes, the project is to construct and operate a nuclear power plant to generate up to 4,800 MW of baseload electricityfromuptofournuclearreactors,tomeetthefutureelectricityrequirementsoftheProvinceofOntario. Toassesstheeffectsoftheproject,assumptionsaremadeonthenumberofworkersandkeyactivities.Theseinclude:

SItE PrEPArAtION AND CONStruCtION (approximately six to eight years for two units)

SitePreparationmayinvolveupto400workers (100on-site;300off-site).Keyactivitiesinclude:

n Vegetation removal and earth-moving (cutting, grading, creating berms, stockpiles)

n Soil excavation and grading n Bedrock excavation for foundationsn Installation of power, water supply,

sewage systems, etc.n Marine and shoreline works (includingcofferdamandlakeinfill)

Construction may involve a peak workforce of up to 3,500workersfortwounits.Keyactivitiesinclude:n Installation of reactor components, steam

generators, turbines, transmission linesn Construction of nuclear waste management facilitiesn Concrete batching plant on site, (unless product

trucked to the Darlington site)n Components, equipment and materials transported

to site by transport, rail, ship or barge

OPErAtIONS (approximately 60 operating years for each set of reactors)

Operations may involve up to 1,400 workers per year for each set of two units. Mid-Life Replacement orRefurbishment may include an additional workforce of approximately2,000.Keyactivitiesinclude:

n Reactor commissioning (verifying systems, fuelling, connecting to the grid, etc.)

n Plantoperationsandmaintenancen Waste/used fuel management (transfer of wastes

and used fuel for interim or long-term storage)n Mid-life major component replacement and/or

refurbishment: steam generators; fuel channels (ACR1000);reactorvesselhead(EPRandAP1000)

DECOmmISSIONING (50 years for each set of reactors)

The key activities in decommissioning include:n Preparationforsafestorage(de-fuellinganddraining

reactors, removal and non nuclear materials, plant systems drained, de-energised and secured)

n Safe storage and monitoring (approximately 30 years)n Dismantling, disposal and site restoration

(approximately 10 years)

Site Preparation & Construction Phase(2010 to 2025)

Operation Phase(2016 to 2100)

Decommissioning Phase(2100 to 2150)

Not to Scale

Unit 1 & 2

Site Preparation& Construction

Operations

(Approx. 15-16 years)

2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2100 2150

(Approx. 60 years)

(Approx. 50 years)

Decommissioning

Unit 3 & 4

Unit 1 & 2

Unit 3 & 4

Unit 1 & 2

Unit 3 & 4 EA Bounding TimelineThe dates shown are for EA study purposes. Actual start and in-service dates have yet to be determined.


prInCIpaL buILdIngs and struCturEs

n� A reactor building to house the reactors

n� A turbine and generator buildingn� A switch yardn� A condenser cooling system

(cooling towers are illustrative)n� A used fuel dry storage building

n� A radioactive waste storage building

n� A security building n� Secure fencing around the siten� An area for parkingn� An administration building n� Ancillary buildings

To help describe the project, we consider what buildings and structures are needed to operate and maintain a nuclear power plant. These may include:


How does a nuclear reactor work?Nuclear power stations require heat to produce steam to drive turbines and generators. In a nuclear powerstation,thefission(splitting)ofuraniumatoms creates the heat in the reactor. The primary coolant system transfers the heat from the reactor to thesteamgenerator.InaPWRtheprimarycoolantisalso used as a moderator.

The steam formed in the steam generator is transferred by the secondary coolant system to the main steam turbine which spins the generator and creates electricity.

After passing through the turbine, the steam is routed to the main condenser. The condenser removes excess heat from the steam, which allows the steam to condense. The condensed water is then pumped back to the steam generator for reuse.

n The ArEVA NP EPr and Westinghouse AP1000 reactor core consists of a vertical reactor vessel containing fuel assemblies. Both the coolant and moderator both use normal (light) water. The reactor operates with up to 5% enriched uranium fuel (low enriched fuel).

n The ACr-1000 core consists of horizontal fuel channels in a reactor vessel called a calandria. Heavy water is used to slow down (or moderate) the neutrons released from the fuel. Normal (light) water is used as the secondary coolant. For this reason the AECL ACR-1000 is considered a PressurizedHybridLightandHeavyWaterReactor.The reactor operates with an average of 2.5% enriched uranium fuel (slightly enriched fuel).

rEaCtOrs

ThethreereactortypesunderconsiderationfortheprojectaretheAECLACR-1000,theAREVANPEPRandtheWestinghouseAP1000.

n AECL ACr-1000 has a rated electrical power of 1,085 MWe (net) n ArEVA NP EPr has a rated electrical power of 1,580 MWe (net) n Westinghouse AP1000 has a rated electrical power of 1,037 MWe (net)

Thesereactorsareallconsideredpressurizedwaterreactors(PWR).


COndEnsEr COOLIng OptIOns

IntheEA,OPGconsideredalternativemeansofprovidingcondensercooling:

For All Cooling towersn One or more ponds may be required to maintain circulating water qualityn A trench would be required for the intake or outfall pipe, installed at a depth of approximately 10 metres n Water vapour plumes will be visible coming from the towers

Lake Water Coolingn Heat is transferred from the condenser via cooling water to the lake through a

discharge tunneln Large volumes of lake water are brought through the plant by a lake bottom intake tunnel which is approximately 800 metres long (from the forebay to the intake structure) and approximately 7.5 metres diameter n The discharge tunnel has a nine metre diameter face area and is approximately

1,700 metres longn The tunnels may be constructed using a tunnel boring machine or by blasting

Natural Draft Cooling towersn Heat is transferred from the cooling water to the atmosphere by evaporation in large

concrete towersn Up to two natural draft cooling towers may be constructed for each unit

(depending on the design)n Natural draft cooling towers are typically a hyperbolic shape (upside down funnel) and may extend to approximately 150 metres in height and 100 metres in diametern Constructed of steel reinforced concrete

Fan Assisted Natural Draft Cooling towersn The tower uses natural draft cooling processes with the addition of fans placed around the base of the tower to increase the air flow raten Towers have a large base and are a hyperbolic shape similar to natural

draft towern Towers are about 50 metres in height

mechanical Draft Cooling towersn Heatistransferredfromthecoolingwatertotheatmospherebyafinewatersprayn Long pipes in the towers spray downward and large fans (on top) pull air across

the dripping water to remove the heat n Mechanical draft cooling towers are typically 20 metres in height and cover an

area between 4 to 20 hectares


usEd FuEL ManagEMEnt

Used nuclear fuel is fuel that has been used by a nuclearpowerplanttogenerateelectricity.OPGhas safely managed used nuclear fuel for nearly 40 years. The used nuclear fuel is managed in a two-stage process: wet storage, which allows for initial cooling, followed by dry storage for longer interim storage.

Used nuclear fuel from the new station will also be managed using a two-stage, wet and then dry storage process.

For environmental assessment (EA) planning purposes, two interim on-site storage options will be considered:

1. Expand the existing Darlington Waste Management storage structures

2. Build an additional used fuel dry storage processing facility on the site

For EA purposes, there are two potential dry storage systems being considered for ACR1000 type used nuclear fuel, these include:

1. Dry storage containers (DSCs) stored in a warehouse type building similar to current operations at the Darlington Waste Management Facility

2. Above-ground, air cooled storage modules (AECL MACSTOR system) with fuel placed in canisters and transferred from the reactor to the storage facility in reusable casks

ThefuelsfortheAP1000andUSEPRareverysimilarto each other. Three potential dry storage systems forpressurizedwaterreactor(PWR)usednuclearfuel are being considered:

n� Metal casks that may be stored either indoors or outdoors on a concrete pad

n� Concrete canisters with an outer vertical concrete shield and inner steel liner that are generally used outdoors, on a concrete pad

n� Concrete modules within an outer horizontal or vertical concrete shield vault and inner steel liner that are generally located outdoors, on a concrete pad

Pressurized Water reactor dry storage cask and transPort

above-ground storage modules at aecl macstor gentilly Quebec


LOW and IntErMEdIatE-LEvEL WastE ManagEMEnt

tyPICAL LOW-LEVEL WAStE StOrAGE buILDING

LOW-LEVEL WAStE StOrAGE CONtAINErS INSIDE LICENSED FACILIty

trANSPOrtAtION OF LOW AND INtErmEDIAtE-LEVEL WAStE IN quALIFIED trANSPOrtAtION PACkAGES

Low-level radioactive waste includes materials such as mop heads, rags, paper towels, floor sweepings and protective clothing.

