Repurposing Pickering Preliminary Assessment Report

Repurposing Pickering

Exploring the possibilities for new uses and reuses on the Pickering Nuclear site

December 11, 2015

This report is made available for information purposes only. The content of this report is based on available facts, the analysis undertaken and assumptions made (the "Content"), as of the date of this report (11/12/2015). The Content may change, subsequent to the date of this report, and these changes may have an impact on the assessment results. Please note that OPG may or may not choose to either update this report or post an updated report. OPG cannot guarantee the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of this report or its usefulness for any purpose. OPG will not be liable for any loss, damage cost or expense arising or incurred as a result of any person's use or reliance on this report.

Executive Summary

As part of planning for the end of commercial operations of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is undertaking a study to explore future uses of the Pickering site. The reason for this is to ensure that the site will continue to be put to productive uses that benefit Ontarians during and after the decommissioning of the Pickering station. Given the transmission (hydro) corridor and other valuable infrastructure that already are in place, through Repurposing Pickering, OPG aims to identify and implement land uses that take advantage of existing assets – without interfering with decommissioning and without preventing the site’s long-term potential from being realized. As a starting point for Repurposing Pickering, the purpose of this first comprehensive study is to explore future possibilities broadly – and then narrow down and recommend a manageable number of land use options for further study. Once commercial operations have ceased, nuclear-related operations will continue for another four decades with respect to used fuel storage, decommissioning and waste management. Implementation of repurposed uses will, as such, need to take into account the constraints associated with those activities. Through a review of current conditions on the site and in its surroundings, other key considerations that may have an impact on the selection of land use options include:  Proximity to important bodies of water (including provincially significant wetlands) and wildlife habitat.  Breadth and depth of surrounding infrastructure, which supports options that require a large workforce and/or major support services.  Potential for transporting large and heavy loads by rail and/or ship.  Connectivity to the hydro corridor, which enables new power-related options.  Municipal and regional policies that encourage new economic opportunities and express a goal to advance Durham as the “energy capital of Ontario.”  The growth outlook for the City of Pickering (forecast to double its population by 2031).  The real estate trends and market prospects for the major real estate classes. As input to the assessment of options for Repurposing Pickering, a list of more than 600 ideas was generated – primarily by soliciting input through public and stakeholder engagement activities. After consolidation and assessment of these ideas, the options that were deemed to be suitable for implementation during the decommissioning period relate to four land use categories: power, industrial, institutional and recreational. This correlates strongly with the input received directly from the public, whose ideas primarily related to power (33%) and recreational (31%) land uses, followed by institutional (19%) and industrial (14%). The remaining categories – office, residential and retail – received negligible support; with regards to residential, about the same number of people explicitly said that they are against as those who said that they are for.

After assessment of land uses within the power category, the following are recommended for further study:  Combined heat and power  Natural gas power generation  Solar power generation  Non-generation options that contribute to improving the use and stability of the power grid (such as, energy storage and transformer station)  Power-related innovation, such as, smart grid testing and development of emerging technologies (including small-scale nuclear demonstration) Among the other industrial land uses, the following are recommended for further study:  Data centre  Film studios  Manufacturing, including food production  Medical isotope production, nuclear materials testing and other non-power related nuclear applications  Cooling, leasing out space to other companies (indoor and/or outdoor) and other business support services Of the institutional land uses, the following are recommended for further study:  Post-secondary education  Professional training  Research and development  Continued or enhanced public information services (including considering a nuclear- themed museum and/or public tours)  Community centre and other community-related services Of the recreational land uses, the following are recommended for further study:  Enhancing recreational uses on and near the waterfront  Complementing existing sports fields, including small indoor sports facilities Based on this study, the aim is to explore the above land uses in further detail. This includes assessing commercial viability and ease of implementation, as well as continuing to work with the City of Pickering and Region of Durham to ensure alignment with their visions for the site. OPG will also remain mindful of provincial energy policy and how it might influence future developments on the site.

Acknowledgements

In acknowledgement of the hundreds of people who have contributed to this report, OPG and the consultant team contracted for this study wish to extend a special thank you to:  Everyone who visited and engaged in conversations or filled out comment cards during the pop up booth sessions or the community open house in the spring of 2015.  Members of the Pickering Community Advisory Council for their high level of engagement and interest in the study – both with regards to brainstorming ideas for land uses, as well as the many suggestions related to the study’s public engagement program.  Members of the Technical Advisory Committee for their interest in Repurposing Pickering and their valuable knowledge and perspectives shared.  The OPG employees who attended the Lunch and Learn sessions in Pickering and Darlington in April and May 2015.  All those who sent ideas and other input via email or social media between mid-March and mid-October 2015.  Those who took the time to develop and submit more detailed proposals.

This first comprehensive study on Repurposing Pickering has, on behalf of OPG, been conducted by an interdisciplinary consultant team consisting of members from the Candesco Division of Kinectrics Inc., Deloitte LLP, and Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited.

This page intentionally left blank.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 3

Acknowledgements ...... 5

1 Introduction ...... 9 1.1 Background ...... 9 1.2 Purpose and Scope ...... 10

2 Current Conditions and Assumptions ...... 11 2.1 Pickering Nuclear Site ...... 11 2.2 Site Surroundings ...... 13 2.3 Nuclear Facilities, Decommissioning and Waste Management ...... 14

3 Selection of Options ...... 17 3.1 Approach and Repurposing Objectives ...... 17 3.2 Planning Zones ...... 19 3.3 Fixed Uses and Repurposing Potential Over Time ...... 21 3.4 Identification of Opportunities...... 26 3.5 Screening ...... 27 3.6 Assessment of Land Uses During the Decommissioning Period ...... 28 3.6.1 Land Use Categories ...... 30 3.6.2 Power Options ...... 31 3.6.3 Industrial Options ...... 36 3.6.4 Institutional Options ...... 40 3.6.5 Recreational Options ...... 42

4 Conclusions ...... 45

Attachments ...... 49 Attachment A – Baseline Conditions for Repurposing Pickering ...... 51 Attachment B – Overview of Municipal and Regional Policies ...... 67 Attachment C – Identification of Opportunities ...... 73 Attachment D – Screening and Assessment Framework...... 185 Attachment E – Planning Zones ...... 195 Attachment F – Brochure and Frequently Asked Questions ...... 199

This page intentionally left blank.

1 Introduction 1.1 Background Commercial operations at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station began in July 1971, when the first reactor unit started supplying electricity to the Ontario power grid. By 1986, seven more units had been completed – bringing the total generating capacity to more than 4,100 MW. That made – and still makes – Pickering one of the largest nuclear power sites in the world. Today all but two of the units continue to provide Ontarians with a safe and reliable supply of electricity. With a current capacity of 3,100 MW, around 14% of the power in Ontario is generated by the six remaining units at the Pickering Nuclear site. Within the foreseeable future, all six operating units are anticipated to reach a stage when it would no longer be feasible to maintain them for power generation without significant investment in refurbishment. For that reason, Ontario Power Generation (OPG), which owns and operates the Pickering Nuclear station, has begun to plan for the end of the station’s commercial operations.

The Pickering Nuclear station generates around 14% of the electricity in Ontario.

In addition to nuclear power generation, the Pickering site hosts several complementary uses, ranging from Cobalt-601 production, simulator training and wind power generation to public beaches, parks and sports fields. Portions of the site are dedicated to the safe and secure management of waste generated at the station. This includes both conventional waste from when the station was constructed and used nuclear fuel from operation of the reactor units. Once power generation has ceased, nuclear-related operations will continue for another four decades with respect to used fuel storage, decommissioning and waste management. But in parallel with those activities, parts of the site can be made available for other uses. For that reason, OPG has begun to explore the possibilities for Repurposing Pickering. 1.2 Purpose and Scope OPG’s goal is that the Pickering site will continue to benefit OPG, its shareholder and the surrounding communities both during the decommissioning period and beyond. Given the transmission (hydro) corridor and other valuable infrastructure in place, through Repurposing Pickering, OPG aims to identify and implement land uses that take advantage of existing assets – without interfering with decommissioning and without preventing the site’s long-term potential from being realized. As a starting point for Repurposing Pickering, the purpose of this study is to explore future possibilities broadly – and then narrow down and recommend a manageable number of land use options for further study. The scope of this study therefore is:  Land area: All OPG-owned lands by the Pickering Nuclear site.  Land uses: No restrictions (that is, “everything is on the table”).  Time period: Primary focus during decommissioning – but also with a view beyond.

1 Cobalt-60 is used as a radiation source in medicine and a wide range of industrial applications.

2 Current Conditions and Assumptions In order to provide a context for Repurposing Pickering, a review was first performed of the current conditions – both on the site and in its surroundings. The purpose of this was to ensure that a wide range of key considerations were captured. Apart from the nuclear setting, the review, therefore, included aspects such as the social environment, natural environment, surrounding infrastructure, and municipal and regional policies. The results of this review will also serve as a baseline for future planning and implementation activities. On the following pages, an overview of the current conditions is provided, along with highlights of key considerations identified for Repurposing Pickering. For further information on the results of the baseline conditions review, see Attachments A and B. 2.1 Pickering Nuclear Site The Pickering station is located on the shores of Lake Ontario, within the Brock Industrial Area in the City of Pickering. In all, OPG owns about 500 acres of land and 250 acres of water lots at or adjacent to the Pickering station. The majority of the lands are part of the station’s exclusion zone, which is the land within or surrounding a nuclear facility on which there can be no permanent dwelling and over which a licensee has the legal authority to exercise control.

Extent of OPG-owned property and the exclusion zone at the Pickering Nuclear site.

The site’s main access road is Brock Road, which connects to the major highways in the area. Although not currently in use, the site is also accessible from the lake through a dock (which was built during construction of the station to facilitate unloading of major reactor components). With regards to rail transport, the site is situated within 3.5 km of the nearest Canadian National Railway line. A spur line (built during construction of the station) enables access between the main line and the northern edge of the OPG-owned lands on the site. All structures containing radioactive materials are located within fenced and heavily secured areas that span the southern portion of the site. Directly north of these are the switchyards that connect the station to the hydro corridor. The lands associated with these are owned by OPG and leased to Hydro One, who owns and operates the equipment. Hydro One also leases lands from OPG for storage of transformers and other large electrical equipment at its Central Maintenance Services, located on the north side of Montgomery Park Road. The agreements with Hydro One have a 999-year term. Apart from the nuclear facilities, OPG owns and operates a wide range of other structures on the site, including a wind turbine, office buildings, a training centre, a public information centre, and buildings for maintenance and storage. The site also encompasses two landfills that were used during construction of the station – one small (by the wind turbine) and one larger (on the eastern side of the site). Both landfills contain conventional construction wastes and are now heavily vegetated (since no longer in use). The western portions of the site are licensed to the City of Pickering and used for public recreational uses. This includes a beach, parkland and sports fields for baseball, cricket, soccer and tennis. The licence agreements with the City of Pickering are renewed every five years.

The waterfront trail, which runs along Montgomery Park Road, is available for public use and enables a connection between the waterfront to the west and to the east of the nuclear facilities. On the shoreline, to the south of the reactor units, is a water treatment facility for water that is used at the station. The site is also equipped with water intake and outfall for cooling of the reactor units.

2.2 Site Surroundings The Pickering Nuclear site is surrounded by residential and recreational areas to the north-west, the hydro corridor to the north, industrial areas to the north-east and east, and Lake Ontario to the south. Just east of the site is the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant, which treats wastewater from both Durham and York Regions. Apart from Lake Ontario, the Pickering Nuclear site is located close to a number of other important bodies of water, namely Hydro Marsh (which is OPG-owned), Duffins Creek and Frenchman’s Bay. Another key feature of the site is its location close to both Highway 401 and GO Transit. It is in this context worth noting that Downtown Pickering has been designated by Metrolinx as a ‘Mobility Hub’ and ‘Anchor Hub.’ Further details on the site’s surroundings are provided in Attachments A and B. When taken together, key considerations that may have an impact on the selection of land uses for Repurposing Pickering include:  Proximity to important bodies of water (including provincially significant wetlands) and wildlife habitat.  Breadth and depth of surrounding infrastructure, which supports options that require a large workforce and/or major support services.  Potential for transporting large and heavy loads by rail and/or ship.  Connectivity to the hydro corridor, which enables new power-related options.  Municipal and regional policies that encourage new economic opportunities and express a goal to advance Durham as the “energy capital of Ontario.”  The growth outlook for the City of Pickering (forecast to double its population by 2031).  The real estate trends and market prospects for the major real estate classes.

2.3 Nuclear Facilities, Decommissioning and Waste Management The Pickering Nuclear Generating Station consists of eight CANDU® (CANadian Deuterium Uranium) reactors. Construction on the site began in 1966, and by 1971 the station began to generate power. Six of the eight reactor units currently remain in service. As a planning assumption for this study, the last of those six would be shut down approximately 2020. The two reactors that have been taken out of service permanently (Units 2 and 3) have been placed in a safe shutdown state (referred to as safe storage). The Pickering Nuclear station comprises a large number of buildings of various sizes and with a wide range of functions, the largest of which are:  The reactor buildings: These are eight cylindrical structures (all in one row) made of heavily reinforced concrete. Each of these buildings contains one reactor, 12 steam generators and other related equipment.  The vacuum building: This is a 51 m high cylindrical concrete structure located just south of the row of reactor buildings. The function of the vacuum building is to ensure that, in the very unlikely event of a release, radioactive steam from pressurized systems would flow into this building, hence preventing a release outside the station.  The turbine buildings: To the north of the reactor buildings are two 380 m long steel frame structures. Each of these turbine buildings contains four turbine generator sets and their associated equipment. The Pickering site is also host to the Pickering Waste Management Facility, which primarily is used for interim storage of used nuclear fuel from the Pickering station. Loading of the used fuel into dry storage containers is done inside the Pickering station, after which the containers are transferred, sealed and placed into one of the facility’s storage buildings. The Pickering Waste Management Facility was first put into operation in 1996 and has since been expanded with additional storage capacity. Apart from providing storage for used fuel, the facility includes an area for storage of radioactive waste generated during the replacement of pressure tubes in Units 1-4.

