DOCSLIB.ORG

Social and Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Rössing Uranium Desalination Plant Near Swakopmund, Namibia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Social and Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Rössing Uranium Desalination Plant Near Swakopmund, Namibia Rössing Uranium Limited SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED RÖSSING URANIUM DESALINATION PLANT NEAR SWAKOPMUND, NAMIBIA DRAFT SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT REFERENCE NO: 110914 DATE: NOVEMBER 2014 PREPARED BY ON BEHALF OF Rössing Uranium Desalination Plant: Draft SEMP PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT: Social and Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Rössing Uranium Desalination Plant, near Swakopmund, Namibia AUTHORS: Andries van der Merwe (Aurecon) Patrick Killick (Aurecon) Simon Charter (SLR Namibia) Werner Petrick (SLR Namibia) SEIA SPECIALISTS: Birds –Mike and Ann Scott (African Conservation Services CC) Heritage – Dr John Kinahan (Quaternary Research Services) Marine ecology – Dr Andrea Pulfrich (Pisces Environmental Services (Pty) Ltd) Noise - Nicolette von Reiche (Airshed Planning Professionals) Socio-economic - Auriol Ashby (Ashby Associates CC) - Dr Jonthan Barnes (Design and Development ServicesCC) Visual – Stephen Stead (Visual Resource Management Africa) Wastewater discharge modelling –Christoph Soltau (WSP Group) Shoreline dynamics - Christoph Soltau (WSP Group) PROPONENT: Rio Tinto Rössing Uranium Limited REPORT STATUS: Draft Social and Environmental Management Plan REPORT NUMBER: 9408/110914 STATUS DATE: 28 November 2014 .......................................... .......................................... Patrick Killick Simon Charter Senior Practitioner: Aurecon Environment and Advisory Senior Practitioner: SLR Environmental Consulting .......................................... …………………………… Werner Petrick Andries van der Merwe Director: SLR Environmental Consulting Technical Director: Aurecon Environment and Advisory This report is to be referred to in bibliographies as: Aurecon and SLR. 2014. Social and Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Rössing Uranium Desalination Plant, near Swakopmund, Namibia. Draft Social and Environmental Management Plan. Page II Rössing Uranium Desalination Plant: Draft SEMP TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................. 1 SEIA NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Project alternatives ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 SEIA process ................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 1.3 Social and environmental impact assessment findings .......................................................................................................... 9 1.4 Opinions and recommendations .............................................................................................................................................. 11 2 LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................................................. 14 2.1 The Constitution of the Republic of Namibia (Act 1 of 1990) ................................................................................................. 14 2.2 Environmental Management Act (Act 7 of 2007) ..................................................................................................................... 14 2.3 Water Resources Management Act (Act 24 of 2004)............................................................................................................... 15 2.4 The National Heritage Act (Act 27 of 2004) .............................................................................................................................. 16 2.5 The Soil Conservation Act (Act 76 of 1969) ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.6 The National Policy on Coastal Management for Namibia (2013).......................................................................................... 17 2.7 The Integrated Coastal Management Bill (2014)...................................................................................................................... 17 2.8 The National Policy on Human-Wildlife Conflict Management (2009) ................................................................................... 17 2.9 Proposed Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (2009).................................................................................................. 17 2.10 The Namibia Vision 2030 ........................................................................................................................................................... 18 2.11 Social Policies ............................................................................................................................................................................ 18 2.11.1 The MET Policy on HIV and AIDS ............................................................................................................................................................ 18 2.12 Biodiversity Legislation and Policies ....................................................................................................................................... 19 2.13 Rio Tinto Environmental and Sustainability Policies ............................................................................................................. 19 2.13.1 Rössing Uranium Limited Policies ............................................................................................................................................................. 20 2.13.2 Rössing Uranium’s HSE system ............................................................................................................................................................... 20 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................. 26 3.1 Project Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 26 3.1.1 Pre-construction phase ............................................................................................................................................................................. 