Intermediate-level radioactive waste includes materials such as used reactor components, refurbishedcomponents,andresinsandfilters used to keep the reactor clean.

Low and intermediate-level waste from the new reactors will be safely stored in a similar manner as currently used regardless of the reactor selected and in a way that minimizes the volume of waste produced and stored.

The EA includes two alternative means of managing low and intermediate-level waste:

1) Store the waste on the Darlington site in an above ground storage building

2)Transportwasteoff-siteinqualifiedtransportation packages to an appropriately licensed facility


COnCEptuaL pLant LayOuts

Conceptualplantlayoutshavebeendevelopedthatrepresentdifferentconfigurationsofhowthesite will be developed. The actual layout will be determined and designed by the vendor selected toconstructtheproject.Thefollowinggraphiclayoutsillustratethedifferentconceptualplantlayouts that have been considered in the environmental assessment.

Layout 1 is four reactor units with once through lake water cooling. This option provides the most space for the reactors

pLant LayOut 1

Expanded Transmission

Station

Trail

Soil Stockpile

401

401South Service Road

Maple G

rove Road

Holt Road

Park Road

401

Darlington A

Existing Discharge and Intake

Proposed DischargeChannel

ProposedIntakeChannel

Lake Ontario

Lake Ontario

ConstructionLandfill

Parking

ReactorPowerBlock

Mechanical DraftCooling Towers Office

Area

Park

ing

Temporary

Constructi

on Facility

Soil Stockpile

Lakefill

Construction Laydown Area

Wharf Lakefill

Not to Scale

Layout 2 is two reactor units with mechanical draft atmospheric cooling. A large land area is required for mechanical draft cooling towers

pLant LayOut 2

Expanded Transmission

Station

Trail

401

401South Service Road

Maple G

rove Road

Holt Road

Park Road

401

Darlington A

Existing Discharge and Intake

ProposedIntakeChannel

Lake Ontario

ConstructionLandfill

ReactorPowerBlock

Natural DraftCooling Towers

OfficeArea

Park

ing

Temporary

Constructio

n Facilities

Parking

Soil Stockpile

Construction Laydown Area

Wharf

Lakefill

Lake Ontario

Not to Scale

Proposed DischargeChannel

Layout 3 is two reactor units with natural draft atmospheric cooling. A large land area is required for natural draft cooling towers

pLant LayOut 3


LaKE InFILL

Site preparation will involve excavation and handling of millions of cubic metres of soil and rock. For EA planning purposes we have assumed that the maximum amount of soil that may need to be excavated is 12 million cubic metres.

OPGisexaminingtherangeofpossibilitiesformanaging the excavated soil and rock. The intention is to store as much of this soil and rock on the Darlington site as possible. However, up tofivemillioncubicmetresmaybetransportedoffsiteupto25km.

Up to four million cubic metres may be placed in the northeast quadrant on the Darlington site. Up to one million cubic metres may be placed in and adjacent to the existing Darlington soil stockpile in the northwest quadrant of the Darlington site.

Up to three million cubic metres may be placed aslakeinfill.Thenewlandformmaybeupto 40 hectares in area:

n� Fronting the shoreline from the westerly limit of the existing Darlington Nuclear Generating Station intake channel to the easterly limit of the Darlington site

n� Extending approximately 100 metres into the lake at its westerly limit to approximately 450 metres at its easterly limit

n� Theincreasedlandcreatedbylakeinfillmaybe utilized for construction and operational activities

1978 2008


ELEMEnts In an EnvIrOnMEntaL assEssMEnt

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

DETERMINE HOW THE PROJECT

INTERACTS WITHTHE ENVIRONMENT

Environmental Effects – Mitigations – Residual Effects

• CUMULATIVE EFFECTS• SIGNIFICANCE OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS

• FOLLOW-UP AND MONITORING PROGRAMS

Fall 2008 – Spring 2009

2009

MALFUNCTIONSAND ACCIDENTS

EFFECTS OFENVIRONMENTON PROJECT

CurrEnt WOrK


atMOsphErIC EnvIrOnMEnt

Valued Ecosystem Componentsn� Pathwaytohumanhealth

n� Pathwaytonon-humanbiota

n� PathwaytoVECsandotherenvironmentalcomponents (for example noise transfer to animals in the Terrestrial Environment)

Likely Environmental Effects DuringSitePreparationandConstruction:

n� Localized increase in dust concentrations and noise levels

During Operations:

n� Possibleon-sitefogging,waterdepositionandicing events from cooling tower operations (if used)

Identified Mitigation Measuresn� Implement good dust and noise management

practices to control dust emissions and noise levels at the source

n� Ensure construction equipment is well maintained

Likely Residual Adverse Effect (after mitigation)n� Noresidualadverseeffects


Valued Ecosystem Componentsn� Cultural meadow and thicket ecosystemn� Shrubbluffecosystemn� Wetland ecosystemn� Woodland ecosystemn� Breeding birdsn� Waterfowl staging areas and winter habitatn� Migrant songbirds and their habitatn� Winter raptor feeding and roosting areasn� Breeding and key summer habitat of amphibians

and reptiles n� Breeding mammalsn� Dragonflies and damselfliesn� Migrant butterfly stopover arean� Wildlife corridors

Likely Environmental Effects DuringSitePreparationandConstruction:n��Loss of wildlife habitat and linkages n��Removal of Bank Swallow nesting habitatn��Loss of rare plant species (Common Water Flaxseed,

CupPlantandLoesel’sTwayblade)

During Operations:n��Potentialbirdstrikesonnewbuildingsand

bird entanglement in security fencing during construction and operations

Identified Mitigation Measuresn��Limit habitat alteration during bird breeding seasonn��Naturalize disturbed areas with native plants to

restore communities and habitatsn��Develop opportunities to inform and educate the

public on Bank Swallow habitatn��Implement stormwater management techniques in Coot’sPondduringSitePreparation&Construction

n��Createnewfish-freewetlandpondswithriparianplantings

n��Verify wildlife usage of wildlife corridor and incorporate practical measures to maintain access for wildlife travel

n��RelocaterareplantspeciespriortoSitePreparationn��DevelopartificialBankSwallowandotheraerialforagespecies(ChimneySwift,PurpleMartin)habitatonsite

n��Acquire lands with existing Bank Swallow coloniesn��Develop partnerships to research declines in aerial

foragers in Ontarion��Implement good industry management practices in

the development of lighting systems and structures to reduce bird strikes and in the development of security fencing to reduce bird entanglement

Likely Residual Adverse Effect (after mitigation)n��Loss of approximately 40 to 50 hectares of cultural

meadow ecosystem on-siten��Loss of approximately 24 to 34 hectares of habitat

currently used as butterfly stopover arean��Decreased population of breeding birds on-siten��Loss of nesting habitat for Bank Swallown��Bird strike mortality with cooling towers, if usedn��Periodicandshorttermdisruptiontowildlife

travel (east-west corridor) during site preparation and construction

These are carried forwardtoassesssignificance.

tErrEstrIaL EnvIrOnMEnt


aquatIC EnvIrOnMEnt

Valued Ecosystem Componentsn� Benthic invertebratesn� Round Gobyn� Emerald Shinern� Alewifen� White Suckern� Lake Sturgeonn� RoundWhitefishn� American Eeln� Lake Troutn� Sportfish(SalmonandTrout)n� Lake Ontario near shore habitatn� Darlington Creek and Darlington Creek

tributaries

Likely Environmental Effects DuringSitePreparationandConstruction:n� Loss of aquatic habitat during site development,

lakeinfillingandmarineconstructionn� Alteration of Darlington Creek habitat

During Operations:n��Loss of local aquatic biota due to impingement

and entrainment

Identified Mitigation Measuresn� Naturalization of new stormwater

management pondsn� Salvage and relocation of aquatic plants and biota,

where practical, to a suitable existing or created habitat in advance of site preparation activities

n� Reduce impingement and entrainment with design and location of intake structure

n� Reduceextentofthermaleffectswithdesignandlocationofdischargediffuser

n� Developmentoffishhabitatcompensationplann� Captureandreleasefishfromin-waterworkareas

as work advances

Likely Residual Adverse Effect (after mitigation)n� Loss of some VEC species (benthic invertebrates, RoundGoby)fromlakeinfillandcoolingservicewater intake and discharge

n� Impingement mortality or entrainment losses associated with operation of once-through lake water cooling option and less with the cooling tower option

Thesearecarriedforwardtoassesssignificance.