Once commercial operations have ended, OPG will begin a multi-decade process to decommission the nuclear facilities. As the first step in that process, the remaining six units will be prepared for safe storage. The safe storage period will last for approximately 30 years – during which radiation levels will decrease and hence make the subsequent steps of dismantling and demolition easier and safer. The used fuel that will remain in the Pickering station at the end of commercial operations will be loaded into dry storage containers and transferred to the Pickering Waste Management Facility. At a later date, the used fuel will be transported off site to a used fuel repository that will be implemented by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). NWMO is responsible for the long-term management of all of Canada’s used nuclear fuel, and the process for selecting a site is well underway through its Adaptive Phased Dry storage container for used fuel. Management (APM) approach. Low- and intermediate-level radioactive wastes generated as part of preparing the station for safe storage will be transported to OPG’s Western Waste Management Facility at the Bruce site in the Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario. By the time that Pickering Nuclear will be dismantled, OPG plans to have a deep geologic repository for low- and intermediate level wastes in operation. That repository is anticipated to encompass the wastes that will arise during the eventual decommissioning of Pickering Nuclear. Once all radioactive and other hazardous materials have been transported off site, the plan is to restore the associated lands to a state that will be suitable for other industrial uses. It is recognized that the decommissioning process and implementation of the two repositories are associated with great uncertainties with regards to timeline, but for purposes of this study, the main timeline and associated assumptions pertaining to Repurposing Pickering are outlined on the following page. OPG continually sets aside decommissioning funds under the Ontario Nuclear Funds Agreement (ONFA), which is a risk- and cost-sharing agreement between OPG and the Province of Ontario. In addition to the decommissioning costs, the ONFA covers the costs for long-term management of the used fuel. Costs associated with repurposing are, however, not covered by the ONFA. As such, costs for the eventual implementation of new uses and reuses on the Pickering site need to be taken into consideration when assessing various options for Repurposing Pickering.

Main timeline assumed for purposes of the Repurposing Pickering assessment.

3 Selection of Options 3.1 Approach and Repurposing Objectives To facilitate OPG’s decision on a path forward for the Pickering Nuclear site, the aim of this study has been to gather, assess and integrate relevant information in a way that is inclusive, systematic, traceable and transparent. For this reason, a cornerstone of the study was to seek input from the public and a wide range of stakeholders. The engagement activities undertaken to capture such input included a series of public consultation events; soliciting ideas from OPG employees; creating a Technical Advisory Committee; and meeting with the existing Pickering Community Advisory Council. Meeting notes from the various activities are included in Attachment C. OPG’s goal is that the Pickering site will continue to benefit OPG, its shareholder and the surrounding communities both during the decommissioning period and beyond. To facilitate achieving that goal, OPG has formulated a set of objectives that the suggested land uses may be assessed against. These relate to maximizing: 1) economic value for OPG and its shareholder; 2) likelihood of retaining the power generation franchise; 3) generation of employment opportunities; 4) compatibility with the communities’ visions and plans; and 5) flexibility for future uses. The objectives are derived and outlined further in Attachment D.

Conversation at the Repurposing Pickering community open house on April 23, 2015.

As part of this study, a number of basic questions need to be answered: What type of new uses and reuses will likely be beneficial? Where would the uses best be located? When would these uses be appropriate to implement? As these questions are best answered in concert, an integrated approach has been applied in this study, as outlined below.

What? Where and When?

Gather information about the Identify opportunities site and its surroundings

Screen to eliminate opportunities Identify constraints that never would be viable

Consolidate and assess to identify options for further consideration

Overview of integrated process applied in the Repurposing Pickering study.

Once options for further consideration have been identified, questions that then need to be answered include: Who would pursue implementation (that is, assessing potential for forming partnerships)? How to proceed? How much would implementation cost and generate in terms of revenue? For purposes of this assessment, the following assumptions have been made:  Given the timeline associated with decommissioning, the focus of this assessment is on land uses that would be compatible with the activities that will take place during the decommissioning period. It is recognized that the timeline assumed in this study (see page 16) may change due to uncertainties, but to facilitate the assessment of land uses, for purposes of this study, the decommissioning period was defined as 2020-2060.  OPG’s intention is to retain ownership of the Pickering site lands. For that reason, any ideas that entail selling the lands are considered beyond the scope of the assessment.  Current land use designations in the Pickering Official Plan do not constitute constraints at this early stage of Repurposing Pickering, since those are subject to change.

3.2 Planning Zones For purposes of this study, the Pickering Nuclear site has been divided into eight planning zones, as illustrated below. Each of the zones encompasses land areas with common features or constraints. And as such, the areas within each zone are likely to become available for repurposing around the same time and for similar types of land uses. In practice, however, some land use options may be appropriate to implement over two or more abutting zones – and conversely, one zone may be able to host two or more new land use options. An overview of each of the zones is provided on the next page, with further details available in Attachment E. It is worth noting that, due to the relative location of the switchyards and transmission lines, some of the planning zones (Zones 2, 3, 4 and 8) partially consist of land areas that are leased to Hydro One.

Planning zones defined for the Repurposing Pickering land use assessment.

Size, primary current uses and key features of the Repurposing Pickering planning zones.

3.3 Fixed Uses and Repurposing Potential Over Time Once commercial operations have ceased, the level of work activity at the Pickering site will continue to be significant for the first three years, while the remaining six units are being prepared for safe storage. During that time, it is assumed that OPG will not be implementing any repurposed uses within the zones south of Montgomery Park Road, since preparation for safe storage will be a priority in that section of the site and Zone 4 will continue to be used for parking. When the safe storage period has started, used fuel transfer operations will continue for another 10 years approximately (that is, moving used fuel from the irradiated fuel bays at the Pickering station into dry storage containers for transfer to adjacent storage buildings). During that time period it is assumed that repurposing activities could commence also within Zones 7 and 8. Toward the end of the decommissioning period – during dismantling, demolition and site restoration – the level of work activity at the site will once again be significant. This will result in increased traffic to and from the site, including an increased frequency of heavy traffic. The activities taking place at that time in Zones 7 and 8 can, therefore, be anticipated to generate some levels of noise and dust. In order to assess options for new uses and reuses, it needs to be recognized that some of the current uses are not expected to change within the foreseeable future; the assumptions with regards to such fixed uses, the time period during which they are expected to remain and the overall repurposing potential of each of the planning zones are outlined in the table below.

# Planning Zone Fixed Uses and Time Period Repurposing Potential  Current park use expected to  Minor, complementary uses that Alex Robertson 1 continue for the duration of the further enhance the current Park assessment period. recreational uses.  Minor, complementary uses that further enhance the current  Current park use expected to recreational uses. continue, as a minimum, for  If, in collaboration with the City, it 2 Kinsmen Park the next few decades (licence will be concluded that there may be to the City of Pickering is a better use for this area, larger- renewed every five years). scale repurposing would be possible at some point during the assessment period.  While simulator required: Small-  Current training use will scale changes in use are possible. continue while the Darlington  After that, repurposing on a larger Pickering simulator is required (as a 3 scale would be possible. Learning Centre minimum, until Darlington  During the last 10 years, some uses refurbishment has been may not be suitable due to proximity completed). to demolition site.

# Planning Zone Fixed Uses and Time Period Repurposing Potential  None for the first three years, as current uses are required to support  Current use of parking, offices preparation for safe storage. and information centre  After that, larger-scale repurposing Administration/ 4 expected to continue, as a would be possible, including reuse Parking Area minimum, for the first three of existing buildings. years.  During the last 10 years, some uses may not be suitable due to proximity to demolition site.  Large-scale repurposing could begin immediately, although the current use as green space may present General  None (this is an undeveloped 5 challenges to new development. Employment wood lot).  During the last 10 years, some uses may not be suitable due to proximity to demolition site.  None for the first three years (due to proximity to plant).  Current landfill use expected  After that, certain types of uses 6 Landfill to continue for the duration of could be implemented. the assessment period.  During the last 10 years, some uses may not be suitable due to proximity to demolition site.  None for the first three years (due to proximity to plant).  Used fuel storage and transfer Nuclear Waste/  After that, certain types of uses 7 operations, as a minimum, for Controlled Area could be implemented. the first 30 years.  None during the last 10 years, as it will be undergoing demolition.  Used fuel storage and transfer  None for the first three years (due to operations, as a minimum, for activity within the plant). the first 30 years.  After that, certain types of uses 8 Power Block  Storage of radioactive could be implemented. materials throughout the  None during the last 10 years, as it assessment period. will be undergoing demolition.

It is recognized that the potential for change in use always will be subject to some degree of constraints and uncertainties. However, for purposes of this study, the assumptions with regards to repurposing potential over time are illustrated below, using the following scale:

No  No repurposing potential: Implementation of reuses or new uses is not deemed possible due to the very high level of constraints imposed by the activities within or adjacent to the planning zone.

Low  Low repurposing potential: Certain types of complementary uses would be possible to implement, although significant constraints are anticipated. Changes on a smaller scale may be particularly conducive.

Medium  Medium repurposing potential: New uses may be possible to implement also on a larger scale, subject to applicable constraints and uncertainties.

High  High repurposing potential: Complete change in use within all or most of the zone may be possible.

Pickering End of Commercial Operations Years +5 +10 +15 +20 +25 +30 +35 +40

Zone 1 Continued use of beach, waterfront trail and park

Zone 2 Continued use of sports fields New uses could be considered

Zone 3 Training of Darlington staff Reuses and new, large-scale uses Close to demolition site

Zone 4 None Reuses and new, large-scale uses Close to demolition site

Zone 5 Reuses and new, large-scale uses Close to demolition site

Zone 6 None New uses that can be implemented on or by large landfill site Close to demolition site

Zone 7 None Reuses and new complementary uses Undergoing demolition

Zone 8 None Reuses and new complementary uses Undergoing demolition

Repurposing potential over time during the assessment period.

Based on the figure above, two main windows of opportunity emerge for any major repurposing initiatives during the assessment period, that is, opportunities with potential for repurposing of uses that span multiple decades and/or multiple planning zones:  Zones 3, 4 and 5 are all anticipated to become available for complete change in use during the assessment period. If, in the future, it is concluded with the City of Pickering that there may be a more valuable use for the Kinsmen Park land area, Zone 2 could be made available for complete change in use as well. Given their location and timeline for when the land areas would become available, it is concluded that: o Zone 4 (54 acres) constitutes the greatest opportunity for repurposing on a large scale; it is significantly larger than the other zones considered for complete change in use, and implementation could start as early as a few years after commercial operations have ceased. o Zone 3 (23 acres) is conducive for subsequent expansion and/or addition of complementary uses, with implementation starting a decade after commercial operations have ceased, at the earliest. o Zone 2 (38 acres) would, if made available for repurposing, be suitable for further expansion and/or addition of complementary uses, given its location immediately north of Zone 3. It is, at this time, not known whether this area may become available for major changes in use at all during the assessment period, nor what the timeline for that would be if it were to occur. Even so, to ensure that the site’s full potential can be realized during the decommissioning period – for purposes of this study – the assumption has been made that it may become available about half way through the assessment period. o Zone 5 (11 acres) could be repurposed at the end of commercial operations. Since this is the first planning zone that will become available – combined with its relatively separate location and small size – it may be favourable to repurpose Zone 5 independently of any changes in use in Zones 2-4.  Zones 6, 7 and 8 are, throughout the assessment period, all expected to be used for storage of waste (conventional waste on the landfills in Zones 6 and 8, and used fuel and other radioactive materials in Zones 7 and 8). Nevertheless, given the size and nature of those zones, it is anticipated that all three would be able to host one or more repurposed uses – subject to the constraints and uncertainties associated with the wastes stored within the respective zone. Given their relative location and timeline for when they would become available, the following is concluded: o Zone 6 (39 acres) could be made available for public access, and can therefore be used to augment uses in Zones 1-5. Given the amount of materials contained in the landfill, OPG’s intent is that it will remain in place throughout the period. As such, any new uses will need to be appropriate for implementation on the landfill or around its perimeter, which limits the feasibility of any land uses that require access to the bedrock for its foundation.

o Zone 7 (72 acres) is expected to continue to be subject to stringent security measures, including strict access control to the Pickering Waste Management Facility. Since its primary use will remain used fuel storage, it will continue to encompass comprehensive programs that are associated with the operation of a nuclear facility, such as radiation protection, environmental protection, fire protection and emergency preparedness. As such, this zone is particularly suitable for options that can leverage the existing programs and associated equipment. o Zone 8 (134 acres) is, similar to Zone 7, expected to continue to have restricted access for the duration of the assessment period. And it will have the same advantages in terms of existing programs and equipment, which can be used for applicable repurposed uses. Apart from the fixed uses on the site itself, the following assumptions have been made with regards to the main land uses in the areas immediately adjacent to the site: 1) north-west of the site, recreational and residential land uses will remain for the entire period; 2) the hydro corridor will remain if repurposed uses will entail power generation and/or other power-related options that require grid connectivity; 3) industrial uses will remain for the entire period north and east of the site; to some degree, these industrial areas may be influenced by the uses that will be implemented on the Pickering site as part of Repurposing Pickering. In summary, the main land uses that are assumed to remain throughout the assessment period are illustrated below.

Main fixed uses assumed to remain during the assessment period.

3.4 Identification of Opportunities To ensure that the list of opportunities considered in this study is comprehensive, ideas for future uses were solicited from a broad range of people with a variety of interests in and knowledge about the site. As such, the consultation activities undertaken to receive input to this study included:  A series of public consultation events (four pop up booth sessions and one community open house). Two handouts were provided at these events, see Attachment F. In all, approximately 600 people visited the events, resulting in around 320 conversations.  Employee brainstorming sessions.  Formation of a Technical Advisory Committee.  Meetings with the existing Pickering Community Advisory Council.  Creation of a website (both OPG-internal and external).  Email address specific to the study ([email protected]). This address was open for input from mid-March to mid-October 2015, and during that time, well over 100 emails were received with ideas for reuses and new uses on the site. The key questions asked to generate input to the identification of opportunities were: 1. What is your vision for the future of the Pickering site? 2. What ideas do you have for possible land uses? 3. What are some complementary land uses that would generate synergies during the decommissioning period? The inputs from the engagement activities were recorded in comment cards, emails and a suite of meeting notes. The resulting lists of identified opportunities are provided in Attachment C. In addition to the above, opportunities were identified through a desktop study that drew on the experience from: a) decommissioning of international nuclear facilities; b) redevelopment of brownfield sites in Ontario; c) previous OPG studies; and d) the consultant team. The list of opportunities resulting from that study is also included in Attachment C.

3.5 Screening To enable elimination of any ideas that may have been put forth but that would obviously violate judicial or natural laws, all identified opportunities were scanned in light of the four screening criteria below. Further information on the opportunities and the screening criteria is available in Attachments C and D.

Screening Criteria

1. Is it legal? 2. Is it technically possible? 3. Can it be implemented on 500 acres of land or less? 4. Are the geological and hydrological conditions on the site conducive?

If the answer to all of the above questions is ‘yes,’ the opportunity will pass the screening. If a question cannot easily be answered, the answer should be assumed to be ‘yes’ to ensure that potentially viable opportunities are not ruled out prematurely.