26 3.1.2 Construction phase ................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 3.1.3 Operations phase ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 3.1.4 Decommissioning phase ........................................................................................................................................................................... 28 3.2 Project Components .................................................................................................................................................................. 28 3.2.1 Seawater intake system ............................................................................................................................................................................ 30 3.2.2 Seawater pre-treatment system ................................................................................................................................................................ 32 3.2.3 desalination plant ........................................................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2.4 Electrical supply system ............................................................................................................................................................................ 34 3.2.5 Product water system and pipeline ........................................................................................................................................................... 35 3.2.6 Effluent treatment and disposal system .................................................................................................................................................... 35 4 PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE .................................................................................................................... 37 4.1 Tendering .................................................................................................................................................................................... 37 4.2 Permits and agreements ........................................................................................................................................................... 37 4.3 Environmental considerations in design ................................................................................................................................. 37 5 CONSTRUCTION PHASE ............................................................................................................................. 41 5.1 SCOPE ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Riau Natural Gas Power Project ESIA Vol.5 Technical Appendices Part F
    DRAFT Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Project Number: 50182-001 November 2018 INO: Riau Natural Gas Power Project ESIA Vol.5_Technical Appendices Part F Prepared by ESC for the Asian Development Bank The environmental and social impact assessment is a document of the project sponsor. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB’s Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. Your attention is directed to the “Terms of Use” section of this website. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of or any territory or area. Volume 5: Technical Appendices Appendix E. KA-ANDAL Approval Letter 6 AM039100-400-GN-RPT-1014 Volume 5: Technical Appendices Appendix F. The Ministry of Agraria and Spatial Planning issued Recommendation Letter 7 AM039100-400-GN-RPT-1014 Volume 5: Technical Appendices Appendix G. Comparison of WBG EHS Guidelines with Indonesian Regulations 8 AM039100-400-GN-RPT-1014 Appendix A. Comparisons of Standards Comparison of World Bank Group IFC Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines with Indonesian Environmental Standards Table A1: Gaseous emission for Natural Gas (all turbine types) IFC Guidelines for Thermal Power Plant Indonesian Standard** Parameter Remark Non DA (mg/m3) DA (mg/m3) Limit (mg/Nm3) Particulate Indonesian standards are N/A N/A 30 mg/Nm3 Matter stricter CO NA NA NA - NOx 51* 51* 400 mg/Nm3 IFC guidelines are stricter Indonesian standards are SO2 NA NA 150 mg/Nm3 stricter Opacity NA NA N/A - Note: The figures in red are the more stringent requirements **At dry gas, excess O2 content 15% **Gas volume counted on standard (25 deg C and 1 bar atm) **this is for 95% normal operation in 3 (three) months period ***Source: Ministry of Environmental Regulation No.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Owns Ocean Biodiversity?: the Legal Status and Role of Patents As a Means to Achieve Equitable Distribution of Benefits
    Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Volume 53 Issue 1 Article 9 2021 Who Owns Ocean Biodiversity?: The Legal Status and Role of Patents as a Means to Achieve Equitable Distribution of Benefits Abhaya Ganashree Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Abhaya Ganashree, Who Owns Ocean Biodiversity?: The Legal Status and Role of Patents as a Means to Achieve Equitable Distribution of Benefits, 53 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 197 (2021) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol53/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 53 (2021) Who Owns Ocean Biodiversity?: The Legal Status and Role of Patents as a Means to Achieve Equitable Distribution of Benefits Abhaya Ganashree* Abstract The technological race to obtain genetic material from the ocean floors has been led by the economically advanced states of the global North. It has been a race for obtaining mineral resources among states, dominated by Inter-State competition for land, people and money. However, when the issue concerns mineral resources found in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), there is potential for either competition or cooperation among nation-states. Deep-sea mining and bioprospecting are particularly divisive.