Near shoreline habitat at Darlington site.


surFaCE WatEr EnvIrOnMEnt

Valued Ecosystem Componentsn� Pathwaytohumanhealthn� Pathwaytonon-humanbiotan� PathwaytoVECsinotherenvironmental

components (for example, changes in surface water qualitymayaffectfishintheAquaticEnvironment)

Likely Environmental Effects DuringSitePreparationandConstruction:n� Changes in near-shore lake circulation patternsn� Dredging in the lake and construction of the wharf

would disturb lake sediments and create turbidity

During Operations:n� Reduced sediment loading to lake due to

shoreline stabilizationn� Thermal discharges from service water and

cooling water systems will likely result in minor increased near-shore lake water temperature

n� Warmer water temperatures and increased algae in Lake Ontario at the mouth of Darlington Creek may result from the embaymentcreatedastheresultoflakeinfill

n� Coolingtowerbleed-offwillresultintheongoing discharge into Lake Ontario

n� Removal of water from lake ongoing basis to be released as water vapour into atmosphere

Identified Mitigation Measuresn� Implement good on-site stormwater managementn� Implement good industry management

practices during any activities such as lake dredging,lakeinfillandlakeblasting

n� Design discharge structure to mitigate potential environmentaleffectsofthermalplume

n� Employ dust and sediment control measures to minimize suspended sediment concentrations

n� Test and treat all effluents associated with service water system and the pumphouse trash-racks of the once-through cooling water system (if used) to comply with appropriate criteria for surface water discharges to Lake Ontario

n� Implement an adaptive management strategy to monitor and address any nuisance conditions in the embayment

n� Allcoolingtowerbleed-offwillbedirectedto appropriate treatment system. Discharge is likely to ultimately be to Lake Ontario via management measures designed to accommodate sufficient volume for the system


Beaver pond on Darlington site


gEOLOgICaL and hydrOgEOLOgICaL EnvIrOnMEnt

Valued Ecosystem Componentsn� Pathwaytohumanhealth

n� Pathwaytonon-humanbiota

n� PathwaytoVECsinenvironmentalcomponents(for example, loss of groundwater input to stream couldaffecthabitatinAquaticEnvironment)

Likely Environmental Effects n� Stormwatermanagementfacilitiesmayaffect

soil quality and groundwater quality

n� Possibleincreaseintheconcentrationofcontaminants in groundwater

n� Groundwater flow conditions will be changed permanently, however, the ultimate discharge point will remain to be Lake Ontario

Identified Mitigation Measuresn� Stormwater management facilities will be

designed and implemented so as to optimize opportunities to recharge surface water to the groundwater regime

n� Good stormwater management practices includes sediment control practices, stormwater conveyance systems and conventional stormwater treatment methods

n� Design and implement stormwater management features to contribute additional baseflow into Darlington Creek and reduce groundwater drawdown area north of the Darlington site


ExaMpLE OF gEOLOgICaL subsurFaCE LayErs


abOrIgInaL IntErEsts and physICaL and CuLturaL hErItagE

Valued Ecosystem Componentsn��Aboriginal community characteristicsn��Huntingandfishingforsubsistencen��Fishing, trapping and traditional harvesting

and collecting for sustenance recreational and economic purposes

n��Locations and features of cultural or spiritualsignificance

Likely Environmental Effects n��Nolikelyenvironmentaleffects


Valued Ecosystem Componentsn��Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian archaeological

resourcesn��Euro-Canadian built heritage resourcesn��Euro-Canadian cultural landscapes resources

Likely Environmental Effects DuringSitePreparationandConstruction:n��Displacement of three Euro-Canadian

archaeological sites that have potential heritage value

n��IftheProjectWorksandActivitiesencroachinto the area, displacement of Burk Cemetery, monument and plaque

Identified Mitigation Measuresn� Archaeological excavation and documentationn� Ifnecessary,relocatetheBurkPioneer

CemeteryMonumentandPlaquetoasuitableoff-sitelocation


abOrIgInaL IntErEsts physICaL and CuLturaL hErItagE

BurkPioneerCemeteryMonument


sOCIO-ECOnOMIC EnvIrOnMEnt

Valued Ecosystem Componentsn�� Local and regional populationn�� Educationn��Health and safety servicesn�� Local and regional economic developmentn�� Tourismn��Agriculturen��Municipalrevenuesandfinancialstatusn��Housingn��Residential property valuesn��Community character and imagen��Municipal infrastructure and servicesn��Community and recreational facilities and servicesn��Ability to use and enjoy propertyn��Community cohesion

Likely Environmental Effects DuringSitePreparationandConstruction:n�� Reduced uses and enjoyment of community and

recreational features on the Darlington site n�� Some residents living along truck haul routes may

experience disruption to their use and enjoyment due to nuisanceeffects(dust,noise,traffic)

During Operations:n��Negative change in character of community if natural

draft cooling towersn�� Reduced enjoyment of private property due to visual

dominance of natural draft cooling towers

Identified Mitigation Measuresn��Continue to share information with local and

regionalstaffonthetimingandmagnitudeoflabourrequirements of the project

n��Continue to work in partnership with government, labour groups, educational institutes through existing liaison mechanisms and programs

n��Ensuresecurity,emergencyhealthcareandfireservicesonsite for the construction workforce

n��Establish a comprehensive, mutually agreeable Community Agreement with Municipality of Clarington and Region of Durham

n��ImplementaTrafficManagementPlantoreducedisruption and maintain safe traffic conditions

n��ImplementaNuisanceEffectsManagementPlanforresidential properties along transportation route

n��Maintain contribution to community through CommunityCitizenshipProgram

n��Continue to keep neighbours and public informed about project activities

n��Develop and implement a plan to establish full access to and use of Waterfront Trail in stages after site preparation is complete

n��Seektoestablisharesolutiontoaddressanyeffectsonupperandlowersoccerfields

Likely Residual Adverse Effect (after mitigation)n��Negative change in community character where cooling

towers would be a prominent feature of the landscape, particularly in the immediate vicinity of Darlington site

n��Reduced use and enjoyment of Darlington site recreational features during site preparation and construction

n��Someresidentsalongthetruckhaulroutesandoffsitesoil storage areas may experience disruption to their use and enjoyment of property during site preparation and construction

Thesearecarriedforwardtoassesssignificance.

Employment (average # direct and indirect jobs per year over phase)

Factor

Implications for Durham Region (based on 2 units)

Existing DNGS

Site Preparation and Construction

Operations and Maintenance

5,200

3,800

17,200

5,700

$ 365 M

1,900

1,250

5,400

1,800

$ 130 M

2,500

1,800

6,700

2,250

$ 175 M

Employment (average # of induced jobs per year over phase)

Associated Population (average # persons per year over term)

Associated Housing (average # units over term)

Household Income (annual average $ per year over term)


Land usE

Valued Ecosystem Componentsn� Land use planning regime in Local Study Area

n� Visual aesthetics

Likely Environmental Effects DuringSitePreparationandConstruction:n��Increased activities on the Darlington site likely

to result in changes to land use and development patterns

n��Changes in visual setting due to soil stockpiling andgradingofexistingbluffformationsonthelakefront

During Operations:n��Changes in visual setting due to cooling towers

(if used) and vapour plume

Identified Mitigation Measuresn� Implement good industry management

practices in the design and construction of the project to optimize opportunities to visually screen onsite features

n� Implement landscape design to reduce the visibility of the operating facility

n� Implement good industry management practice in the design and development of lighting systems that will, among other considerations (navigation safety, bird strikes), reduce to the extent possible the night time visibility of the overall site and cooling towers (if used)

n� Continue to engage in discussions with local municipalities on the appropriate planning policy format and land use structure in the primary and contiguous zones to ensure maintenanceofeffectiveemergencyresponse

Likely Residual Adverse Effect(after mitigation)n� Permanentchangesinthequalityofthe

existing views of the Darlington site from viewing locations in the Local and Regional Study Areas as a result of the presence of natural draft cooling tower structures, if used and the presence of cooling tower plume

Thisiscarriedforwardtoassesssignificance.