Although recognized that, in some cases, an opportunity may not be possible to implement in practice, none of the opportunities were such that an answer obviously would be ‘no.’ As such, all identified opportunities passed the screening. It is, however, worth emphasizing that:  With regards to legality, this is expected to vary over time. However, none of the opportunities were such that they obviously would violate current judicial laws.  Several opportunities relate to technologies that currently are under development.  A few opportunities – such as golf course and small airport – would take up a very large land area relative to the overall size of the Pickering site. Further studies would therefore be required in order to determine whether they could, in practice, be implemented on 500 acres or less. Since further studies are beyond the intent of the screening, those types of opportunities have not been screened out.  Although in-depth studies regarding geological and hydrological conditions may be required prior to implementation, none of the opportunities were deemed to obviously require any conditions beyond what is present on the site.

3.6 Assessment of Land Uses During the Decommissioning Period To facilitate assessment of the many ideas captured (630 in total), the opportunities were first grouped by real estate category – complemented with a category for power-related land uses. The land use categories applied in this assessment are defined as follows:

Power: Power generation and other land uses that require connectivity to the high-voltage power lines.

Industrial: A wide range of prestige, light, general and heavy industrial uses – except power generation and other power-related uses. Examples in this category include manufacturing, assembly and processing facilities, as well as land uses related to transportation, distribution and logistics.

Institutional: A wide range of local uses, such as schools, libraries and fire stations, as well as universities and colleges, hospitals and other major government facilities.

Office: Commercial office buildings that are freestanding and greater than 20,000 square feet in size. Smaller-scale offices that are needed in support of other uses are considered to be part of that specific use.

Recreational: A wide range of land uses related to leisure and hospitality, including sports stadiums; hotels, theme parks, casinos and other entertainment complexes; and parks, green space and waterfront recreational activities.

Residential: Permanent dwellings, including single and semi-detached units, row houses and apartment buildings.

Retail: Retail strips, shopping centres, large format retail or ‘power centres’ and other forms of specialized retail.

In Attachment C, the category applied for each of the opportunities has been noted. When a suggestion entails a combination of categories, this has been indicated as ‘Mixed Use.’

The assessment was conducted using a two-step approach: 1. Land use categories were first assessed in terms of suitability for the site as a whole, to narrow down to a set of categories recommended for further assessment. 2. Next, land use options within the recommended categories were assessed in terms of suitability for each of the eight planning zones; the options were derived and defined based on the opportunities noted for the respective category in Attachment C. In both steps, the classification below was used to facilitate the assessment and documentation of the results.

Classification of Land Uses for Repurposing Pickering

 = Recommended for further study Land use deemed to have potential to create benefits, and no significant constraints or other challenges for implementation have been identified.

 = Not possible to implement Significant constraints have been identified that would prevent implementation of the land use during the assessment period, such as: • Regulatory requirements (including OPG’s regulatory commitments related to decommissioning and waste management) • Technical and other physical constraints

 = May be possible to implement but not recommended for further study Factors have been identified that would make implementation of the land use challenging, such as: • Market demand and/or supply issues • Superior locations exist

On the following pages, the results of the assessment are documented. The results are based on a series of discussions and the professional judgement and experience of the consultant team. Each of the land uses was discussed amongst the consultant team members and, based on feedback received, combined with the results of the various market and technical analyses undertaken as part of the assignment, a consensus view was reached. The land use options identified through this assessment will be subject to more detailed review and analysis in subsequent stages of the assignment.

3.6.1 Land Use Categories As noted above, in this step, the land use categories are assessed in terms of suitability for the site as a whole. The result of this assessment, including rationale, is documented below.

Land Use Categories – Results and Rationale Category Result Rationale Land use options in this category would support OPG’s objective related to retaining the power generation franchise. All of the options have potential to Power leverage existing infrastructure to some degree. Options in this category also  have potential for supporting Ontario’s energy policy related to ensuring that there is flexibility to meet higher power demand if needed. Land uses within the industrial category have a broad range of characteristics Industrial but are, in general, anticipated to have potential to be conducive for  implementation during the decommissioning period. Options in this category have a broad range of characteristics but are, in Institutional general, anticipated to have potential to be conducive for implementation  during the decommissioning period. It is recognized that office space can be an ancillary use for a variety of options in other categories, but large-scale commercial office buildings are deemed challenging to implement since market demand is anticipated to be low due to: Office  1) presence of radioactive materials on the site; 2) overall market projections for the eastern Greater Toronto Area (GTA); and 3) superior locations being available for commercial office buildings. Recreational uses received strong support during the public and stakeholder engagement activities. While establishing new recreational uses on parts of Recreational  the site would be difficult prior to the end of decommissioning, improving or expanding existing recreational areas would be a possibility. Permanent dwellings are not permitted within the exclusion zone, and due to significant uncertainties with regards to the possibility of shrinking this zone during the decommissioning period, it is assumed that it will remain in effect for the duration of the assessment period. Since the vast majority of the lands Residential  owned by OPG are within the exclusion zone, residential uses would not be possible to implement until the site has been released from regulatory control. While radioactive materials are stored on the site there would furthermore likely be low demand for residential uses. Market demand for retail on the site is expected to be low throughout all or most of the assessment period due to: 1) presence of radioactive materials on Retail the site; 2) overall market projections for the eastern GTA; and 3) existing and  planned retail locations throughout Pickering, which would be in direct competition and likely have a greater appeal.

Based on the above, four of the categories will proceed to the second step of the assessment.

3.6.2 Power Options To facilitate assessment of uses within the power category, the options have been defined based on the energy source utilized (for power generation options) or main purpose (for non- generation options). However, it is recognized that all of the power options also will entail ancillary services, such as offices, storage and processing facilities, as applicable. In terms of size, the options below could be implemented on a wide ranging scale – from small- scale applications intended for technology development and demonstration – to large-scale, commercial facilities. The appropriate scale of any options eventually pursued would be driven by commercial demand and would be assessed in further detail subsequent to this study. Regardless of size, all power options are assumed to have the potential to leverage existing infrastructure to some degree. Power-related land uses are assumed not to be applicable for consideration in Zones 1 and 2, since such uses would be incompatible with:  environmental protection of the provincially significant wetlands, and  public use of the parklands licensed to the City of Pickering. Options in this category are therefore assessed for Zones 3-8 only (as such, Zones 1-2 have been greyed out in the table below).

Power Land Use Options – Results and Rationale Planning Zone Option 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Biomass       Power generation using biomass as energy  The site is located far from any significant direct biomass sources, which source. would impact commercial feasibility due to high transport costs.  Furthermore, there are no operating pelletization facilities in nearby locations within the GTA (which would have allowed for easy shipment of biomass for power generation).  This option is therefore not recommended for further study, although it is recognized that emerging technologies for non-wood biomass may warrant this option to be revisited in the future (such as energy using algae as fuel). Coal       Power generation using coal as energy source.  Over the past several years, Ontario’s energy policy clearly mandates a move to cleaner electricity sources and a move away from coal. Given the broader energy strategy, a coal power plant is therefore highly unlikely to be approved by the Province of Ontario.

Power Land Use Options – Results and Rationale Planning Zone Option 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Combined Heat and       Power Generation of heat and  Combined heat and power is a distributed generation solution, which power from a common typically is located at or near the point of consumption. energy source.  Combined heat and power could be supplied to future on-site customers and/or to surrounding communities. Given the urban location of the site, there could be sufficient heat load, which could make this option feasible.  Zones 4, 7 and 8 are deemed to have the most potential due to their proximity to power infrastructure and their current conditions, which are conducive for hosting this option. Note: Cooling is provided as a land use option within the industrial category. Energy from Waste       Power generation and/or heat generation  Energy from waste facilities are primarily waste disposal solutions and not using waste as energy power generation options. As a result, these types of projects are generally source; this includes undertaken by municipalities – or for municipalities. The current standing municipal waste offer program issued by the Independent Electricity System Operator incineration and biogas. (IESO) is only available for municipal projects. Without such a partnership, ability to source waste supply would be a challenge and would require getting into the commercial waste business.  With the Durham York Energy Centre being structured for future expansion, demand for a new facility in Durham Region is considered low for the foreseeable future.  Supply of biogas from the adjacent Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant is understood not to be available for external use. Energy Storage       Technologies for storing power generated at  Energy storage has the potential to support Ontario’s energy policy related times when there is a to renewable energy, flexibility and innovation. surplus of power supply  This option also has potential to provide synergies with other power-related – for subsequent use options and is, as such, recommended for further study. when there is a  Zones 4, 7 and 8 are deemed to have the most potential due to their shortage. proximity to power infrastructure and their current conditions, which are conducive for hosting this option.

Power Land Use Options – Results and Rationale Planning Zone Option 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Energy Testing and       Innovation

A wide range of uses  This option has potential to provide synergies with other power-related that do not generate options and is, as such, recommended for further study. power but require grid  Zones 4, 7 and 8 are deemed to have the most potential due to their connectivity, such as proximity to power infrastructure and their current conditions, which are energy research and conducive for hosting this option. smart-grid testing. Natural Gas       Power generation using natural gas as energy  Natural gas power generation has the potential to leverage existing source. infrastructure and provide economic value since it is deemed possible to implement on a larger scale in a relatively short period of time.  As such, this option would support Ontario’s energy policy related to ensuring that there is flexibility to meet higher power demand if needed relatively fast.  Zones 4, 7 and 8 are deemed to have the most potential due to their proximity to power infrastructure and their current conditions, which are conducive for hosting this option. Nuclear Fission       (Large Scale)

Power generation using  New nuclear power plants tend to be located at some distance from major nuclear fission as population centres (which is in accordance with why the Pickering Nuclear energy source, at a site originally was selected). scale that would not be  Access to cooling water may be a challenge, since a new large-scale possible to implement reactor unit would need to be located north of the existing nuclear facilities. within Zones 7 and 8;  Sites deemed more suitable for new large-scale nuclear units are available examples include both elsewhere – in particular at Darlington, for which OPG currently has a site existing and emerging preparation licence for new power reactors. nuclear technologies. Nuclear Fission       (Small Scale) Power generation using nuclear fission as  Small modular reactors are an emerging technology for power generation, energy source, at a and potential for commercial readiness in the foreseeable future is good. scale that would be  During the decommissioning period, OPG will be retaining key programs conducive to implement associated with nuclear facilities, such as radiation protection, security and within Zones 7 and 8; emergency preparedness; as this option has the potential to leverage such suggested examples programs to a large degree and create synergies with the nuclear include commercial operations that will be taking place throughout the assessment period, this prototypes of small option is recommended for further study. modular reactors.

Power Land Use Options – Results and Rationale Planning Zone Option 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Nuclear Fusion       Power generation using nuclear fusion as  Given the major uncertainties associated with when/if fusion technologies energy source. will be available for implementation on a commercial scale, this option is not recommended for further study.  This does not rule out that research and development of nuclear fusion technologies could be considered (opportunities related to research and development are included in the institutional land use category). Power Conversion       and/or Distribution Applications for converting or  This option has potential to provide synergies with other power-related distributing power; options and is, as such, recommended for further study. examples include a  Zones 4, 7 and 8 are deemed to have the most potential due to their transformer station and proximity to power infrastructure and their current conditions, which are a high-voltage, direct conducive for hosting this option. current cable across the lake. Reactive Power       Compensation Technologies (such as  This option has potential to provide synergies with other power-related synchronous options and is, as such, recommended for further study. condensers) used for  Zones 4, 7 and 8 are deemed to have the most potential due to their adjusting voltage on the proximity to power infrastructure and their current conditions, which are power grid. conducive for hosting this option. Refurbishment Only applicable in Zone 8, where the current units are located.  Power generation using one or more of the existing reactor units by  OPG has determined in previous studies that refurbishing the existing extending their reactors would not be financially viable. operating life through refurbishment. Solar       Power generation using the sun as energy  Solar power has the potential to support Ontario’s energy policy related to source. renewable energy, flexibility and innovation.  Given the distributed nature of most solar power technologies, this option is recommended for further study on any of the zones considered for power uses.

Power Land Use Options – Results and Rationale Planning Zone Option 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Wind       Power generation using the wind as energy  Wind conditions on the site are not conducive for building additional wind source. turbines.  There is currently a moratorium on off-shore wind power.

3.6.3 Industrial Options Industrial land uses are assumed not to be applicable for consideration in Zones 1 and 2, since such uses would be incompatible with:  environmental protection of the provincially significant wetlands, and  public use of the parklands licensed to the City of Pickering. Options in this category are therefore assessed for Zones 3-8 only (as such, Zones 1-2 have been greyed out in the table below).

Industrial Land Use Options – Results and Rationale Planning Zone Option 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Airport       Of a size and style similar to the Billy  Prior to the end of decommissioning, the land areas available would not be Bishop Toronto City large enough to host this option. Airport. Conventional Waste       Treatment

Recycling and other  The location of the site is not well suited to fit with the municipal waste types of processing of treatment system, and there are more suitable locations within the Region non-radioactive wastes of Durham for this option. (with the exception of Note: Energy from waste is assessed as an option in the power category. energy from waste). Cooling       Entails using lake water as the source of cooling  This option has the potential to provide environmentally friendly cooling for on-site use and/or as capacity to future on-site customers and/or as part of a district cooling part of a district cooling system. system.  Since core components of this option require lake access, this is primarily an option for consideration within Zones 7 or 8. Data Centre       Facility for storing data for companies and/or  Given the generally increasing trend of hosted data services, this option is their clients. recommended for further study since the site has several benefits that could be leveraged, such as capability for supplying both power and cooling, location near the hydro corridor, high security and proximity to a skilled workforce.  Of the planning zones considered for industrial uses, Zones 3, 4, 7 and 8 are deemed to be the most promising given their relative location.

Industrial Land Use Options – Results and Rationale Planning Zone Option 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Film Studios       May entail filming indoors and/or  Film studios with large-scale soundstages are understood to be in demand. outdoors.  The site offers large available spaces, proximity to Toronto and the potential for unique and varied scenery for on-site filming; this is therefore recommended for further study on all zones considered for industrial uses. Food Production       This includes both agriculture and aquaculture farming;  Conventional farming would likely not be viable due to costs associated suggested examples with land preparation. include vertical farm test  Due to the site’s proximity to a large population, emerging technologies site, large-scale related to vertical farming may, however, have potential for implementation greenhouses and on the lands outside of the secured areas. ‘adopt-a-veg-farm.’ Gondolas       For transportation to downtown Toronto.  As a means of transportation, this is not recommended for further study since it fits poorly with the existing transportation system in the GTA, but this does not rule out that gondolas may be a viable option for enhancing existing recreational uses. Helipad       For commuting to Pearson International or  Given the site’s location relative to the existing Pickering transportation the Billy Bishop Toronto hub, this option would not be realistic from a logistical perspective. City Airport.  This is therefore not recommended for further study, although it is recognized that it may still be an appropriate ancillary use as part of implementing other options. Manufacturing       Encompasses a wide range of goods production activities, with specific examples suggested including large-scale 3D printing  This option is recommended for further study since the site has assets that and reusing the turbine could be leveraged for certain manufacturing applications. buildings for large-scale  Of the planning zones considered for industrial uses, all zones except manufacturing; also Zone 6 may be conducive to host this option. included is the range of goods production that tends to occur in smaller-scale industrial facilities.