    [Show full text]
  • Residential Wood Combustion Technology Review Appendices
    EPA-600/R-98-174b December 1998 Residential Wood Combustion Technology Review Volume 2. Appendices Prepared by: James E. Houck and Paul E.Tiegs OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. 5465 SW Western Avenue, Suite G Beaverton, OR 97005 EPA Purchase Order 7C-R285-NASX EPA Project Officer: Robert C. McCrillis U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (MD-61) National Risk Management Research Laboratory Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Washington, D.C. 20460 A-i Abstract A review of the current states-of-the-art of residential wood combustion (RWC) was conducted. The key environmental parameter of concern was the air emission of particles. The technological status of all major RWC categories was reviewed. These were cordwood stoves, fireplaces, masonry heaters, pellet stoves, and wood-fired central heating furnaces. Advances in technology achieved since the mid-1980's were the primary focus. These study objectives were accomplished by reviewing the published literature and by interviewing nationally recognized RWC experts. The key findings of the review included: (1) The NSPS certification procedure only qualitatively predicts the level of emissions from wood heaters under actual use in homes, (2) Wood stove durability varies with model and a method to assess the durability problem is controversial, (3) Nationally the overwhelming majority of RWC air emissions are from non-certified devices (primarily from older non-certified woodstoves), (4) New technology appliances and fuels can reduce emissions significantly, (5) The ISO and EPA NSPS test procedures are quite dissimilar and data generated by the two procedures would not be comparable, and, (6) The effect of wood moisture and wood type on particulate emission appears to be real but to be less than an order of magnitude.
    [Show full text]
  • A Handbook for Managers of Cultural Landscapes with Natural Resource Values
    A Handbook for Managers of Cultural Landscapes with Natural Resource Values A Web-based publication of: The Conservation Study Institute QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment Conservation and Stewardship Publication No. 5 Written by Barbara Slaiby and Nora Mitchell, with contributions from Susan Buggey, Brent Mitchell and Stephen Engler, and editorial assistance from Leslie Hudson Woodstock, Vermont 2003 This report is the fifth in the Conservation and Stewardship Publication Series produced by the Conservation Study Institute. This series includes a variety of publications designed to provide information on conservation history and current practice for professionals and the public. The series editor is Nora J. Mitchell, director of the Conservation Study Institute. Co-author of this publication is Barbara Slaiby, with contributions from Susan Buggey, Brent Mitchell and Stephen Engler, and editorial assistance from Leslie Hudson. The authors would like to thank Charles Birnbaum, Mary Beth Carlin, Ethan Carr, Jill Cowley, Shaun Eyring, Cathy Gilbert, Tonia Horton, Lucy Lawliss, Christina Marts, Robert Page, Charlie Pepper, and Sherda Williams for all of their help. The Conservation Study Institute was established by the National Park Service in 1998 to enhance leadership in the field of conservation. A partnership with academic, government, and nonprofit organizations, the institute provides a forum for the National Park Service, the conservation community, and the public to discuss conservation history, contemporary issues and practices, and future directions for the field. We encourage you to share the information in this publication, and request only that you give appropriate citations and bibliographic credits. Recommended citation: Slaiby, Barbara E., and Nora J.
    [Show full text]
  • Environment Australia
    ENVIRONMENT AUSTRALIA SUBMISSION INQUIRY INTO DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIES IN REGIONAL AUSTRALIA BASED ON BIOPROSPECTING THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND REGIONAL SERVICES February 2001 1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION SUMMARY TERMS OF REFERENCE 2: IMPEDIMENTS TO GROWTH OF NEW INDUSTRIES BASED ON BIOPROSPECTING Policy Background The Convention on Biological Diversity Our Living Heritage Australia’s National Biotechnology Strategy Regulating access to biological/genetic resources Environment Australia’s objectives Criteria of the proposed access and benefit sharing scheme Towards a nationally consistent approach to access and benefit sharing Harmonisation of arrangements at the Commonwealth level Harmonisation of Commonwealth, State and Territory approaches Improved access through the Australian Virtual Herbarium TERM OF REFERENCE 3: CAPACITY TO MAXMISE BENEFITS THROUGH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND OTHER MECHANISMS TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH TECHNOLOGY KNOWLEDGE INDUSTRIES IN AUSTRALIA Benefits to Australia from access and benefit sharing arrangements Support for benefits to Australia from access to our biological resources Lack of adequate benefit sharing arrangements Examples of benefit sharing arrangements in Australia and their contribution to the development of high technology knowledge industries Monetary and non-monetary benefits Proposed benefit sharing requirements Potential size of the commercial benefits from bioprospecting Potential impact of bioprospecting on regional Australia Conclusions TERM OF REFERENCE 4: THE IMPACTS ON AND BENEFITS TO THE ENVIRONMENT Possible adverse impacts on the environment Environmental assessment, protocols and the precautionary principle Environmental assessment of bioprospecting under the EPBC Act 1999 Benefits to the environment Conclusions 2 APPENDICES 1. The Voumard Inquiry into Access to Biological Resources in Commonwealth Areas 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Generating Plants