Visual simulator, illustrating view of cooling towers on Darlington site from Highway 401 West at Waverly Road.


huMan hEaLth

Valued Ecosystem Componentsn��Members of the public

n��WorkersonOPG’sNewNuclearatDarlingtonproject

Likely Environmental Effects n��Annual radiation dose to public will be well

below the regulatory limit (less than natural background radiation)

n��Radiation dose to nuclear energy workers will remain well below regulatory limits

Identified Mitigation Measuresn��All internal and external doses received by

nuclear workers will be monitored and reported as part of the operational dose management program.Thissystemwillbeineffectduring the operation and maintenance and decommissioning phases of the project

n��An “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” (ALARA) analysiswillbeundertakenandspecificmeasures to reduce collective worker dose to the extent practical will be determined during detailed planning and design of the project



radIatIOn and radIOaCtIvIty EnvIrOnMEnt and nOn-huMan bIOta hEaLth

Valued Ecosystem Componentsn� Pathwaytohumanhealthn� Pathwaytonon-humanbiota

Likely Environmental Effects n��PotentialExposureofmembersofthepublic

to very low levels of radiation from normal operations

n��PotentialExposureofnuclearenergyworkerstolow levels of radiation from normal operations

n��PotentialExposureofnonhumanbiotatoverylow levels of radiation from normal operations


Valued Ecosystem Componentsn��Birds and mammalsn��Insects and invertebratesn��Amphibians and reptilesn��Terrestrial vegetationn��Aquatic macrophytesn��Benthosn��Fish

Likely Environmental Effects DuringSitePreparationandConstruction:n��Nolikelyenvironmentaleffects


radIatIOn and radIOaCtIvIty nOn-huMan bIOta hEaLth


traFFIC and transpOrtatIOn

Valued Ecosystem Componentsn��Transportation system efficiency and adequacy

n��Transportation system safety

Likely Environmental Effects DuringSitePreparationandConstruction:n��Increased traffic may contribute to the ongoing

degradation of road system and result in an increased likelihood of safety related incidents

Identified Mitigation Measuresn� Collaborate with responsible agencies to ensure

that the project related traffic is considered in thedesignandimplementationofoffsiteroadimprovements

n� Collaborate with and support on a continued basis, the Municipality of Clarington and Regional Municipality of Durham to identify systemdeficienciesandfacilitateroadsafetyimprovements



MaLFunCtIOns, aCCIdEnts and MaLEvOLEnt aCts

OPGmustconsidertheenvironmentaleffectsassociated with the unlikely event of Malfunctions, Accidents or Malevolent Acts.

Conventional malfunctions and Accidents involve the inadvertent release of chemicals with the potential of causing harm to workers or the environment, or events that may result in personal injuries.

n� Spill of fuel to Lake Ontario• Nolongtermeffectsareexpectedonaquatic

biota or human health

n� Steam generator water treatment chemical spill• Noadverseeffectsareexpectedtoworkersor

members of the public

radiological malfunctions and Accidents involve the inadvertent release of radioactivity from components other than the reactor (e.g. nuclear waste management facilities).

n� Drop of a refurbishment waste container containing radioactive waste

n� Fire in a radioactive waste storage building

In both examples, worker doses would be a small fraction of the regulatory limit and non-human biota (animals,birds)arenotlikelytobeaffected.

Nuclear Accidents involve the reactor with damage to the fuel bundles and/or the reactor core and could result in release of radioactivity to the environment.

Anassessmentwasdonetoconfirmthatthereactorsbeing considered in this EA will meet the intent of regulatory requirements:

n�� Itwasconfirmedthattheextentofpotentialevacuation and relocation are consistent with the intent of regulations and the current emergency planning protocols

n�� Itwasconfirmedthattherewouldbenolongtermeffectsonhumanhealthoronthehealthofnon-human biota

Out of Core criticality malfunctions and Accidents involve events outside the reactor core, such as in a fresh or used fuel storage area that may result in an acute release of radioactivity.

n� These events are unlikely and would require a combination of failures to occur

n� A stringent criticality safety assessment will be performed and reviewed by the CNSC

n� The design and administrative barriers will be in place, supported by detailed safety analysis, to ensure that inadvertent criticality is not likely

malevolent Acts are the intentional attempt to cause damage. Security measures generally consist of:

n� Physicalprotection–barriers,intrusiondetection,access limitation

n� Administrative protection – security screening of personnel, training of personnel, procedures and audits

n� Personnel–highlyqualifiedsecurityresponsepersonnel, emergency preparedness

Sucheventsarenotlikelytocauseasignificantrelease of radioactivity to the public


EFFECts OF thE EnvIrOnMEnt On thE prOjECt

The EA also considers how the environment may affecttheproject.OPGisconductingstudiesoneffectsoftheenvironmentontheprojectsuchas:

Flooding n�� Coastal floodingn�� Darlington Creek n�� Directsurfacerunoffandotherflooding

hazards

Severe Weathern�� Meteorological hazard assessmentn�� Tornadoesn�� Tropical cyclonesn�� Thunderstorms and hail stormsn�� Freezing rain

Biophysical Effectsn�� Zebra and Quagga Mussels n�� Attached algaen�� Fish

Seismicityn Seismic hazard and ground motionn Seismic-related phenomenan� Geotechnical investigationn Potentialsurfacefaulting

Climate Changen� Effectsofgreenhousegasemissionsn� Potentialclimatechange

Summary of Mitigationn� The project will be designed so that nuclear

safety systems would continue to operate in theeventofanyenvironmentaleffect

n� Projectdesignandcontingencyfeatureswillbe incorporated to withstand environmental effects

n OPGwilldevelopanadaptivemanagementstrategy to address changes in the environmentthatcouldadverselyaffectthenew station in the future

n� Integrate design, management and monitoring to systematically test assumptions and adapt to changing environmentaleffects

n� Noeffectsoftheenvironmentonthe project are anticipated based on design and mitigation options

Likely Residual Adverse Effect (after mitigation)� � ��n� Noresidualadverseeffects


sustaInabILIty assEssMEnt

TheEAconsiderstheextenttowhichtheProjectcontributestosustainabledevelopment.Aprojectthatissupportive of sustainable development must strive to integrate the objective of net ecological, economic andsocialbenefitstosociety.

The sustainability assessment relies on sustainable development considerations articulated by the Municipality ofClarington,RegionofDurhamandtheCityofOshawaintheirrespectiveOfficialPlans,StrategicPlansorSustainability Strategies. These were used to create community visions, goals and objectives. The extent to which theProjectcontributestowardsachievingthestatedgoalsandobjectivesisindicatedinthegraphicbelow.