Industrial Land Use Options – Results and Rationale Planning Zone Option 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Nuclear Materials       Handling A wide range of non-  During the decommissioning period, OPG will be retaining key programs power related nuclear associated with nuclear facilities, such as radiation protection, security and uses, such as testing emergency preparedness; as this option has the potential to leverage such and maintenance of programs to a large degree and create synergies with the nuclear components, production operations that will be taking place throughout the assessment period, this of medical isotopes, and option is recommended for further study. processing and storage  Zones 4, 7 and 8 are deemed to have the most potential due to their of wastes. current conditions, which are conducive for hosting this option. Other Business       Services A wide range of non- nuclear related services, such as leasing out space for meetings, offering space to other OPG departments and  Commercial applications of this option are assumed to be in low demand in laboratories for general, but given that the site has assets that can be leveraged for environmental analyses; specific uses, this option is recommended for further study. also included is the  Of the planning zones considered for industrial uses, all zones except range of other business Zone 6 may be conducive to host this option. services that tend to occur in smaller-scale industrial facilities, such as small-scale warehousing and distribution. Outdoor Storage       May encompass such uses as truck and container storage, storage of bulk  A regional demand for outdoor storage of materials and equipment has materials and goods been identified. associated with local  This option is easy and inexpensive to implement, and it offers flexibility for manufacturing; subsequent change in use. suggested examples  Since the specific location that would be suitable depends on the materials include winter boat stored, this option is recommended for further study on any of the zones storage of pleasure craft considered for industrial uses. and parking space for the Coast Guard.

Industrial Land Use Options – Results and Rationale Planning Zone Option 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Port       A variety of uses for transfer of people and/or goods by sea;  A port requires lake access and large adjacent land areas. Given the examples include ferry location of the existing nuclear facilities, this option would not be possible terminal, cruise ship to implement during the assessment period. dock and launch area,  This does not rule out the possibility of utilizing the existing dock as an clean port and ancillary use to support options that require heavy transports. commercial harbour. Transit Hub       This relates to a hub for intermodal transit (such  Given the site’s location relative to the existing Pickering transportation as from rail to ship). hub, this option would not be realistic from a logistical perspective. Warehouses       Large buildings for storage of goods.  Although some warehousing activity can be observed in the eastern GTA, the site is not ideal for this purpose from a transportation perspective.  Superior competing locations exist in the area (notably the planned Seaton Community, which has direct 400-series highway access) – as well as throughout the broader GTA.  It is, however, recognized that warehouses on a smaller scale may be an appropriate ancillary use as part of implementing other options. Water/wastewater       Treatment Facilities for treatment of water and/or wastewater; examples  The demand for water/wastewater treatment facilities on the site is suggested include assumed to be low; future expansion of the adjacent Duffin Creek Water leasing the on-site Pollution Control Plant is understood will be eastward, and demand for water treatment plant to water treatment is anticipated to be low while radioactive materials remain the municipality and on the site. expanding the adjacent Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant.

3.6.4 Institutional Options Institutional land uses are assumed to be applicable for consideration in all planning zones.

Institutional Land Use Options – Results and Rationale Planning Zone Option 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Higher Education         and/or R&D A variety of disciplines  This option is deemed to have great potential for leveraging existing that may only be facilities, land areas and staff knowledge, although it is recognized that the applicable in certain degree of synergy that could be created will depend on the discipline. zones; examples  Nuclear decommissioning and related technologies are deemed to have include nuclear training, particularly high potential for creating synergies during the assessment decommissioning period. research, horticulture,  Higher education and/or R&D received strong support during the public fisheries research and and stakeholder engagement activities, including receiving expressions of emergency interest from specific educational institutions that were represented on the preparedness training. Technical Advisory Committee. For purposes of this  Since the specific location that would be suitable will depend on the study, this option also discipline, this option is recommended for further study on any of the zones includes professional considered for institutional uses. training applications. Hospital         A facility where a wide  Although likely not considered a permanent dwelling, a hospital is not range of medical viewed as a viable option during the decommissioning period due to services are provided. requirements on emergency preparedness on the site. Naval Base         Military base for the  A naval base requires lake access and large adjacent land areas. Given navy. the location of the existing nuclear facilities, this option would not be possible to implement during the assessment period. Nursing Home         Long-term care facility.  A nursing home is assumed to be considered a permanent dwelling. As such, this option would not be possible to implement during the assessment period since the vast majority of the OPG-owned lands are located within the exclusion zone. Observatory         Facility for the study of  Observatories are preferably located far from major population centres celestial objects. (to minimize light pollution) and at high elevations, and as such, the Pickering site is unlikely to be a good location for an observatory.

Institutional Land Use Options – Results and Rationale Planning Zone Option 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Other Community         Services A wide range of services for citizens,  A community centre may be a suitable use in Zones 1, 2 or 3 since it would such as community complement existing recreational uses. centres, libraries, art  Given the location of the site, the demand for other types of community studios, schools, police services is anticipated to be low. stations, government offices and health care Note: Hospital and nursing home are assessed as separate options within the services (other than institutional category. hospitals and nursing homes). Prison         A correctional facility in  A prison is assumed to be considered a permanent dwelling. As such, this which inmates may be option would not be possible to implement during the assessment period held for longer periods since the vast majority of the OPG-owned lands are located within the of time. exclusion zone. Public Information         Centre and/or Museum  Given OPG’s strong commitment to community involvement, it is assumed that a variety of public outreach activities will continue to be offered. To maintain or enhance  As such, enhancement or expansion of the existing public information the existing information centre is recommended for further study, including considering a nuclear- centre and/or to themed museum (given the interest expressed in the public and implement a museum. stakeholder engagement activities).  Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4 are deemed the most promising due to ease of implementation, relative location and/or being appropriate for conversion. Public Tours         Educational tours for  Given OPG’s strong commitment to community involvement, it is assumed the public, including that a variety of public outreach activities will continue to be offered. tours of the existing  Since public tours may be relevant anywhere on the site, this option is nuclear facilities. recommended for further study on all zones. This includes being considered for Zones 7 and 8 due to the interest expressed in the public and stakeholder engagement activities for offering tours of the nuclear facilities once commercial operations have ceased.

3.6.5 Recreational Options Recreational land uses are assumed not to be applicable for consideration in Zones 7 and 8 due to the restrictions on public access within those zones. Options in this category are therefore assessed for Zones 1-6 only (as such, Zones 7-8 have been greyed out in the table below). It is, however, recognized that the western section of Zone 8 may be conducive for enhancing the existing recreational uses if, in subsequent studies, it is concluded that the small landfill (west of the power block) can be made available for public uses.

Recreational Land Use Options – Results and Rationale Planning Zone Option 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Accommodation       Hotels, RV park and other types of  Market demand for accommodation on the site is expected to be low while temporary radioactive materials remain, and superior locations exist elsewhere within accommodation. the City of Pickering. Community Activities       A wide range of community recreational  Enhancement or expansion of the existing community activities has uses, such as sports potential to be beneficial, and as such, this option is recommended for fields, swimming pools further study. and recreational  Zones 1, 2, 3 and 5 are deemed the most promising due to ease of centres. implementation and/or relative location on the site. Entertainment       A wide range of commercial entertainment services,  Market demand for entertainment land uses on the site is expected to be such as theme parks, low while radioactive materials remain, and superior locations exist casino, paintball and elsewhere within the City of Pickering. zoo. Food Services       Restaurants, cafes and similar establishments.  Market demand for food services on the site is expected to be low while radioactive materials remain, and superior locations exist elsewhere within the City of Pickering.  This is therefore not recommended for further study, although it is recognized that it may still be an appropriate ancillary use as part of implementing other options.

Recreational Land Use Options – Results and Rationale Planning Zone Option 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Golf Course       Golf course and associated buildings.  Prior to the end of decommissioning, the land areas available for repurposing on a large scale would not be sufficient to host this option. Parkland       Public park or other green space dedicated  Enhancement or expansion of the existing parklands has potential to be for public use. beneficial, and as such, this option is recommended for further study.  Zones 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are all deemed promising due to ease of implementation, relative location and/or being appropriate for use as parkland.  Zone 4 is not recommended due to the close proximity of the nuclear facilities and since future transports of used fuel are anticipated to take place via this zone – and since Zone 4 also is assumed to provide more value if repurposed to other types of land uses than parkland. Sports Stadium       (Large Scale) Large-scale sports venues (capacity in the  Prior to the end of decommissioning, the land areas available for range of 15,000 or repurposing on a large scale would not be sufficient to host this option. higher). Sports Stadium       (Small Scale) Commercial, smaller-  This option would complement existing recreational uses and has the scale sports venues potential to generate a higher return for OPG than those uses. (capacity in the range of  Of the planning zones considered for recreational uses, Zones 2 and 3 are a few thousand). deemed to be the most promising due to ease of implementation and since it would enhance existing recreational uses. Waterfront Recreation Only applicable in Zone 1 (since  Zones 2-6 do not have lake access). Public waterfront activities, including  This option is recommended for further study as it has the potential to allow beaches, waterfront trail the municipality to provide improved services by the waterfront. and marina.  Although Zones 7 and 8 generally would not be applicable for recreational uses during the decommissioning period, the potential for constructing a waterfront trail along the shoreline in Zones 7 and 8 may still be worth investigating.

This page intentionally left blank.

4 Conclusions When construction of the Pickering Nuclear station began in 1966, few could have imagined the profound transformation that has occurred in the area – and in society at large – between then and now. Similarly, it can be expected that the changes that will occur between now and the end of decommissioning will be of a similar scale. To ensure that the site’s long-term potential is not compromised, OPG therefore aims to retain flexibility to the extent possible, until the nuclear facilities have been decommissioned and the site released from nuclear regulatory control; that way, future generations will have the opportunity to implement the long-term uses that will best serve them. Although standard commercial land uses generally would be challenging to implement prior to the end of decommissioning, this study has shown that there are many land use options that likely would be suitable and create synergies with existing structures and other assets. Given the wide range of those options, it can be assumed that there is more than one promising path forward for the Pickering site once commercial operations have ceased.

Pickering Nuclear site during construction.

The types of land uses that were deemed to be suitable during the decommissioning period relate to four categories: power, industrial, institutional and recreational uses. Among these, 24 land use options have been recommended for further study. It is worth noting that the four land use categories recommended for further study correlate strongly with the ideas received from the public and stakeholders during the consultations that took place as part of this study. Of the input recorded directly by the public (on comment cards and in emails), two categories dominated, namely:  Power (33%)  Recreational (31%) Followed by:  Institutional (19%)  Industrial (14%) The remaining three categories – office, residential and retail – all received negligible public support (around 1% each), and in the case of residential uses, about the same number of people explicitly said that they are against as those who said that they are for. Of the specific land use options recommended for further study, the results are also generally aligned with the input received from the public – with a few noteworthy exceptions:  With regards to power options, many people suggested wind power, new large-scale reactors and refurbishment of the existing reactors.  A wide range of large-scale recreational uses were suggested, including golf course, large sports stadium, theme park and zoo. Although these may remain options for implementation once the site has been released from regulatory control, it was concluded that these would not be suitable uses during the decommissioning period. Based on the results of this study, the list of 24 options (summarized on the following page) will be studied in further detail. This will include assessing commercial viability and ease of implementation, as well as continuing to work with the City of Pickering and Region of Durham to ensure alignment with their visions for the site.

Summary of Options Considered for Further Study Planning Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Power Combined Heat and Power    Energy Storage    Energy Testing and Innovation    Natural Gas    Nuclear Fission (Small Scale)   Power Conversion and/or Distribution    Reactive Power Compensation    Solar       Industrial Cooling   Data Centre     Film Studios       Food Production     Manufacturing      Nuclear Materials Handling    Other Business Services      Outdoor Storage       Institutional Higher Education and/or R&D         Other Community Services    Public Information Centre and/or Museum     Public Tours         Recreational Community Activities     Parkland      Sports Stadium (Small Scale)   Waterfront Recreation 

This page intentionally left blank.

Attachments

Attached to this document are the following:  Attachment A – Baseline Conditions for Repurposing Pickering Description of current conditions on the site and in its surroundings, including aspects such as the social environment, natural environment and surrounding infrastructure. Draft produced in December 2014 and subsequently revised based on comments from the Technical Advisory Committee and the Pickering Community Advisory Council.  Attachment B – Overview of Municipal and Regional Policies Overview of current municipal and regional policies. Draft produced in December 2014 and subsequently revised based on comments from the Technical Advisory Committee and Community Advisory Council.  Attachment C – Identification of Opportunities List of all opportunities identified and used as input to the assessment. This attachment also includes the meeting notes from the public and stakeholder engagement activities that were conducted as part of this study.  Attachment D – Screening and Assessment Framework Derivation and definition of criteria for screening and assessing opportunities for Repurposing Pickering; at this early stage, the objectives and attributes associated with the assessment criteria are used to provide high-level guidance, whereas in subsequent, more detailed analyses, these may be conducive for quantitative assessment of options.  Attachment E – Planning Zones Site map outlining the eight planning zones, and table of current uses, repurposing constraints and other key considerations.  Attachment F – Brochure and Frequently Asked Questions Main handouts to visitors at the pop up booth sessions and community open house.

This page intentionally left blank.

Attachment A – Baseline Conditions for Repurposing Pickering

This page intentionally left blank.

1 Background In 2010, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) announced that the nuclear reactors at Pickering will not be refurbished. Since the Pickering site represents a significant asset, OPG is undertaking an initiative to develop a strategy and action plan for Repurposing Pickering. As input to the work associated with developing the strategy and action plan, OPG has performed a study to capture the baseline conditions for Repurposing Pickering. The purpose of this is to document the starting point of a wide range of factors that may impact Repurposing Pickering in some way.