    PNNL-14468 Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Generating Plants M. R. Sackschewsky January 2004 Prepared for the License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 PNNL-14468 Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Generating Plants M. R. Sackschewsky January 2004 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and related implementing regulations of the jurisdictional federal agencies, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • And State Natural Heritage Natural Areas Question: I Have Trouble Interpreting the Shapefile of Sias
    Nantahala and Pisgah Forest Plan Revision Q&As regarding Special Interest Areas, Wilderness, and Wild and Scenic Rivers received during the 2020 comment period Special Interest Areas (SIAs) and State Natural Heritage Natural Areas Question: I have trouble interpreting the shapefile of SIAs. How come I can’t see all the SIAs shown in the EIS acreage table? A: SIAs are sometimes their own management area; other times they are nested within management areas. For this reason, they have their own map in the map package. Question: What is the objective to coordinate with the NC Natural Heritage Program mean? A: The Forest plan includes direction on managing in North Carolina Natural Heritage Natural Areas. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) is administered by the state of North Carolina to complete a systematic inventory of elements of natural diversity that exemplify the state’s natural heritage. Across the state, the Heritage Program has identified North Carolina Natural Heritage Natural Areas (hereafter “Natural Areas”) for their special biodiversity significance due to the presence of either terrestrial or aquatic rare species, unique natural communities, important animal assemblages or other ecological features. Not all Natural Areas possess the same caliber of unique ecological characteristics. These areas are recognized by the Heritage Program on a scale from general to exceptional. Where Natural Areas have been identified on the Nantahala and Pisgah, the Forest Service retains the authority to manage these areas and the Forests will work with the Heritage Program to discuss the values inventoried and locations of unique characteristics versus more typical forest communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Conserving Vermont's Natural Heritage
    Conserving Vermont’s Natural Heritage A Guide to Community-Based Planning for the Conservation of Vermont’s Fish, Wildlife, and Biological Diversity Conserving Vermont’s Natural Heritage A Guide to Community-Based Planning for the Conservation of Vermont’s Fish, Wildlife, and Biological Diversity E S OWARD OWARD H H OR M AN S ICHARD ICHARD U R R © ©S © Published by the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department and Agency of Natural Resources 2013 Montpelier, Vermont 2nd Edition Authors: John M. Austin, Wildlife Biologist Christa Alexander, Aquatic Habitat Biologist Everett Marshall, Nongame Biologist Forrest Hammond, Wildlife Biologist Jodi Shippee, Nongame Biologist Elizabeth Thompson, Consulting Ecologist Vermont League of Cities and Towns 1 Conserving Vermont’s Natural Heritage A Guide to Community-Based Planning for the Conservation of Vermont’s Fish, Wildlife, and Biological Diversity OWARD H ICHARD R © The image people have of Vermont is not beyond its reality. The descriptions of wild beauty interspersed with the purity of northern New England villages need not be exaggerated. Residents of the state have always been proud of these attributes and are protective of their territory, and for outsiders who visit at any time of year, Vermont is a release from the intensity and sameness that grip many other parts of America. ~ Charles Johnson, The Nature of Vermont 3 Preface and Acknowledgments he Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department (VFWD) developed this manual to offer a new source of information and technical guidance on conservation planning in T Vermont. Experience and research has taught us a great deal in recent years about how to conserve fish, wildlife, and the natural environment that supports them.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report Good Neighbor Environmental Board
    Annual Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board A Presidential and Congressional Advisory Committee on U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental and Infrastructure Issues April 1997 THE GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON U.S.- MEXICO BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES The President The Speaker of the House of Representatives The Vice President The Good Neighbor Environmental Board advisory committee was established by Congress in 1994, to address U.S.-Mexico border environmental and infrastructure issues and needs. The Board is comprised of a broad spectrum of individuals from business, nonprofit organizations, and state and local governments from the four states which border Mexico. The Board also has representation from eight U.S. departments and agencies. The legislation establishing the Board requires it to submit an annual report to the President and the Congress. On behalf of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board, I am happy to present this second annual report. During the past year, the Board has had extensive discussions about critical issues facing the border region, including receiving input from citizens in each of the communities where we met, and has developed a series of recommendations reflected in the enclosed report. The report and recommendations focus on changing the development paradigm along the U.S.-Mexico border--to begin to establish a sustainable development vision for the region. In addition to conventional environmental issues, the Board is also addressing health, transportation, housing, and economic development issues. The current recommendations relate largely to implementation of the new binational Border XXI framework and plan, coordination and leveraging of federal programs in the border region, encouragement of greater private sector participation, and development of needed infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • EHS Guidelines for Themal Power Plants
    Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines THERMAL POWER PLANTS DRAFT FOR SECOND PUBLIC CONSULTATION—MAY/JUNE 2017 WORLD BANK GROUP Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Thermal Power Plants Introduction 1. The Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines are technical reference documents with general and industry-specific examples of Good International Industry Practice (GIIP).1 When one or more members of the World Bank Group are involved in a project, these EHS Guidelines are applied as required by their respective policies and standards. These industry sector EHS guidelines are designed to be used together with the General EHS Guidelines document, which provides guidance to users on common EHS issues potentially applicable to all industry sectors. For complex projects, use of multiple industry-sector guidelines may be necessary. A complete list of industry-sector guidelines can be found at: www.ifc.org/ehsguidelines. 2. The EHS Guidelines contain the performance levels and measures that are generally considered to be achievable in new facilities by existing technology at reasonable costs. Application of the EHS Guidelines to existing facilities may involve the establishment of site-specific targets, based on environmental assessments and/or environmental audits as appropriate, with an appropriate timetable for achieving them. 3. The applicability of the EHS Guidelines should be tailored to the hazards and risks established for each project on the basis of the results of an environmental assessment (EA) in which site-specific variables, such as host country context, assimilative capacity of the environment, and other project factors, are taken into account. The applicability of specific technical recommendations should be based on the professional opinion of qualified and experienced persons.
    [Show full text]
  • BTF Incident Objectives and Requirements 2011
    Bridger-Teton National Forest WFDSS Incident Objectives and Requirements 2011 Incident Objectives and Requirements This list was compiled from objectives included in old WFSAs (Blind Trail, Boulder, Cow Camp, East Table) and requirements in the FMP. CONTENTS INCIDENT OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................... 2 General ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Economic .................................................................................................................................... 2 Local business/outfitters and guides ................................................................................. 2 Range ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Recreation .............................................................................................................................. 2 Special uses and private property ...................................................................................... 2 Environmental ........................................................................................................................... 3 Air quality ............................................................................................................................... 3 Cultural resources ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Provincial Framework for AIRSHED PLANNING
    Provincial Framework for AIRSHED PLANNING CONTENTS ii PREFACE iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 7 THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK 9 Stage 1: Evaluate the need for a plan 12 Stage 2: Identify and engage stakeholders 14 Stage 3: Investigate planning synergies 16 Stage 4: Determine priority sources 18 Stage 5: Develop the plan 20 Stage 6: Implement, monitor, and report 22 CONCLUSION 23 REFERENCES 26 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS 29 Appendix 1: Background to the framework 33 Appendix 2: Air quality planning and information 35 Appendix 3: Examples of related planning processes 36 Appendix 4: Examples of best practices and local bylaws i PREFACE This document describes a framework for preparing air quality management plans, or "airshed plans," in British Columbia. As such, it should be of interest to a broad range of local stakeholders in air quality, including local and regional governments, health professionals, industry, businesses, environmental and community interest groups, and private citizens. The framework is designed to help those considering or undertaking a planning process to better understand what the Province of British Columbia (the Province) expects from an airshed plan in terms of approach and content. The intent is to encourage greater consistency and efficiency in planning efforts, towards implementation of the Canada-Wide Standards for particulate matter and ozone – key pollutants of concern due to their health and environmental impacts. The Draft Provincial Framework for Airshed Planning represents the culmination of a development process that started in 2005 and included two rounds of stakeholder consultation (see Appendix 1). More than 60 participants contributed to these consultations, drawn from local and regional government, industry, academia, health authorities, and environmental and community organizations.
    [Show full text]