EcologicalBenefits

SocialBenefits

Economic Benefits

Green space in urban areas

Ecological

Biodiversity and ecosystem integrity

Environmental stewardship

Energy conservation

Capacity of renewable resources

Balanced development

E�cient use of infrastructure and access to services

Live, work and play communities

Community pride and identity

Personal well being

New job opportunities

Business retention, expansion and creation

Durham energy hub

Diversi�cation of the skills base

Healthy municipal �nance

Diminish Maintain Enhance

Economy

VisionTo ensure that biodiversity, ecosystem integrity and the capacity of renewable resources are maintained and enhanced in order to meet the needs of current and future generations

GoalTo protect and enhance the ecosystem

GoalTo promote balanced growth and healthy livable communities

GoalTo promote economic development

VisionTo encourage the ongoing development of vibrant, safe, healthy and caring communities that provide current and future residents with a sense of satisfaction and pride as a place to live, work and play

VisionTo promote economic development through employment and business growth, diversification of the skills base and fiscal health of municipalities in order to meet the needs of current and future residents

Social Diminish Maintain Enhance

Diminish Maintain Enhance


CuMuLatIvE EFFECts

OPGexaminedprojectsandactivitiesthatmightbecarriedout during the same time period as the New Nuclear at Darlingtonprojectandwhichcouldresultinsimilareffectsin the shared study areas. These project include: n BowmanvilleGOTrainStationProject*n ClaringtonEnergyBusinessParkdevelopment*n ExpansionofCourticeWaterPollutionControlPlant*n ExpansionofDuffinCreekWaterPollutionControlPlant

ProjectorActivity*n Expansion of Other Municipal Water Treatment and PollutionControlPlants

n Growth and Development in Regional Communitiesn Highway407EastLinktoHwy401*n Highway401Improvements&HoltRoadInterchange*n OshawaEthanolPlant*n Other(Non-OPG)FacilitiesLicensedbyCanadianNuclear

Safety Commissionn PickeringAirportn PortDarlingtonAreaEnhancements*n PortHopeAreaInitiativeProjects:� � - PortHopeProject� � - PortGranbyProject� � - OtherPortHopeAreaProjectsn PortHopeAreaWastesn St.MarysCementOperations*

n Upgradeof500kVTransmissionSystem*n YorkDurhamRegionEnergyfromWasteFacility*n ProjectandactivitiesbyOPGduringoperations,

refurbishment and continued operation and decommissioning for:

n DarlingtonNuclearGeneratingStation* n DarlingtonWasteManagementFacility*� � n OPG’sNewNuclearatDarlington (Decommissioning)*� � n PickeringNuclearGeneratingStationA - Operations(Units1&4fullyoperational, Units2&3currentlyinGuaranteed Shutdown State)

- ModificationofUnits2&3toGuaranteedDefuelled State

- Decommissioning� � n PickeringNuclearGeneratingStationB(Units5-8)� � n PickeringWasteManagementFacility

Preliminaryresultsindicatethatanycumulativeeffectsareminor and it is unlikely that additional mitigation measures are necessary.

Planned Projects and Activities 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

New Nuclear at Darlington Units 1 and 2

New Nuclear at Darlington Units 3 and 4

Hwy 407 East Extension

Energy from Waste Facility

Development of Clarington Energy Park

Extension of GO Rail Service from Oshawa to Bowmanville

Highway 401/Holt Road Interchange Improvements

Planning Construction Operations

*Projectsandactivitieswithin10kmofOPG’sNewNuclearatDarlington. All other projects and activities are beyond 10km.


sIgnIFICanCE assEssMEnt MEthOdOLOgy

Adverseenvironmentaleffectsthatarelikelytoresult from the project (after mitigation measures have been incorporated) are called “residual effects”.Allresidualadverseeffectsareassessedforsignificance.Residualadverseeffectsfromtheprojectareassessedforsignificanceusingthefollowing criteria:

Each criterion is ranked as low, medium or high using professional judgment by technical experts considering both quantitative and qualitative measurement, where appropriate. Thensignificanceofeachresidualadverseeffectis evaluated using the methodology in the diagram above.

Magnitude The size or degree of the effect compared against baseline conditions or thresholds.

Geographic Extent The area over or throughout which the effects will be measurable.

Duration The time period over which the effect will last.

Frequency and Probability The rate of recurrence of the effect.

Reversibility The degree to which the effect can or will be reversed (typically measured by the time it will take to restore the environmental attribute or feature).

Physical Human Health The degree to which the physical aspects of human health may be affected.

Psycho-social Human Health The degree to which psychological or social behaviour of the public may be affected.

Ecological Importance The importance of the environmental attribute or feature to ecosystem health and function.

Societal Value The value of the environmental attribute or features to society.

Sustainability The degree to which the effect would impact the ability for the attribute or feature to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.


prELIMInary assEssMEnt OF rEsIduaL advErsE EFFECts FOr sIgnIFICanCE

residual Adverse Effects(after mitigation)

residual Adverse Effects(after mitigation)

Why the residual Effects are Considered minor Adverse Effects, but Not Significant

Why the residual Effects are Considered minor Adverse Effects, but Not Significant

Loss of aquatic species within footprints of lake infillandcoolingwaterintake and discharge structure

• Nearshoreenvironmentofproposedinfillhasfew documented invertebrates

• Roundgobiesareaninvasivespecies• Footprintofcooling/serviceintakeand

discharge structure is small, and habitat loss is notsignificantrelativetoentirearea

L L L M H L L L L L

Fish impingement and entrainment

• Once-through-coolingintakehasbeendesignedspecificallytoreduceentrainment&impingementoffish

• Intakeincorporatesdesignfeaturesbasedonfishbehaviourandislocatedoffshoreatdepthswhich are less productive

• ExpectedlosseswillbelowrelativetoLakeOntario populations

L L H H H L L L L L

Loss of approximately 40-50 hectares of mostly Cultural Meadow Ecosystem

• Culturalmeadowsarewidespreadintheenvironment in southern Ontario, and in the Local and Regional Study Areas

• Manyofculturalmeadowsonsiteareseedmixoroflowecologicalfunctionandtheeffectisconfinedtothesite

• VECswillstillpersistatthesite

L L H M H L L M M L

Loss of approximately 24 to 34 hectares of on site habitat currently used as a butterfly habitat during migration

• Culturalmeadowsarewidespreadintheenvironment in southern Ontario, and in the Local and Regional Study Areas

• Manyofculturalmeadowsonsiteareseedmixoroflowecologicalfunctionandtheeffectisconfinedtothesite

• VECswillstillpersistatthesite

L L H H M L M M L L

Decrease in populations of breeding birds on site

• Noneofthebreedingbirdhabitatsbeingreduced are unique to the site

• ThehabitatsoccurcommonlyintheLocalandRegional Study Areas

• BreedingbirdswillcontinuetobeattheDarlington site

L L H H M L L M M L

Loss of nesting areas for Bank Swallows

• Mitigationincludesthelong-termprotectionof important nesting areas, design and constructionofartificialBankSwallowcolonies and research into declines in aerial foraging birds

• Theseactionsareexpectedtobringlong-termtangiblebenefitstothespeciesandperhaps others

• TheportionsofthecolonybeingremovedareconfinedtotheSiteStudyAreaandalargerportion of the associated colony will still remain viable

M L H H H L L M L M

Bird strike mortalities associated with natural draft cooling towers

• Theseanticipatedstrikenumbersarelowcompared to the huge numbers of migrant birds passing over the site in spring and fall, or to the known level of mortalities at lit buildings in Toronto or due to other sources (e.g., residential windows, pet cats)

• Theeffectwilloccurinarelativelysmallareaassociated with the tower structures in the Site Study Area only

• Theeffectsareunlikelytoresultinmeasurablechange to bird populations

L L H M H L L M M L

Short-term disruption to wildlife travel along wildlife corridor during site preparation and construction

• Amajorcorridorisnotcurrentlypresentalthough the function does exist

• Wildlifeusingtheeast-westcorridorthroughthe site are already adapted to the road network and high levels of human disturbance that characterize both the Site and the Local Study Area

• Thesiteremainsopentopassageformanyofthese species and the period of disturbance will be relatively limited and reversible

L L M M L L L L L L

Permanentchangesinthe quality of views of the Darlington Nuclear site in the Local and Regional Study Areas as a result of the presence of natural draft cooling towers

• Althoughthereisavisualimpact,theprojectwillnot preclude the use and enjoyment of private property in the Local Study Area communities

• Althoughtheconditionscreatingtheeffectwill not be reversible, the magnitude of the effectwilldiminishwithtimeasthestructuresbecome a familiar feature of the landscape and the project establishes a positive track record