2 Description of the Pickering Nuclear Site Owned and operated by OPG, the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (PNGS) is one of the world’s largest nuclear power plants. The station is located in the City of Pickering, just east of the City of Toronto, on the shores of Lake Ontario. In all, PNGS includes eight CANDU® reactors, six of which are still in commercial operation (with a total output of about 3,100 MW). In addition to the reactors, the Pickering nuclear site encompasses the Pickering Waste Management Facility (PWMF), which operates under a separate licence.

Source: Google Maps 2014

The site’s current nuclear facilities are located within two separate protected areas. The larger of the two is located on the southern edge of the site and houses the PNGS and parts of the PWMF. The smaller area, where the remainder of the PWMF buildings are located, is situated east of the PNGS.

2.1 Surrounding Areas East Directly east of the site is a municipal wastewater treatment plant, The Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant, which collects and treats sewage from large areas of GTA’s northern and eastern sections. To the east of the wastewater treatment plant is Duffins Creek. The Duffins Creek watershed includes 450 m of renaturalized Lake Ontario shoreline along the Ajax waterfront and is host to a multitude of species (650 plant, 31 fish, 135 bird, 11 amphibian, 29 mammal and 6 reptile). South South of the Pickering site is Lake Ontario, with a water depth near the shoreline of 2 to 2.5 m. During construction of the PNGS, the shoreline was extensively modified; modifications included reclamation of water lots, construction of a dock (to facilitate unloading of the major reactor components), as well as construction of an intake channel and condenser cooling water outfall. West Bordering the Pickering nuclear site to the west is Alex Robertson Park. The park is owned by OPG but operated and maintained by the City of Pickering. The park includes drainage ditches toward the park’s perimeter. West of Alex Robertson Park is the Hydro Marsh (a 25-hectare wetland owned by OPG) and the Beachfront Park, and further west is Frenchman’s Bay. Hydro Marsh and Frenchman’s Bay provide habitat for migrating waterfowl and are both designated provincially significant wetlands. Northwest of Alex Robertson Park is an area that has residential uses. North Immediately north of the site, across Montgomery Park Road, are two buildings: Pickering Learning Centre and Central Maintenance Services2. The Pickering Learning Centre belongs to OPG and houses offices, records and training facilities for OPG’s staff. Central Maintenance Services is used for storage of transformers and other large electrical equipment. North of the Pickering Learning Centre is Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park3, which is a recreational area that includes baseball fields, soccer fields and tennis courts. One of the forested areas in this park is host to two butternut trees – a nationally endangered species.

2 OPG leases the land of the Central Maintenance Services to Hydro One. The Central Maintenance Services building is owned and managed by Hydro One. 3 OPG licenses Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park to the City of Pickering.

2.2 Land Use Designations According to the Pickering Official Plan, the Pickering nuclear site is a Controlled Access Area. The site is also located within an area listed as Brock Industrial, which has a specific section of planning policy concerned with various aspects, such as maintaining traffic movement, development mix and operation of the Waterfront Trail. Other land areas in the site’s surroundings are designated as follows:  The large area north of the site is designated General Employment, and north of that is an area for Prestige Employment.  The long, narrow section marked ‘HYDRO’ acts as the transmission corridor to the main hydro route. This section is a Potential Multi-Use Area.  Natural Areas are located to the east, as well as immediately northwest of the site. The latter is also designated as an Active Recreational Area.  Further northwest of the site are Urban Residential Areas. Northwest of those are Mixed Use Areas, which include the Pickering Downtown Core.

Source: Pickering Official Plan

3 Natural Environment As part of construction on the Pickering site, the majority of the ground surface was extensively modified. Large areas have been paved or host buildings or other structures, though the site also includes areas that have been allowed to re-vegetate. Key features of the site include:  Bedrock: The site consists of layers of Ordovician shales and limestones (about 210 m thick), and beneath these layers is Precambrian granitic rock. No structural weaknesses have been identified, and the site is located within a seismically stable area.  Grade: The site is relatively flat but slopes slightly in a step-wise fashion toward Lake Ontario (from north to south). The only hill on the site is an artificial hill, which covers an abandoned landfill in the vegetated area in the north-eastern corner of the site.  Groundwater: Groundwater level is about 1 m below the ground surface. The general flow regime in the area is from north to south (toward the lake). Due to the presence of the nuclear facilities (as well as some historical underground structures), there are local disturbances to that flow regime.  Drainage: The site encompasses eighteen separate storm water drainage basins, which are directly discharged into Lake Ontario. There are no rivers or streams on the site.  Shoreline: The site’s total frontage along the shoreline of Lake Ontario is approximately 2,260 m. The shoreline was extensively modified as part of construction of the nuclear facilities, and no natural shoreline remains within the site’s boundaries.  Wetlands: A number of wetlands (wet meadows and shallow marshes) are located on the site, with one larger wetland occupying the northwest corner of the site.  Soils: The original soil horizons were significantly disturbed as part of construction. The upper soil horizons were removed, and the area was filled and graded with sandy and silty fill materials. In areas where the original soil horizons remain, the site’s surface deposits are comprised of two layers of dense, clayey glacial till overlying bedrock.  Vegetation: The two protected areas include no vegetated areas of significance, but outside the protected areas, the site is host to a variety of vegetation. Most of the vegetation consists of grasses or scrub bush, but some treed areas exist, particularly along the east side of the site.  Wildlife habitat: Certain parts of the site are not routinely used and have therefore become habitat for wildlife (mainly the vegetated areas where landfills are located, as well as the wetlands along the east and west sides of the site). A variety of species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians have been observed in these areas.

4 Services, Facilities and Infrastructure

4.1 City of Pickering and Durham Region The City of Pickering and the Region of Durham were both created in 1973, with the enactment of the Municipality of Durham Act. In 20134, the total population in Durham was 650,895, of which 94,510 (or around 14.5%) lived in the City of Pickering. Durham Region stretches from Lake Ontario in the south to Lake Simcoe in the north – and from the City of Toronto in the west to Northumberland County in the east. The total land area of Durham Region is 2,537 km2. Besides Pickering, Durham comprises the municipalities of Ajax, Brock, Clarington, Oshawa, Scugog, Uxbridge and Whitby. Pickering, with an area of 231.6 km2, is the fifth largest municipality in Durham Region.

4.2 Health Services Like in the rest of Ontario, the provincial government is responsible for health and long-term care services; in Pickering, this responsibility is exercised through the Central East Local Health Integration Network – with two hospitals located close to Pickering (in Ajax and Oshawa). Specialized psychiatric and other services are also offered in a regional health centre in Whitby. The Corporation of the Regional Municipality of Durham is responsible for emergency medical services and public health, and operates four long-term care homes. The remaining health services are provided by for-profit and not-for-profit health professionals and organizations, such as physicians, nurse practitioners, home care and community support providers, and long-term care and retirement homes.

4.3 Police, Fire and Emergency Services The Durham Region police force is organized into five divisions. The City of Pickering is served by the West Division. There are four fire stations within the City of Pickering, the closest of which is located about 2 km from the Pickering site. In 2012, a total of around 4,000 alarms were received. Of these, 53% were for medical emergencies, 16% for motor vehicle accidents and 8% for fires.

4 2013 population numbers based on The Regional Municipality of Durham report no. 2014-P-16, February 18, 2014.

4.4 Education In Durham Region, primary and secondary education is provided by:  Durham District School Board: Accommodates more than 66,000 regular day students in 129 public schools and learning centres throughout Durham.  Durham Catholic District School Board: Educates close to 24,000 students in 46 catholic schools throughout the region.  Two French Language School Boards: Conseil Scolaire Viamonde and Conseil Scolaire de District Catholique Centre-Sud. Within the City of Pickering, there are 27 English language schools altogether: 20 public, six catholic and one private, as well as six French language schools: two public and four catholic. Post-secondary education within Durham Region is available at Durham College and the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. In partnership with Centennial College, Durham College also offers a number of graduate certificate programs at the Pickering Learning Site.

4.5 Recreational Facilities A wide range of recreational facilities are available in the City of Pickering, including a number of parks in the site’s immediate surroundings: Alex Robertson Park, Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park, Alderwood Park and Beachfront Park. In addition, the Waterfront Trail provides a path for walking and bicycling that extends many miles east and west of the site. Other recreational facilities within the City of Pickering include the Don Beer Arena, the East Shore Community Centre and Seniors Activity Centre, the West Shore Community Centre, the Pickering Civic Complex and Central Library and the Pickering Recreation Complex Arenas and Skateboard Park. With the vicinity of Frenchman’s Bay and Duffins Creek, residents in the area also have a wide spectrum of outdoors activities at their doorstep. Just to mention a few, the waterfront areas to the east and west of the Pickering site offer activities ranging from yacht clubs, beaches and a boardwalk – to hiking, canoeing and fishing.

4.6 Social Support With regards to social support, the main social infrastructure available to residents includes:  Child care and children’s programs: In total, Durham Region operates seven child care facilities, one of which is in the City of Pickering. In addition, there are 240 licensed child care programs in Durham, 40 of which are located in Pickering. Subsidies for access to child care are available through the Children’s Services Division of Durham Region. Durham Region also offers services related to behavioural challenges, such as consultation, education and workshops to parents, caregivers and professionals.

 Housing and homelessness: Durham Region administers several homelessness programs that are funded in whole or in part by the provincial government. These programs ensure that a wide range of services are available to people who are homeless or do not have housing that adequately meets their needs. The programs also provide support to households to maintain current tenancies. Durham Region is currently responsible for 91 social housing buildings, which comprise a total of 6,374 units. The social housing administered by Durham Region represents more than 30% of the total rental housing stock in Durham.  Long-term care and services for seniors: Durham has four regionally operated long- term care homes (two in Oshawa, one in Whitby and one in Beaverton), with a total of 847 beds. These homes are geared toward the physically frail and/or cognitively impaired adult who requires supervision and/or assisted living. In addition, private corporations offer 1,912 beds in 15 long-term care homes throughout Durham. Additional services for seniors in Pickering and Durham include the various senior programming offered by a number of different community centres and seniors’ clubs.

4.7 Water and Sewer With regards to municipal water and sewer, the following services are provided to residents in the area:  Water supply: Pickering and Ajax receive their drinking water from the Ajax Water Supply Plant, which has capacity to supply 163,500 m3 of drinking water per day.  Wastewater management: Wastewater is treated at the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant, which is located just east of the Pickering site. This plant also receives and treats 90% of the wastewater generated in York Region. The plant’s treatment capacity is 630,000 m3 per day, but due to mixing limitations with Lake Ontario’s water, the outflow capacity is currently restricted to 529,000 m3 per day. The sewage system that serves York and Durham is expected to have capacity sufficient for meeting the needs until 2031.  Stormwater management: Durham and Pickering share responsibilities for stormwater management. Durham is generally responsible for major storm sewers along regional roads – and Pickering is responsible for overland flow of stormwater and manages stormwater management ponds. Stormwater management in the area is currently creating some issues in Frenchman’s Bay and its watershed, including issues with water quality, flooding and erosion. The City of Pickering has initiated a number of studies to resolve these issues, and schemes for improving stormwater management in the area have been identified.

4.8 Electrical Transmission The power generated at the PNGS is transmitted to the Hydro One transmission grid through 230kV lines that extend north from the site in a hydro corridor to the Cherrywood Transformer Station (for further transmission to the 500kV grid). For local distribution, electricity is supplied by Veridian Corporation. Veridian is jointly owned by the City of Pickering (41%), the Town of Ajax (32.1%), the Municipality of Clarington (13.6%) and the City of Belleville (13.3%).

5 Transportation

5.1 Roads As in most municipalities within the GTA, residents in Pickering and Durham rely heavily on Highway 401 as the primary transportation route. (Highway 401 is the major east-west road that stretches more than 800 km from Windsor to the Quebec border.) Apart from Highway 401, the area surrounding the Pickering site includes a fully developed network of roads. This includes access to the 407 ETR, which currently has an extension planned that will extend the 407 from Pickering to Clarington (HWY 35/115).

5.2 Public Transport With regards to public transport, the following services are available to residents in the area:  Durham Region Transit: This municipal services board provides public transit services throughout Durham. In addition to conventional bus transit, door-to-door service is offered to disabled passengers. Durham Region Transit’s services include two bus routes that connect the Pickering site with the Pickering GO Station and the Pickering Town Centre respectively. In 2012, more than 10 million trips were taken using Durham Region Transit.  GO Transit: GO Transit is a provincial government agency that serves the City of Pickering and Durham Region by commuter train along the lakeshore corridor with stops at Pickering and Ajax. In addition, GO Transit operates a bus service along Regional Road 2 with a stop at the Pickering Town Centre.  Metrolinx: Created in 2006, Metrolinx is an agency of the provincial government. Metrolinx’ mandate is to improve the coordination and integration of all modes of transportation in the GTA and Hamilton. Its initiatives are guided by ‘The Big Move,’ which is a regional transportation plan that was adopted in 2008.

In ‘The Big Move,’ Downtown Pickering is designated as both a ‘Mobility Hub’ and an ‘Anchor Hub.’ Mobility Hubs are defined as “places of connectivity between regional and rapid transit services where different modes of transportation come together seamlessly.” The Anchor Hub of Pickering, which includes the Pickering GO Station and bus bays for Durham Transit, is under implementation and is planned to include integrated express rail, rapid transit and local bus service.

5.3 Airports Residents in Pickering and Durham Region currently have access to four airports:  Toronto Pearson Airport (YYZ): The primary international airport in the GTA, Toronto Pearson Airport, is located approximately 50 km west of Pickering. With more than 36 million passengers in 2013, Pearson is by far Canada’s main airport hub, and more than 30% of Canada’s air traffic travels through Pearson Airport.  Billy Bishop Airport (YTZ): More commonly known as the Toronto Island Airport, Billy Bishop is located on the Toronto Islands (about 40 km from Pickering). In recent years, air traffic at Billy Bishop has grown steadily, which has led to it now being Canada’s ninth busiest airport with more than 2 million passengers per year. The airport is used by civil aviation, air ambulances and regional airplanes using turboprop engines.  Oshawa Municipal Airport (YOO): The Oshawa Municipal Airport is the only full- service commercial and general aviation facility currently operating in Durham Region. It maintains two paved runways and boasts a new passenger terminal building, modern navigational aids, corporate and charter support facilities, and serviced land for business investment and development.  Buttonville Municipal Airport (YKZ): Located in Markham, the Buttonville Municipal Airport is a multi-service general aviation airport. Services at this airport include flight training, pilot supplies, aircraft services, and renting of hangar and office space.

6 Social Environment The Pickering nuclear site is located within the GTA, which is densely populated and famous for its large number of local communities with vastly different cultural and social conditions. For purposes of this baseline conditions study, the primary focus is on the communities that are closest to the site. The information in this section is based both on forecasted and actual numbers and, as such, it is recognized that the overview below contains some discrepancies.