H H M H H L L L L L

Change in the character of communities if natural draft cooling towers are implemented

• Althoughthereisavisualimpact,theprojectwill not change the unique and distinctive qualities of Local Study Area communities

• TheareaintheimmediatevicinityoftheDarlington site is a mix of industrial, commercial and residential land uses

• Thepresenceofindustrialandcommerciallanduses is increasing

L M H H H L M L M L

Reduced use and enjoyment of community and recreational features on the Darlington Nuclear site during SitePreparationandConstruction

• Theprojectdoesnotpreventtheuseofthesitefor recreational purposes

• Thereduceduseandenjoymentofthesiteforrecreational purposes likely be experienced by a small number of users for a few years prior to its restoration

M M M H L L L L L L

Disruption to residential use and enjoyment of property during SitePreparationandConstruction due to nuisance-relatedeffects(dust, noise, traffic)

• Althoughthoseaffectedwilllikelynoticeincreased traffic, noise and dust, these effectsarenotanticipatedtobeofsufficientmagnitude to preclude continued use of private property

• Effectswillalsobelimitedtoafewpropertiesalong the haul route and a soil storage area within the Local Study Area

M M M M L L M L L L

Reduced enjoyment of private property due to visual dominance of natural draft cooling towers

• Althoughthereisavisualimpact,theprojectwillnot preclude the use and enjoyment of private property in the Local Study Area communities

• Althoughtheconditionscreatingtheeffectwill not be reversible, the magnitude of the effectwilldiminishwithtimeasthestructuresbecome a familiar feature of the landscape and the project establishes a positive track record

• Highlyunlikelytooccur• Eventwouldbeofshortdurationandany

needed cleanup or remediation would begin immediately

• Off-siteprotectiveactionssuchasshort-termevacuation or sheltering may be implemented

• Emergencyresponseplans(Ontario,municipalities,OPG)willbeinplace

L M H H H L M L L L

Noresidualeffectfrommalfunctions accidents or malevolent acts, but carried forward to assess due to general public interest

M H L L M L H L H L

mag

nitu

de

mag

nitu

de

Spat

ial E

xten

t

Spat

ial E

xten

t

Dur

atio

n/ti

min

g

Dur

atio

n/ti

min

g

Freq

uenc

y

reve

rsib

ility

reve

rsib

ility

Freq

uenc

y

Effec

t on

Phys

ical

Hum

an H

ealt

h

Effec

t on

Phys

ical

Hum

an H

ealt

h

Effec

t on

Psyc

ho-s

ocia

l Hum

an H

ealt

h

Effec

t on

Psyc

ho-s

ocia

l Hum

an H

ealt

h

Ecol

ogic

al Im

port

ance

of V

EC

Ecol

ogic

al Im

port

ance

of V

EC

Soci

etal

Val

ue

Soci

etal

Val

ue

Sust

aina

bilit

y

Sust

aina

bilit

y

L - Low, M - Medium, H - High


FOLLOW-up and MOnItOrIng prOgraM

After the environmental assessment is complete a follow-up and monitoring program is developed. The purpose of the follow-up program is to:

n� Assist in determining if the environmentaleffectsoftheprojectare as predicted from the EA

n� Determine whether assumptions made during the EA are accurate

n� Confirmwhethertheproposedmitigationmeasuresareeffectiveandifnew mitigation strategies are required

Thefollow-upprogramidentifiescommitmentsforSitePreparationandConstruction and Operations.

The development of the follow-up and monitoring program includes:

n� Identificationofthegeneraltimeframefor the follow-up program

n� Identificationofthepreliminaryscopeof the follow-up studies related to the general timeframe

n� Proposalofaprocessfordevelopingthefinalscopeandtimingofthefollow-up program with details such as monitoring parameters, locations and frequencies

OPGhasidentifiedover100possiblecommitments to follow-up and monitor.

The follow-up and monitoring program will be included in the environmental assessment and reviewed by the Joint ReviewPanel.Theresponsibleauthority,likely the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will ensure the follow-up and monitoring program is implemented.


Ea sChEduLE/nExt stEps

Below is a preliminary schedule of major milestones for the New Nuclear at Darlington EA

FEb/MarCh 2007 Pre-submission Consultation on Project Description (Round #1) √

aprIL 2007 OPG submits EA Project Description to CNSC √

junE 2007 Define Study Areas √

FaLL 2007 Public Consultation Round #2 √

FaLL 2007-suMMEr 2008 Establish Environmental Baseline √ (environmental components, valued ecosystem components)

sprIng 2008 Public Consultation Round #3 √

sprIng/suMMEr 2008 Determine Possible Project - Environment Interactions √

suMMEr/FaLL 2008 Identify Environmental Effects, Possible √ Mitigation, Determine Residual Effects

FaLL 2008 Public Consultation Round #4 √

FaLL/WIntEr 2008 Identify Malfunction and Accidents, Cumulative Effects and Significance of Residual Effects Underway

FaLL/WIntEr 2008 Examine Effects of Environment on Project; Follow-up and monitoring Underway

sprIng 2009 Public Consultation Round #5 Underway

2009 Environmental Impact Statement Report Submission and Licence to Prepare the Site

datE aCtIvIty status


pubLIC COnsuLtatIOn - suMMary OF IssuEs and COMMEnts raIsEd

ThroughouttheEA,OPGhassoughtcommunityconfirmationoftheworkundertaken to date, and community direction for the next steps in the assessment. OPGreceivedandincorporatedfeedbackon:

n� The project description (before it was submitted)

n� The Valued Ecosystem Components

n� EA methodology

n� Potentialeffectsandpossiblemitigation measures

n� The projects to consider in a cumulativeeffectsassessment

n� Criteria to aid in the determination ofsignificance

We’vereceivedandrespondedtothousandsofquestions and comments. At the outset, there was a high degree of interest in matters such asOntario’selectricitysystemandthelong-term plan for energy, the reactor technology and vendor selection process, long- term management of nuclear waste and use fuel, financialconsiderationsandrelationshipofvarious decision making processes.

For a full listing of questions and answers, please take a “Frequently Asked Questions” handout.

We want your input!

Today we are looking for your input on preliminary results.

Comment forms are available for you to completeanddropoffhere,ortakehomeand mail back to us. You can also have a discussionwithoneofthestaffmembershere.

Your comments will be documented and included in the EA study. Your knowledge of the local area and environment will help OPGanditsconsultantsperformamoreaccurate EA!

OPG New Nuclear at Darlington Environmental AssessmentLaurie Swami, Director Licensing and Environment

Darlington New Nuclear Project

New Nuclear at Darlington

Overview of the Environmental Impact Statement Presentation to Federal Agencies and MinistriesAugust 24, 2009

1 Contents

BackgroundProject OverviewFederal Review ProcessEA Work to Date

1 Contents

2 Purpose of Today’s Workshop

Context SettingOPG will submit to government, an Environmental Impact Statementfor the OPG New Nuclear at Darlington Project this fall

Large quantity of materials to be providedEarly comments encouraged

Interest in establishing protocol for ongoing contact to ensure efficient review

Today’s ObjectiveTo familiarize federal authorities with OPG’s documentation

3Describe the Project:

Phases3 Background

June 2006: OPG was directed by the Ontario Minister of Energy to begin a federals approvals process, including an environmental assessment, for new nuclear units at an existing site

September 2006: OPG submitted Application for Approval to Prepare a Site for the Future Construction of a Nuclear Power Generating Facility to the CNSC

April 2007: OPG submitted a Project Description to the CNSCSeptember 30, 2009: OPG will submit the Environmental Impact Statement (approx. 1,000 pages), 28 Technical Support Documents (over 9,000 pages) and LTPS (approx. 4,000 pages)

4 Overview of the Project

The “Project” defined as:

Preparation of the Darlington Nuclear Site for up to four nuclear power reactors and up to 4,800 MW of electrical capacity, and associated facilities

Construction, operation and maintenance of nuclear reactors and associated facilities for approximately 60 years of full power electricity operation

Construction, operation and maintenance of appropriate nuclear waste management facilities, and

Preliminary planning for decommissioning and eventual abandonment of the nuclear reactors and associated facilities

5 Technology Selection

In March 2008, Ontario initiated a 2 phase competitive bidding process to select a nuclear vendor to build 2 new nuclear units at the Darlington site.

In February 2009, bids were received from 3 potential vendors (AECL, Areva and Westinghouse)

On June 29, 2009, the Ontario Minister of Energy and Infrastructure announced that the Government of Ontario had suspended the “Request for Proposal” process to procure two reactors for the Darlington Site due to concern about pricing and uncertainty around AECL’s future.

6 Reactor Technologies

Reactor Vendor Single Size Type

AP-1000 Westinghouse 1100 MW New

EPR (Evolutionary Pressurized Reactor)

AREVA 1600 MW Innovative

ACR-1000 (Advanced Candu Reactor)

AECL 1200 MW New

These reactors are all considered pressurized water reactors (PWR), with the ACRincluding a heavy water moderator system

All require the use of slightly enriched uranium

77 New Nuclear Project - Major Structures/Facilities

8

Project DescriptionSite Preparation & Construction Phases

Site Preparation Phase: Activities to prepare the site for construction including receipt and transport of heavy equipment

Removal of up to 13 million cubic meters of soil

Approximately 2 years

Construction Phase:Activities to construct the nuclear reactors & associated buildings

Approximately 6 years (for first set of reactors) Darlington Nuclear Generating Station site during Site Preparation

(1980)

9

Project DescriptionOperations & Decommissioning Phases

Operations Phase: Work & activities that would occur on site during routine operation and maintenance of the plant

Assumes 60 years of full power operation per reactor

Mid-life refurbishment, if required

Decommissioning Phase:Major activities associated with decommissioning the reactors

Typically occurs about 30 years after the end of operation

Dismantling may take an additional 5 to10 years

Darlington Turbine Hall

Darlington Generator

1010Alternatives Considered in the EA

Condenser Cooling SystemsLake Water Cooling

Natural Draft Cooling Towers

Fan Assisted Natural Draft Cooling Towers

Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers

Used Fuel ManagementExpand existing facility/storage structures Build a design-specific dry storage processing facility

Low and Intermediate-Level Waste ManagementNew above ground storage facility on siteTransport off-site in licensed containers to licensed facility

Harris Nuclear Power Plant, US

1111 Bounding Condition for Potential Lake Infill

Lake Ontario shoreline along Darlington property, up to 40 hectaresCreate cofferdam, dewater the area, fill with soil/rock from excavationsRequires permits/approvals from provincial and federal authorities

1978 2008 2012

12 Conceptual Plant Layouts

Principle buildings and structures

Site access

Switchyard expansion

Parking, construction facilities

Soil stockpiles, lake fill, land fill

Used fuel & nuclear waste storage

13 EA Study Areas/Spatial Boundaries

Site Study Area –existing Darlington siteLocal Study Area ~ 10 km from the Project Site

Predict most environmental effects within LSA

Regional Study Area ~ 50 km from the Project site

Largely socio-economic effectsCumulative effects

1414Bounding EA Timelines/Temporal Boundaries

The dates shown are for EA study purposes. Actual start and in service dates have yet to be determined

15 Regulatory Schedule

Step Target Completion DatesEIS Guidelines Finalized Complete

September 30 2009

Intervenor FundingJRP Announcement September 2009

JRP determines whether to proceed with public review 14 days

LTPS Issued April 2011

DFO, TC Approvals 90 Days Post-EA Approval(*Contingent upon proponent's submission of

required information )

October to April/May 2010

(not included in schedule)

May 2010

Hearing August/September 2010

December 2010

February 2011

OPG Submission of EIS and LTPS Application,Submission of DFO and TC Applications

Six Month Public and Technical Review EIS and LTPS Application

Additional Information Request Response Time

Hearing Notice

JRP Report

Federal Government Response to JRP Report

16 JRP Sufficiency Review

Conformity Check/Public Review (October 2009 to April/May 2010)

Purpose: to determine whether there is sufficient information to proceed to public hearing

EIS, LTPS application and all supporting documents (43) released by JRP for government and public review (notice posted – TCD: October 15 2009)

Federal Authorities, Review Agencies, Public and Intervenors undertake reviews on sufficiency of information

JRP issues information requests to OPG for clarification and/or additional information

OPG response to information requests

JRP determination - sufficient information to proceed to hearing

OPG contacts will be available to provide clarification if needed (see package)

17 Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter Contents TSDs1 Introduction

Description of the ProjectMethodologiesDescription of the Existing EnvironmentEffects Assessment and MitigationsOther Likely EffectsMalfunctions, Accidents and Malevolent ActsCumulative Effects AssessmentSignificance of Residual EffectsCommunications and ConsultationFollow-up and MonitoringPreliminary Decommissioning Plan

13 Conclusions14 References

Special Terms

2 234 115 146 107 58910 11112

15

18 Chapters 1 and 2

Framework of EIS described for the readerProject overview (e.g. location, need, timelines, proponent)Regulatory requirements being metScope of the assessmentEIS content and organization

7-page table provides detailed linkages between EA Guideline Requirements and the EIS

EIS is a detailed summary reportTechnical Support Documents are where detailed analysis is performed

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Chapter 2 – Description of the ProjectAlternative meansProject scope for EA purposes

Site Preparation and ConstructionOperations and Maintenance

Model site layouts describedPlant Parameter Envelopes introduced

19 Chapter 3

Explanation of the EA process steps

Description of how the EA is used as a planning tool

EA Methodology

Unique to this EIS is the use of a Plant Parameter Envelope (PPE)

The EA uses PPE to effectively assess potential effects from a range of reactor types and units

PPE represents limiting reactor and plant values. It serves as the conservative bounding framework for EA planning purposes

Any reactor fitting within the PPE as assessed will be bounded by this EA

Plant Parameter Approach

20 Chapters 4 and 5

Chapter 4 - Description of the Existing EnvironmentSummary of the baseline conditions

Chapter 5 - Effects AssessmentStructured approach to provide the overview of likely effects:

Summarizes effects on Valued Ecosystem Components Describes mitigation measures that may be appliedIdentifies residual adverse effectsSummary table provided for all effects, mitigation and residual adverse effectsDetailed analyses are identified in references to supporting TSDs

21Chapter 6

Other Considerations in Effects Assessment

Three distinct sections:

1. Sustainability (assessed against 3 goals):Ecosystem protectionHealthy living communitiesEconomic development

2. Effects of the Environment on the Project:FloodingSevere weatherBiophysical changeSeismicity

3. Climate Change Considerations:Climate change models/potential effectsGreenhouse gas emissions summary

22 Chapter 7

Malfunctions, Accidents and Malevolent Acts

Study includes:Conventional - oil spills, fallsRadiological & Nuclear - radiation release from drop of nuclear waste container, damage to the fuel bundles, out of core criticalityMalevolent Acts - intentional attempt to cause damage, such as airplane crash

Mitigations:Robust plant designQualified staffComprehensive programs (environmental, safety)Extensive security program

Examined effects of unlikely radioactive release:Ontario Nuclear Emergency Plan

2323 Chapter 8

Over 30 other projects and activities examinedSome nearby projects overlap in time

Detailed examination to determine whether any effects overlapConstruction activities may coincide

Traffic, nuisance effects

Anticipated to be minor

OPG will continue to work with other agencies responsible for these projects to ensure project effects are managed

Cumulative Effects

24 Chapter 9

13 environmental areas studied in detail 9 areas all measurable effects can be effectively mitigated and managed4 areas with some remaining (residual) adverse effects, after mitigation:

AquaticLoss of some benthic invertebrates, Round Goby, from lake infill and cooling water intake and discharge structure during construction

Impingement mortality & entrainment losses from cooling water usage during operations

TerrestrialFrom site preparation activities, loss of: cultural meadow ecosystem, butterfly migratory habitat; and bank swallow nesting areas.