6.1 Total Population According to the 2011 Census, the population of nearby communities was:  City of Pickering: 88,700 residents  Town of Ajax: 109,600 residents The population of the Region of Durham in 2011 was 608,100, which was approximately 4.7% of Ontario’s total population of 12,851,800. In 2013, according to the Region of Durham, the City of Pickering population had reached 94,510 residents.

6.2 Population Growth 1991-2011 Between 1991 and 2011, Pickering, Ajax and Durham Region as a whole grew considerably in terms of population. During those 20 years, Ajax nearly doubled its population (91%), whereas Pickering’s population growth of 29% was close to the overall growth in Ontario (27%).

Population Change From Pickering Ajax Durham Ontario 1991 to 2011 1991 68,631 57,350 409,070 10,084,885 78,989 64,430 458,616 10,753,573 1996 (+15.1%) (+12.3%) (+12.1%) (+6.6%) 87,139 73,753 506,901 11,410,046 2001 (+10.3%) (+14.5%) (+10.5%) (+6.1%) 87,838 90,167 561,258 12,160,282 2006 (+0.8%) (+22.3%) (+10.7%) (+6.6%) 88,721 109,600 608,124 12,851,821 2011 (+1.0%) (+21.6%) (+8.4%) (+5.7%) Total + 29.3% + 91.1% + 48.7% + 27.4%

Source: Census 1991-2011

In more recent years, Ajax’ population grew well above the regional and provincial average, with growth rates of more than 20% during the two most recent five-year periods (2001-2006 and 2006-2011). During the same 10 years, the City of Pickering saw a much more modest growth of around 1% every five years.

6.3 Population Forecast

Durham Over the next few decades, the population in Pickering Ajax Region Pickering and Durham is expected to 2011 110,085 111,355 643,980 increase substantially. By 2031, Durham 141,125 126,325 729,030 Region anticipates a growth of 49%. A large 2016 portion of that is expected to occur within (+28.2%) (+13.4%) (+13.2%) Pickering, which is anticipated to double in 177,915 132,325 809,990 2021 population by 2031 (105%), largely due to the (+26.1%) (+4.7%) (+11.1%) development of the Seaton community. Since 204,290 135,870 894,575 2026 the time that forecast was presented, the City (+14.8%) (+2.7%) (+10.4%) of Pickering has revised its forecast, and 225,670 137,670 960,000 according to the 2014 City of Pickering 2031 Detailed 20 Year Population Forecast, the (+10.5%) (+1.3%) (+7.3%) population is expected to be 165,358 in 2033. Total +105% +23.6% +49.1% 2011-2031 Source: Durham Regional Official Plan August 13, 2013 Consolidation

6.4 Population Structure According to the 2011 Census, the median age in Pickering is 40.7 years, which is close to the median age in both Durham Region (39.2 years) and Ontario (40.4 years). Like in Ontario as a whole, the most pronounced demographic feature in Pickering is the broader presence of the ‘baby boom’ (ages 45-64) and the ‘echo’ (ages 15-24), as shown in the figure below. In Pickering and Durham Region, the gap between these two generations (ages 25-44) is even more pronounced than the provincial average. The predominant age brackets in the City of Pickering are 10-24 and 45-59, which suggests a large number of families living in the community. The relatively low number of children ages 0-4, however, indicates that fewer new families have established in Pickering in recent years. Compared to the rest of the province, Pickering has, in relative terms, fewer seniors (age 65 and above).

Source: Census 2011

6.5 Education Residents in the areas surrounding the Pickering nuclear site are generally well educated, and compared to Durham Region and Ontario, the percentage of residents who have some form of post-secondary education is higher both in Pickering and Ajax. Examples of statistics (from the 2011 Census) with regards to education include:  In the City of Pickering, 14.4% of residents have a bachelor’s degree. This is above the Durham average (11.9%) and on par with the overall Ontario average (14.5%).  In addition, 7.3% of Pickering’s residents have some form of education above bachelor level, which also is above the regional average (5.6%) but below the provincial average (8.9%).

6.6 Economy and Labour Force Based on the 2011 National Household Survey, characteristics with regards to economy and labour force are as follows:  Income: Pickering and Ajax are relatively affluent communities with overall median incomes of $34,500 and $36,000 respectively (2010 income). These are comparable to the average median income in Durham ($35,000) but above the average in Ontario ($30,500). Another indication of the relative affluence of Pickering and Ajax is their percentage of high-income earners. In 2010, the percentage of the population (aged 15 and over) that had a total income of $60,000 or more was 25% in Pickering and 27% in Ajax. In the same year, the provincial average for that level of income was 22%. The percentage of the population in the highest income bracket ($100,000 and over) is also higher in Pickering (6.7%) and Ajax (7.0%) compared to Ontario (5.5%).  Prevalence of low income: Based on the after-tax low-income measure in 2010, Pickering and Ajax have slightly lower prevalence of low-income individuals than the regional average (8.8% in Pickering, 9.3% in Ajax and 9.9% in Durham Region). These are all significantly below the prevalence of low income in the province as a whole (13.9%).  Labour force status: The City of Pickering has a labour force of nearly 50,800 people, which amounts to an employment rate of 64%, whereas Ajax’ labour force and employment rate are 63,100 and 66.5%. The employment rates of both Pickering and Ajax are above the regional average (63%), as well as the provincial average (60%). The unemployment rate of Pickering and Ajax is 8.4% and 8.7% respectively, which is on par with average unemployment numbers in Durham (8.6%) and Ontario (8.3%).

 Labour force by industry: In 2011, the top industries in the City of Pickering by labour force were: o Retail trade (10.6%) o Finance and insurance (9.6%) o Healthcare and social assistance (8.8%) o Professional, scientific and technical services (7.8%) o Manufacturing (7.6%)

6.7 Employment Forecast

By 2031, the City of Pickering is expecting to have added 35,720 new jobs (+87%), which is significantly more than the regional Durham average (55%). Ajax, in the meantime, is Pickering Ajax Region anticipated to increase the number of jobs 2011 41,000 34,810 225,530 by 42%. 54,770 40,665 265,115 2016 To enable realization of these forecasts, a (+33.6%) (+16.8%) (+17.6%) large number of new commercial, 67,910 46,115 309,980 2021 industrial and office land uses will likely be (+24.0%) (+13.4%) (+16.9%) established over the coming years, in 73,590 48,575 332,915 2026 particular in Seaton and near Downtown (+8.4%) (+5.3%) (+7.4%) Pickering. As a key transit hub on the 76,720 49,290 350,000 2031 eastern edge of Toronto, Pickering has a (+4.3%) (+1.5%) (+5.1%) lot to offer businesses that are looking to Total +87.1% +41.6% +55.2% locate within the GTA. 2011-2031 Source: Durham Regional Official Plan August 13, 2013 Consolidation

Attachment B – Overview of Municipal and Regional Policies

This page intentionally left blank.

Overview of Municipal and Regional Policies

In assessing the baseline conditions for Repurposing Pickering, a review of municipal and regional policy documents was undertaken to identify key policies that would be relevant to consider in exploring the possibilities for future land uses on the site. On the following pages, an overview is provided of the key policies identified in that review. The policies of municipal and regional governments are mainly expressed through the enactment of official vision and planning documents. The identification of key policies was therefore done by: (a) reviewing documents that are most likely to contain policies that pertain to repurposing; and (b) capturing policies within those documents that might be of particular relevance to Ontario Power Generation (OPG) in making its decision on a repurposing solution. While this initial policy review provides important context for repurposing, government officials will be consulted as part of the stakeholder engagement activities and will be given the opportunity to comment on and contribute to the project’s understanding of the baseline conditions for Repurposing Pickering.

Description of Municipal and Regional Policies Current policies of the City of Pickering and the Municipal Region of Durham were developed prior to OPG’s announcement to shut down the Pickering reactors. As such, official policies that specifically address the repurposing of Pickering have not yet been developed. Even so, existing policies can provide guidance to OPG on the type of policy content that is to be anticipated. It is recognized that the City of Pickering has initiated a study regarding the impacts of Pickering shut down on the local economy and employment. At the time of performing this policy review, that study had not yet resulted in policies. However, any impact that study may have on Repurposing Pickering is assumed to be captured as part of the external stakeholder consultations.

Municipal and Regional Policy Documents The two primary documents that will help guide selection of new land uses for the Pickering nuclear site are the Official Plans of the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham respectively. Official Plans are governed by the Planning Act and are, as such, required to be revised every five years. The time horizon in the Official Plans that currently are in effect in Pickering and Durham Region stretches out to 2031.

Some further information regarding the two Official Plans is as follows: Pickering Official Plan (2010 Consolidation): This Official Plan provides a vision in order to guide development in the City of Pickering, and to establish a foundation and direction for how that vision can be achieved. It is the primary document that lays out the official municipal development policies. As a ‘lower-tier municipality,’ the Pickering Official Plan must fit within and conform to the Durham Regional Official Plan. The Pickering Official Plan consists of a combination of Official Plan policies and secondary statements, where the secondary statements provide background and contextual information to help clarify Official Plan policy. Even though the time horizon is in decades, municipal policies are meant to be flexible and adaptive. Significant changes can therefore occur also between scheduled reviews (through Official Plan Amendments). Durham Regional Official Plan (August 2013 Consolidation): This Official Plan is aligned with the Durham Region Strategic Plan (see below) and enacts policy in support of the Strategic Plan’s goals and objectives. The Durham Regional Official Plan provides policy in a number of key areas for the community, including environment; economic development; housing; cultural, health and community facilities and infrastructure; and finance. It also expresses structural policies for the various types of settlement within Durham Region, such as urban areas, rural settlements, employment areas, agricultural areas, green space and others. The following policy documents are also of relevance for Repurposing Pickering: Growing Together: Durham Region Strategic Plan 2009-2014: This policy document provides a vision, a mission statement, an expression of goals and guidance for implementation of the Durham Region’s objectives for future development. The focus of the Strategic Plan is to move Durham Region toward greater economic prosperity, while carefully establishing goals that maintain balance between growth and sustainable development. Downtown Pickering: A Vision for Intensification and Framework for Investment5: This policy document provides a framework for intensification, investment and growth management in Downtown Pickering to 2031 and beyond. The vision was developed through engagement with stakeholders and the general public in a consultation program. Since this policy document is specific to Downtown Pickering it does not directly address the lands on or immediately adjacent to the Pickering nuclear site. Even so, the vision and goals set out in this document are of relevance to the site, as it provides contextual understanding of future development in the City.

5 Pickering City Council reviewed the Downtown Pickering report as an Official Plan Amendment Application (OPA 14-001/P) and officially adopted it as policy through Official Plan Amendment 26 on July 7, 2014.

In addition to the above, the Central Pickering Development Plan was reviewed but found not to contain any policy statements directly relevant to the Pickering nuclear site. Indirectly, this policy document may still affect repurposing, since it directs urban development in Seaton (and hence may result in less pressure for residential intensification on and near the site). Also worth noting are the aggressive employment forecasts expressed in this policy document.

Policies Relevant to Repurposing Pickering As mentioned above, current policies were developed prior to OPG’s announcement to shut down the Pickering reactors. As expected, the reviewed policy documents are therefore notably sparse with regard to specific content that relates to the Pickering site and adjacent lands. After review of the relevant vision and planning documents, a number of (mainly general) policy statements were noted as potentially pertinent to Repurposing Pickering. When taken together, the following were concluded to be the main points for consideration at this early stage: 1. Although not specific to the Pickering nuclear site, the policies give clear direction in many key areas, such as waterfront uses, employment lands and transportation. 2. Current policy documents express a general desire for new economic opportunities. Employment areas that will host a variety of industrial and commercial land uses are encouraged. 3. The Durham Region Strategic Plan expresses the economic goal of advancing Durham as the “energy capital of Ontario.” The Durham Regional Official Plan points to OPG as a provider of new energy generation. Policies require a new generating facility to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. 4. Policies support the attraction of complementary new land uses that can leverage the infrastructure and/or institutional knowledge of OPG’s employees. 5. The Durham Regional Official Plan supports the establishment of a district heating system. 6. The Downtown Pickering development plans need to be considered. This includes exploring beneficial synergies between repurposing of the Pickering nuclear site and the City of Pickering’s development of the core area south of Highway 401. 7. As they stand today, the policies allow for the repurposed site being associated with innovation and creativity. 8. The policies express potential for supporting improved transit options. The Downtown Pickering vision document suggests the creation of a ‘Kingston-Bayly Connector’ that would run north-south along the western edge of the hydro corridor. 9. Current policies suggest that consideration should be given to improving access and conditions on the waterfront trail that runs directly adjacent to the Pickering nuclear site. Establishing new recreational spaces by the waterfront is also encouraged.

10. The mitigation of contaminated sites will be required prior to the release of any OPG lands for repurposing. The policies set out expectations for approval requirements at the level of the Environmental Protection Act. 11. The Official Plans of both Pickering and Durham stress the importance of public and stakeholder consultation in decision making. When viewed through this policy, it would therefore be expected that the decision-making process for Repurposing Pickering will involve members of the public, business representatives, landowners, relevant public agencies, and other interested groups and individuals. 12. Having been recently approved by Pickering Council, the Durham Live development has a number of implications in regards to potential repurposing options.

Potential Evolution of Municipal and Regional Policies Given the long timelines associated with nuclear decommissioning, policy in both Pickering and Durham is expected to shift considerably over the lifetime of Repurposing Pickering – in particular in light of the aggressive growth projections. The general direction that municipal and regional policy is expected to take, however, includes: 1. Generally placing greater emphasis on community renewal and intensification, as the City of Pickering and Region of Durham age. 2. Emphasizing regeneration of industrial areas and renewal of aged housing, institutions and infrastructure. 3. More strongly encouraging corridors and transportation infrastructure. 4. Placing a premium on lands that support growth within the GTA (such as water supply and wastewater infrastructure lands). 5. Placing a premium on waterfront lands.

Attachment C – Identification of Opportunities

This page intentionally left blank.