Disruption to wildlife travel during site preparation and construction

VisualChanges in visual setting due to cooling towers (if used) and vapour plumes

Socio-economicReduced enjoyment of private property and Darlington Nuclear site community & recreational featuresNegative change in community character associated with atmospheric cooling towers (visual effects)

Significance of Residual Effects

25 Chapter 10

Initiated in fall 2006, inputs to environmental studies

Six rounds to date, typically each round includes:Stakeholder Briefings/Updates/Presentations EA Newsletters , Stakeholder Project Update Letters Community Information Sessions

Ongoing ActivitiesStakeholder/Public Inquiry/ResponseEmployee information sessions/lunch and learnCommunity Events, Presentations to Community Groups, etc.

Ongoing engagement with First Nations and Métis

OPG Participant Funding Program

Darlington Planning & Infrastructure Information Sharing Committee

Communications and Consultation

26 Chapter 11

Key Commitments include:

Minimize fish effects from water intake and discharge

Restore biodiversity to the environment by incorporating native plants, wetland areas and aquatic habitat in the restoration plan after site preparation is completed

Protect and promote bank swallows and aerial foragers

Undertake controlled removal and recording of archaeological and cultural features on site

Implement Traffic and Nuisance Effects Management Plans

27 Chapter 13

Minimal environmental effects predicted from New Nuclear at Darlington

Primarily during site preparation and construction phase

Primarily within 3 km of the site

Can be managed, mitigated

Proposed commitment to mitigation & follow-up actions

Socio-economic Benefits

EIS and Licence to Prepare Site application, when submitted, will be posted to OPG’s project website

Chapter 13 - Conclusions

28 Conclusion

Submission of EIS and LTPS documentation – September 2009Large amount of information materials for reviewEarly comments are encouraged

OPG is available to support federal authority post-submission

29

Questions?

Please contact us:www.opg.com/newbuild

1-866-487-6006

Contact Us29

New Nuclear at Darlington Overview of the CNSC Licence to Prepare Site and Other Early ApplicationsPresentation to Federal Agencies and MinistriesAugust 24, 2009

OPG New Nuclear at Darlington Environmental AssessmentLaurie Swami, Director Licensing and Environment

Darlington New Nuclear Project

1 Contents

Project for the Purpose of the ApplicationsOverview of Licence to Prepare Site Application

Other Federal, Provincial and Municipal Permits and Licences

1 Contents

2 Contents

Purpose of the Licence to Prepare Site Application:

Demonstrates the site is appropriate for a nuclear power plant

Define site layout, activities to be undertaken

Describes the management programs that govern the activities to be carried out

September 21, 2006 – OPG submitted to the CNSC a preliminary application for Approval to Prepare a Site for the Future Construction of a nuclear power generating facility

2 Purpose of the Application

3 Project for Purpose of the Applications

Site preparation activities will include all activities within the portion of the site necessary to facilitate the subsequent construction of the reactor buildings and other related structures, and operation of the new nuclear plant

For this application, site preparation is more narrowly focused and definitive than that described in the EA

Site preparation activities include, for example:

Land clearing, excavation and grading for the nuclear facility

Construction of environmental monitoring & mitigation systems, and monitoring activities

Installation of fencing and access control infrastructure

Site access control

4 Application Structure

Application is structured to demonstrate CNSC regulation requirements are met.Introduction includes a table identifying where requirements of CNSC regulations are found

Like information is grouped in approximately 6 chapters

LTPS and supporting documents equals approximately 4,000 pages

Application references would form a necessary part of licensing basis for site preparation phase, e.g. site evaluation report. These will be submitted with the application (and will form part of the application)

Application (where possible) relies on the EA and is cross referenced as appropriate.

Note: Additional supporting information that may assist reviewers will be provided separately

5 LTPS Documentation

Submission #1The following documents which will accompany the Application and formpart of the licensing basis:

Site Evaluation for OPG New Nuclear at Darlington – Nuclear Safety ConsiderationsEmergency Preparedness Site Evaluation for OPG New Nuclear at DarlingtonExclusion Zone Determination for Darlington New Nuclear ProjectPreliminary Decommissioning Plan OPG New Nuclear at Darlington Site –PreparationPlant Parameter Envelope ReportDNNP Management System (the Charter), if available

6 Site Evaluation

CNSC RD-346 “Site Evaluation for New Nuclear Power Plants” describes expected evaluations to determine if proposed site(s) are acceptable

Based on IAEA safety requirements for site evaluation

OPG conducted a site evaluation in accordance with RD-346Results incorporated in application

Section includes a table indicating where RD-346 requirements are addressed, e.g. flooding, emergency planning, extreme weather and security.

7

Submission #2 We intend to provide the following Supporting Evidentiary Materials in a separatesubmission:

Site Boundary Considerations for New Nuclear – DarlingtonSite Evaluation Studies for Nuclear Installations at Darlington Site: Evaluation of External Human Induced EventsSite Evaluation of the OPG New Nuclear at Darlington – Part 6: Evaluation of Geotechnical AspectsSite Evaluation of the OPG New Nuclear at Darlington – Part 5: Flood Hazard AssessmentSite Evaluation of the OPG New Nuclear at Darlington – Part 4: Evaluation of Meteorological EventsSite Evaluation for OPG New Nuclear at Darlington – Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment Site Evaluation for OPG New Nuclear at Darlington – Part 3: Summary of Seismic Hazard EvaluationsSite Evaluation for OPG New Nuclear at Darlington – Part 2: Dispersion of Radioactive Materials in Air and WaterSite Evaluation of the OPG New Nuclear at Darlington - Additional ConsiderationsQuality Report for Darlington Site Evaluation StudiesEIS will also be referenced as evidentiary material although it will not actually be submitted in recognition that JRP are receiving the EIS under separate submission

LTPS Documentation

8 Programs During Site Preparation

Application references OPG’s overall quality management for the project during site preparation

Execution of site performance is delegated to EPC Company

OPG as owner/operator and licensee retains overall accountability for the project

Describes key programs (e.g. health and safety, project management) and OPG’s oversight of the EPC Company and OPG activities in support of the project

Oversight programs to demonstrate competency in executing project work and activities.

9 Radiation Protection and Site Security

Specific RP program is not required – no nuclear substances under this licence

Only high level information provided for security

Demonstration of how project meets overall nuclear security requirements will be provided as prescribed information

I.e. prescribed information is not included in the public version of the Application

10 Other Early Federal Applications

Federal applications for water-related activities (e.g. lake infilling and wharf construction) will be filed at the same time as EIS

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Fisheries Act)Authorization for Works Affecting Fish HabitatAuthorization to Destroy Fish by Means Other Than Fishing

Transport Canada (Navigable Waters Protection Act)Approval for works that may interfere with navigation

Approval Application information will include:Preliminary engineering illustrative of works to be approved and potential construction methodologies, e.g. maximum lake infilling bounding scenario.Steps taken to date to develop Fish Habitat Compensation Plan (DFO)Fish and fish habitat existing conditions and environmental effects (DFO)

11 Other Early Federal Applications

Specific applications for rail line will not be provided at this timeTransportation activities e.g. bridge over CN railway

OPG has had an ongoing discussion with CN Rail about the project, and will continue to do so with EPC Co. to reach a final agreement

If an agreement regarding a bridge over the rail line cannot be achieved, Canadian Transport Agency would be involved

12 Provincial / Municipal Requirements

Over 50 different permits and approvals may be required over thecourse of the project.

Examples of activities that may require provincial approvalsShoreline Work – Work Permit Construction – Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Storm Water Management System – Ontario Ministry of Environment

Examples of activities that may require municipal approvalsApprovals to tie into municipal water supply and sanitary sewer services – Region of Durham and Municipality of Clarington

Upgrades to Regional/Municipal Roads – Region of Durham and Municipality of Clarington

Dumping of fill, removal of fill, alteration of grades – Municipality of Clarington

13 Conclusion

Work reflected in LTPS and supporting documents will demonstrate:

The site is appropriate for a nuclear power plant

CNSC regulatory requirements are satisfied

OPG will continue to support federal authorities as needed and appropriate for their review of the submissions

14

Questions?

Please contact us:www.opg.com/newbuild

1-866-487-6006

Contact Us14