Identification of Opportunities

As part of the decision-making process to determine beneficial uses for the Pickering nuclear site after end of commercial operations, potential opportunities first need to be identified. The resulting list of opportunities will subsequently feed into the screening and assessment framework that forms the foundation for Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG’s) decisions with regards to the site’s future uses. To ensure that the list of opportunities is as comprehensive as possible, ideas for future uses are generated by capturing input from:  OPG  International experience in decommissioning and repurposing of nuclear sites (including examples from Germany, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States)  Redevelopment of non-nuclear brownfield sites in Ontario  Project team  Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)  Pickering Community Advisory Council (CAC), other stakeholders and the public In this first step of the decision-making process, it is important to note that any idea can be put forth as an opportunity for consideration. That is, all ideas are ‘on the table’ at this time – whether viable in practice or not (since screening for viability will be done as the next step). It is also worth noting that the opportunities do not need to be permanent and do not need to use all of the available area on the site. Valid options may be temporary (possible for a limited period of time) or may be possible to implement on a specific portion of the site, leaving the balance available for other options. Once all input has been captured, opportunities will be grouped and defined to enable evaluation. As part of the subsequent steps of the decision-making process, combinations of opportunities – including new uses and reuses – will also be assessed in order to maximize the benefits to both OPG and the surrounding communities. In the appendices that follow, all opportunities that were identified in the first step of the decision-making process have been compiled. The opportunities are listed and labelled in accordance with the information channel through which they were received. The land use category for the respective opportunity is also noted.

Appendices

Input to the identification of opportunities was received via four primary information channels:  Appendix A – Desktop Study: This appendix lists opportunities identified in a desktop study, which was conducted by capturing experience and input from: 1) OPG staff; 2) repurposed international nuclear sites; 3) redeveloped brownfield sites in Ontario; and 4) the consultant team.  Appendix B – Comment Cards: This appendix lists opportunities noted on comment cards at the public consultation events that took place in the spring of 2015. For further details on these events, see Appendix D.  Appendix C – Emails: This appendix lists the opportunities that were received via emails sent to [email protected] between mid-March and mid-October 2015. Input received via other OPG addresses or Twitter during the same time period is also documented in this appendix.  Appendix D – Meeting Notes: This appendix lists the opportunities that were identified through brainstorming sessions with the TAC, CAC and OPG employees during the winter and spring of 2015, as well as opportunities documented in notes from the public consultation events. After the opportunities list, this appendix also includes the meeting notes from the public and stakeholder engagement activities that were conducted as part of this study. It is recognized that the notes from the pop up booth sessions and open house take into account information received via comment cards; as such, the opportunities listed in Appendix D overlap to some extent with those listed in Appendix B. Since the opportunities subsequently will feed into the screening and assessment framework, only suggestions that express ideas for specific new uses or reuses are listed. That is, although suggestions such as selling lands or changing decommissioning strategy may still be considered by OPG – they are, for purposes of identifying specific land uses for assessment, viewed as not applicable. Suggestions that relate to land use but are too general to be assigned to a category are indicated as ‘Other.’ When a suggestion entails a combination of categories, this has been indicated as ‘Mixed Use.’ Each identified opportunity is labelled with a unique identification number, which starts with a two-letter abbreviation as follows:  DS = Desktop study  CC = Comment cards  EM = Emails  MN = Meeting notes

Appendix A – Desktop Study

ID Opportunity Land Use Category DS-1 Gas turbines Power DS-2 CANDU advanced fuel cycle reactors Power DS-3 Generation III+/IV reactors Power DS-4 Non-CANDU advanced fuel cycle reactors Power DS-5 Small modular reactors Power DS-6 Solar facility Power DS-7 Wind facility Power DS-8 Synchronous condensers Power DS-9 Multi-purpose nuclear research Institutional DS-10 Nuclear training facility Institutional DS-11 Research park (non-nuclear) Institutional DS-12 Fuel reprocessing Industrial DS-13 Hot cells (nuclear materials handling) Industrial DS-14 Industrial waste storage and processing (non-nuclear) Industrial DS-15 Isotope production (non-nuclear process) Industrial DS-16 Isotope production (nuclear process) Industrial DS-17 Manufacturing facilities Industrial DS-18 Nuclear waste storage and processing (low- and intermediate- Industrial level waste) DS-19 Used fuel storage and processing (high-level waste) Industrial DS-20 Warehouses Industrial DS-21 Entertainment Recreational DS-22 Offices Office DS-23 Retail Retail DS-24 Sports venues Recreational DS-25 Theatres Recreational DS-26 College campus Institutional DS-27 Government Institutional DS-28 Hospital Institutional DS-29 Museum Institutional DS-30 Naval base Institutional DS-31 Nursing home Institutional DS-32 Boardwalk Recreational DS-33 Natural reserve Recreational DS-34 Park Recreational

ID Opportunity Land Use Category DS-35 High-density residential Residential DS-36 Medium-density residential Residential DS-37 Marina Recreational DS-38 Port Industrial DS-39 Co-generation plant Power DS-40 Natural gas power plant Power DS-41 Small modular reactors Power DS-42 Solar power Power DS-43 Wind power Power DS-44 Decommissioning centre of excellence (demonstration facilities, Institutional research areas and training facilities, etc.) DS-45 Energy technology demonstration Power DS-46 Manufacturing facilities Industrial DS-47 Nuclear waste storage and processing (low- and intermediate- Industrial level waste) DS-48 Used fuel storage and processing (high-level waste) Industrial DS-49 Warehouses Industrial DS-50 Offices Office DS-51 Restaurants Recreational DS-52 Police station Institutional DS-53 Science museum Institutional DS-54 Security services Institutional DS-55 Water purification Industrial DS-56 Beaches Recreational DS-57 Greenfield Recreational DS-58 Nature preserve Recreational DS-59 Medium-rise housing Residential DS-60 Harbour (commercial) Industrial DS-61 Marina (private use) Recreational DS-62 Natural gas power plant Power DS-63 Cross-dock logistics facility Industrial DS-64 Service centre (Toronto Hydro) Industrial DS-65 Warehouses Industrial DS-66 Conference centre Industrial DS-67 Offices Office DS-68 Performing arts and entertainment centre Recreational DS-69 Retail Retail

ID Opportunity Land Use Category DS-70 Sports complex Recreational DS-71 Community centre Institutional DS-72 Long-term care facility Institutional DS-73 Post-secondary education facility Institutional DS-74 Regional emergency training facility Institutional DS-75 Schools Institutional DS-76 Green space Recreational DS-77 Park Recreational DS-78 Waterfront Recreational DS-79 Affordable housing Residential DS-80 Athletes village (temporary) Recreational DS-81 Condo towers Residential DS-82 Retirement community Residential DS-83 Student residence Residential DS-84 Subdivision Residential DS-85 Townhouses Residential DS-86 YMCA Recreational DS-87 Marina Recreational DS-88 Parking Other DS-89 Renewable energy park (using various energy sources) Power DS-90 Energy storage facility Power DS-91 Cyclotron Institutional DS-92 Decommissioning centre of excellence Institutional DS-93 Green energy centre Power DS-94 Radiopharmaceutical research (medical isotopes) Institutional DS-95 Testing facility (e.g., for general energy testing and/or smart grid Power testing) DS-96 General research centre (e.g., biotechnology, robotics, and Institutional information and communications technology) DS-97 Deep lake water cooling Industrial DS-98 District cooling/heating Industrial DS-99 Geothermal energy Power DS-100 Large structure fabrication and/or assembly Industrial DS-101 Telecommunications infrastructure/data centre Industrial DS-102 Train rail yard Industrial DS-103 Business support services Industrial DS-104 Hotel Recreational

ID Opportunity Land Use Category DS-105 Movie studios Industrial DS-106 Simulation/training Institutional DS-107 Agriculture Industrial DS-108 Cultural facility Recreational DS-109 Community gardens/bee hives Recreational DS-110 Golf course Recreational DS-111 Wetland reserve Recreational DS-112 Ferry terminal Industrial DS-113 Relates to an idea for repurposing of the hydro corridor, which is N/A outside the Repurposing Pickering study area. DS-114 Port Industrial DS-115 Transportation depot (including bus and rail) Industrial DS-116 Relates to a general reference to the hydro corridor, which is N/A outside the Repurposing Pickering study area.

Appendix B – Comment Cards

ID Opportunity Land Use Category CC-1a Water treatment Industrial CC-1b Fisheries research/hatchery Institutional CC-1c Adventure park Recreational CC-1d Aquaculture on the water lots Industrial CC-2 No specific repurposed use noted. N/A CC-3 Urban park Recreational CC-4 Affordable housing/good townhouses cheap Residential CC-5 No specific repurposed use noted. N/A CC-6 Windmills (three on top of each other) Power CC-7 Decommissioning university Institutional CC-8a Nuclear station Power CC-8b Refurbish Pickering Power CC-8c Small modular reactors Power CC-8d Waterfront walkway and parkland Recreational CC-8e Solar panels Power CC-9a New nuclear generation (e.g., small modular reactors) Power CC-9b Parkland Recreational CC-9c Waterfront trail along lake (public access) Recreational CC-9d ‘Clean’ employment use (high tech/jobs/office buildings) Office CC-9e Continued operation of the Pickering nuclear plant Power CC-10 Novel energy storage systems (that can replace the lost Power generation) CC-11a University/college campus Institutional CC-11b Power options Power CC-12a Paintball park (indoor, outdoor) Recreational CC-12b Water treatment for lake water Industrial CC-12c Fishery/hatchery with water lot Industrial CC-12d Vertical farm test site Industrial CC-13 Fast neutron reactor and fuel reprocessing facility Power CC-14 Race track Recreational CC-15 Modular nuclear generating stations Power CC-16a Restaurants, cafes Recreational CC-16b Playgrounds Recreational CC-16c Park Recreational CC-16d Youth Rec Centre Recreational

ID Opportunity Land Use Category CC-17 Trees Recreational CC-18a Nice parks Recreational CC-18b Entertainment areas Recreational CC-18c Soccer fields Recreational CC-19 Dirt bike track for local riders Recreational CC-20a Swimming pool Recreational CC-20b Water theme park for kids (such as the one at the zoo) Recreational CC-21 No specific repurposed use noted. N/A CC-22a Waterfront park Recreational CC-22b Waterfront trail (from Ajax to Frenchman’s Bay) Recreational CC-22c Beach and marine habitat along the shore Recreational CC-22d Boat launch Recreational CC-22e Use plants (such as Boston ivy) to improve look of plant Other CC-23a Waterfront and trail Recreational CC-23b Natural areas (planning zones 7 and 8) Recreational CC-23c Museum (planning zone 3) Institutional CC-23d Condos (planning zone 4) Residential CC-23e Make part of a waterfront restoration project (planning zones 5 Recreational and 6) CC-23f Retain parkland and sports fields as is (planning zones 1 and 2). Recreational CC-24a Golf course Recreational CC-24b Baseball fields Recreational CC-25 Condominiums/residential Residential CC-26 No specific repurposed use noted. N/A CC-27a Shopkins theme park (for kids) Recreational CC-27b Shopkins-themed hotel Recreational CC-27c Shopkins store Retail CC-28 International Centre of Excellence for nuclear decommissioning Institutional CC-29 Renewable energy (solar and wind) Power CC-30 Government service centre (federal or provincial) Institutional CC-31 No specific repurposed use noted. N/A CC-32a Wind turbines (two or three more) Power CC-32b Amphitheatre Recreational CC-32c Park Recreational CC-33 Energy storage (using the vacuum building and reactor buildings Power to store compressed air) CC-34a Expand marina lands Recreational

ID Opportunity Land Use Category CC-34b Large park space Recreational CC-34c Power generation Power CC-35a Recreation Recreational CC-35b Water taxis Industrial CC-36a Hospital Institutional CC-36b Mall Retail CC-36c Hotels Recreational CC-36d Buildings Other CC-37a Amusement park (such as Wonderland or Marineland) Recreational CC-37b Water creatures Recreational CC-38 Amusement park (similar to Wonderland) Recreational CC-39a Casino Recreational CC-39b Ontario entertainment city Recreational CC-40 No specific repurposed use noted. N/A CC-41 No specific repurposed use noted. N/A CC-42a Casino Recreational CC-42b Centre of Excellence Institutional CC-43 No specific repurposed use noted. N/A CC-44 Park area with waterfront access Recreational CC-45 No specific repurposed use noted. N/A CC-46a Small modular reactors Power CC-46b Power production or other power-related use Power CC-47 No specific repurposed use noted. N/A CC-48a Parkland Recreational CC-48b Waterfront development (for public use) Recreational CC-49a Botanical garden (as an indoor/outdoor park) Recreational CC-49b School of horticulture Institutional CC-50a University Institutional CC-50b Green space Recreational CC-51 Park Recreational CC-52a Another electric company Power CC-52b Gondolas (to downtown) Industrial CC-52c Ferry that takes cars downtown Industrial CC-53a Natural areas Recreational CC-53b Waterfront trails Recreational CC-53c Sports facilities Recreational CC-53d Industrial uses Industrial

ID Opportunity Land Use Category CC-53e Educational campus Institutional CC-53f Research Institutional CC-53g Medical facilities (but not necessarily a hospital) Institutional CC-54 No specific repurposed use noted. N/A CC-55a Reuse waterfront area for public uses Recreational CC-55b Reusing turbine hall for alternative industrial uses Industrial CC-55c Performance space (in the turbine hall) Recreational CC-55d Film studio/site (in the turbine hall) Industrial CC-56a Alternative/renewable energy Power CC-56b Mixed use (employment, residential and recreation) Mixed Use CC-56c Nuclear education and decommissioning training Institutional

Appendix C – Emails

ID Opportunity Land Use Category EM-1a Museum Institutional EM-1b Public tours Institutional EM-1c Educational tours (for high school, college and university Institutional students) EM-1d Leasing out to movie makers Industrial EM-2 New nuclear reactors Power EM-3 No specific repurposed use noted. N/A EM-4 Gas fired power plant Power EM-5a Fitness and recreation facility Recreational EM-5b Large meeting room (for at least 100 people) for rent at a Industrial reasonable cost (for non-profit societies or organizations) EM-6 Nuclear medical isotope production Industrial EM-7 No specific repurposed use noted. N/A EM-8 Molten salt reactor Power EM-9a Terminal for HVDC link to New York State Power EM-9b Power plant (for peaks) Power EM-9c Pickering Advanced Recycling Project (PARC) Power EM-9d Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR) Power EM-10a Solar farm (on top of the buildings in the parking lot) Power EM-10b Wind turbines (off-shore) Power EM-11a Biomass thermal steam plant Power EM-11b Natural gas thermal steam plant Power EM-12 Small modular reactor (commercial prototype) Power EM-13 Continued power production (such as conversion to biomass or Power natural gas) EM-14a Enhanced CANDU-6 (EC6) reactor units (four) Power EM-14b Electrical energy storage Power EM-15 Mega transformer station Power EM-16 Pickering Advanced Recycling Project (PARC) Power EM-17a Refurbish existing plant Power EM-17b New nuclear power plant Power EM-17c Waterfront trail (joining the trails east and west of the plant) Recreational EM-17d Marine and fisheries habitat (including spawning habitat) Recreational EM-17e Boat launch (public) Recreational EM-17f Naturalize look of the plant (by planting Boston ivy or other Other climbing plants)

ID Opportunity Land Use Category EM-17g Vegetation (including threatened and endangered species, such Recreational as butternut trees, and/or to support wildlife, such as milkweed for monarch butterflies) EM-17h Beach front (extending the local beaches to where the existing Recreational plant is located) EM-18a Casino Recreational EM-18b Hotel Recreational EM-18c Amusement park Recreational EM-18d Marina Recreational EM-19a New nuclear plant(s) Power EM-19b Nuclear fusion plant (importing technology from France) Power EM-19c Solar power (as an add-on) Power EM-19d Biomass power Power EM-20a Casino on the lake Recreational EM-20b Restaurants Recreational EM-20c Lounges Recreational EM-20d Cafe Recreational EM-20e Board walks/incorporating green spaces Recreational EM-21a Marina/yacht club complex Recreational EM-21b Winter boat storage and repair shops Industrial EM-21c Pedestrian/cycle trail (to existing neighbouring boating facilities) Recreational EM-21d Restaurants Recreational EM-21e Retail stores/marine supply stores Retail EM-22 New nuclear reactors Power EM-23a Solar plant Power EM-23b Wind plant Power EM-23c Natural area Recreational EM-24a Bike trails Recreational EM-24b Dog gathering park Recreational EM-24c Transformation of water ways into dock for water taxis and sail Recreational boats (for commercial and recreational use) EM-25 Continue to operate the existing plant Power EM-26a Houses Residential EM-26b Park with biking trails Recreational EM-27 Multi-unit wind farm Power EM-28 Public beach with a grass park along its length Recreational EM-29 New CANDU6E units Power EM-30a New nuclear units Power

ID Opportunity Land Use Category EM-30b Rotating condensers Power EM-31 No specific repurposed use noted. N/A EM-32 Thorium reactor generating station Power EM-33a Community park with greeneries, walking trails and bike trails Recreational EM-33b Fishing area Recreational EM-33c Boating area Recreational EM-33d ‘Adopt-a-veg-farm’ (including stalls to sell the harvests) Industrial EM-33e Boardwalk Recreational EM-33f Fast food/eateries/restaurants (overlooking the expanse of the Recreational site) EM-33g Information centre that features the history of the plant, including Institutional a movie and mock-up of plant EM-34 Nuclear new build Power EM-35 State-of-the-art coal fired station Power EM-36 Waste management facility (for Pickering decommissioning Industrial waste and waste from Darlington, instead of shipping to Bruce County) EM-37a Industrial museum Institutional EM-37b Hands-on training (used by technical schools, trade schools and Institutional universities) EM-38 Continue to operate the Pickering Learning Centre (for the Institutional Darlington simulator) EM-39 Energy production from bio waste (through conversion of reactor Power buildings) EM-40 Laboratory for environmental type analysis Industrial EM-41 Marina Recreational EM-42a Warehousing facilities Industrial EM-42b Port (very large) Industrial EM-42c Canada Customs office Institutional EM-42d Contracting out existing services (such as chemistry/technical, Industrial mechanical, business consulting and administrative services) EM-42e Helipad (for commuting to Pearson or Toronto Island airport) Industrial EM-42f Reusing turbine hall as warehouse Industrial EM-42g Retrofitting turbine hall with steel processing equipment Industrial EM-43 Not applicable (repeat of ideas in EM-42). N/A EM-44 Golf course Recreational EM-45 Nuclear museum (interactive) Institutional EM-46 Coal fired generating plant (with cutting-edge emissions Power technology)

ID Opportunity Land Use Category EM-47 Museum (about the Pickering plant) Institutional EM-48 Nuclear museum (in the Pickering Learning Centre, including Institutional using the simulators) EM-49 Relocate OPG departments and facilities currently located in Industrial Whitby to Pickering EM-50 Solar generating station (using the existing roof space) Power EM-51 Nuclear training facility (including training for Darlington Institutional refurbishment) EM-52 Federal or provincial maximum security prison (reusing existing Institutional fence and other infrastructure) EM-53 Movie/TV show shooting location Industrial EM-54a Gas plant Power EM-54b Refurbish existing reactors Power EM-55a Mechanical shops (in nuclear environment) for maintenance and Industrial repairs of parts from other nuclear stations (such as for nuclear relief valve steam testing) EM-55b Training facility (in nuclear environment) Institutional EM-55c Radio-isotope storage Industrial EM-55d Tritium removal facility Industrial EM-55e Gas turbine (using current infrastructure) Power EM-55f Sports facilities (expansion of existing) Recreational EM-55g Converting the Pickering Learning Centre into a community Institutional support building (e.g., community centre or library) EM-56a Resort-like facilities (in the brown field) combined with canoe, Recreational kayak and dragon boat facilities EM-56b Nuclear and science museum/information centre, which includes Institutional hands-on experience (housed in the existing nuclear facility) EM-57a Centre of Excellence, specializing in renewable energy (nuclear, Power wind, solar, micro grids, energy storage, etc.) to develop prototypes, and products and services to market EM-57b Museum (for educational purposes and with interactive displays) Institutional EM-58a OPG Hall of Fame/Museum (that displays custom-made and Institutional advanced station equipment/machinery and includes holographic/3D presentations of nuclear fission and engineering fundamentals) EM-58b Gym (state-of-the-art facilities for both the community and OPG Recreational personnel) EM-58c Training facility (for all OPG personnel) Institutional EM-59a Oil from algae/gas turbine generation (from processing of Power sewer/garbage) EM-59b Green space Recreational

ID Opportunity Land Use Category EM-60a Nuclear fusion research reactor Power EM-60b Solar/wind farm Power EM-60c Large-scale 3D printing factory Industrial EM-61a Expansion of public information (regarding nuclear power and Institutional Pickering’s nuclear legacy, as well as promotion of electrical vehicles) EM-61b Electrical energy research Power EM-61c Solar panels Power EM-62 Continue to generate power (whether from gas, biomass, etc.) Power EM-63 No specific repurposed use noted. N/A EM-64a Small nuclear reactors Power EM-64b Medical isotope producing reactors Industrial EM-65 New reactors (on the north side of the turbines), reusing existing Power infrastructure EM-66a Paintball Recreational EM-66b Training ground (for security, police and military) Institutional EM-67 Nuclear museum Institutional EM-68 Growing medical marijuana Industrial EM-69 Development of new techniques for destructive and non- Institutional destructive examination with regards to aging concrete and steel (in particular, making use of the vacuum building structure for this purpose) EM-70a Electricity generation (nuclear, gas, renewable) Power EM-70b District heating/cooling Industrial EM-71 Medical radio-isotope manufacturing Industrial EM-72a Large solar power fleet (on top of buildings that must remain Power during safe storage) EM-72b Open grassland (on parking lot area) Recreational EM-72c NHL-size arena (for concerts and potentially a second NHL team Recreational in Toronto) EM-72d Marina with condominiums Mixed Use EM-72e Tours for the public of shutdown nuclear plant Institutional EM-73 Leasing of the entire asset Other EM-74a Wind farm Power EM-74b Solar panels Power EM-75a Retrofit existing reactors as breeder reactors, thorium reactors or Power recycled fuel reactors EM-75b Continue to operate units 1 and 4 beyond 2020 (by Power supplementing the Site Electrical Supply)

ID Opportunity Land Use Category EM-76 Public communications displays on the history of Ontario Institutional Hydro/OPG in the community (to be located on the landfill ‘hill,’ overlooking the site) EM-77 No specific repurposed use noted. N/A EM-78a Paintball Recreational EM-78b Security training facility (within the plant, using either rubber Institutional bullets or paintball) EM-79 Combined cycle power plant, powered by natural gas or liquid Power fuel (taking advantage of existing switchyard and conventional portion of the existing units) EM-80a Nuclear museum (through modification of one of the units) Institutional EM-80b Nuclear-industry education Institutional EM-80c Facility in memory of the efforts and sacrifice of the thousands Institutional who worked at the plant EM-81 Power generation from burning garbage Power EM-82a School (by converting existing buildings) Institutional EM-82b Community-based businesses Retail EM-83 Theme park Recreational EM-84 Natural gas generating units (reusing existing infrastructure) Power EM-85 Reactive power compensation (possibly by reusing the relatively Power new Automatic Voltage Regulators on Pickering 058) EM-86 Large recreational centre, with hockey, lacrosse and track area Recreational (outdoors) and a weight facility and basketball courts (indoors) EM-87a Solar farm Power EM-87b Combined cycle natural gas plant Power EM-87c Medical isotope production and research reactor (by converting Industrial one or more of the existing reactors) EM-87d Advanced nuclear research (related to materials testing, CANDU Institutional design training, refurbishment planning, etc.) EM-88 Power production by burning garbage Power EM-89a Nuclear research facility (for private companies and research Institutional departments) EM-89b Conversion of existing plant into a commercial thorium power Power plant EM-89c Central laser power beaming station (for development of Power wireless power transmission to full-scale commercial use) EM-90 Energy storage (placing the rotor of the flywheel in the vacuum Power building) EM-91 Ontario hub for electrical system innovation and electrification of Power transport services (combination of revenue generating businesses, research and enhanced community access)

ID Opportunity Land Use Category EM-92a Solar farm Power EM-92b Electricity storage (to meet GTA peak loads) Power EM-93 Experimental facility for the nuclear industry (using existing Institutional structures and systems) to conduct experiments related to nuclear safety EM-94 Natural gas plant (retaining existing turbines) Power EM-95a Gas fired power plant (north of the powerhouse or south of the Power reactor buildings), reusing existing equipment, including the turbines EM-95b Industrial park Industrial EM-95c Amusement park Recreational EM-96 Life extension of existing plant Power EM-97 OPG’s new headquarters Office EM-98 Natural gas power generation (located just north of the turbine Power hall) EM-99a Gas generator units Power EM-99b University (specializing in nuclear industry research and Institutional development) EM-99c Science museum and tours of reactor building Institutional EM-100 Public information centre (continued use of) Institutional EM-101a Refurbishment or life extension of existing plant Power EM-101b Small modular reactors Power EM-102a Advanced reactor test facility (including renting space to other Power organizations) EM-102b Training (using existing unit(s)) Institutional EM-102c Medical isotope production (using existing unit(s)) Industrial EM-102d Transmutation of existing used fuel stockpiles (to convert long- Industrial lived waste products into compounds with shorter half-lives) EM-103 Consolidated location for OPG’s Inspection & Maintenance Industrial Services (IMS) EM-104 Natural gas fired power station Power EM-105a Retain or expand the information centre (or provide other Industrial facilities) as space for non-profit and other organizations to hold meetings, seminars and training courses EM-105b Rescue vessel base (including observation post and dock) for Institutional the Pickering Auxiliary Rescue Association (PARA) EM-106 Power production from waste incineration Power EM-107 Training (using existing buildings) of security officers Institutional EM-108a National historic site/nuclear museum Institutional EM-108b Co-generation or other eco-friendly power production Power

ID Opportunity Land Use Category EM-109a Casino (including restaurants, shows and shopping) Recreational EM-109b Nuclear information centre (dedicated to the history of the site) Institutional EM-110a Solar power Power EM-110b Maintain and enhance natural habitats for wildlife (both in water Recreational bodies and on land) EM-110c Public nature trails Recreational EM-110d Combined library and nature education centre (including Institutional educational tools for green energy and conservation, and nature preservation) EM-110e Cafes or restaurants (small scale) Recreational EM-111 No specific repurposed use noted. N/A EM-112 Radioactive storage facility (including in fuelling ducts and Industrial vacuum building) EM-113 Hydrogen power plant Power EM-114 Energy storage Power EM-115 No specific repurposed use noted. N/A EM-116a Small-scale, novel nuclear power generation technologies Power EM-116b Nuclear disaster training Institutional EM-116c Used fuel reprocessing Industrial EM-117 Large nuclear power plant Power EM-118 Sports stadium Recreational EM-119 Studios and displays for art and music Institutional EM-120a Recreation Recreational EM-120b Housing Residential EM-120c Naturalized areas Recreational EM-121 HVDC link Power EM-122a Waterpark Recreational EM-122b District energy centre/solar energy centre Power EM-122c Alternative energy source Power EM-122d Nuclear training facility Institutional EM-122e Nuclear laboratory research and training Institutional EM-122f Marina Recreational EM-122g Movie set Industrial EM-122h Return back to nature Recreational EM-122i Wind power Power EM-122j Natural gas generation station Power EM-122k Park Recreational EM-122l Education Institutional

ID Opportunity Land Use Category EM-122m Museum Institutional EM-122n Small modular reactors Power EM-123a Off-season boat storage Industrial EM-123b Storage for the Pickering Auxiliary Rescue Association (PARA) Industrial EM-124a Clean port Industrial EM-124b Global Life Centre for Cleantech Mixed Use EM-125a Natural gas power plant Power EM-125b Greenhouse operations Industrial EM-125c Renewable energy systems Power EM-125d Employment and training Institutional EM-125e Research and development Institutional

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix D – Meeting Notes

ID Opportunity Land Use Category MN-1 MN-1 contains meeting notes from a kick-off meeting with the N/A TAC; this meeting did not include a brainstorming session, and is, as such, not applicable for identification of opportunities. MN-2a No specific repurposed use noted. N/A MN-2b Non-generation nuclear uses (such as medical isotope Industrial production) MN-2c Other large industrial and power generation uses (leverage the Power existing infrastructure on the site) MN-2d No specific repurposed use noted. N/A MN-2e Community recreational facilities and social spaces Recreational MN-2f Cutting-edge research Institutional MN-2g Continuous waterfront access along the lake Recreational MN-2h Continue recreational use of Kinsmen Park or locate facilities Recreational elsewhere MN-2i Maintain heritage of energy innovation (and adapt to the new Power energy economy) MN-2j Mixed use neighbourhood with a potential for some nightlife Mixed Use MN-2k Lease out the lands for use and remain a ‘landlord’ Other MN-2l Healthcare infrastructure (such as, homecare and hospices) Institutional MN-2m Education and training opportunities (such as, college or Institutional university campus) MN-2n Efficient energy generation systems Power MN-2o District energy system Power MN-2p Clean port Industrial MN-2q Community centre Institutional MN-2r Arts centre Recreational MN-2s Sports fields Recreational MN-2t Global centre of excellence for decommissioning Institutional MN-2u Recreational green spaces along the waterfront Recreational MN-2v Research park geared toward renewable energy, sustainability Institutional and climate change MN-2x Research park for advanced manufacturing technologies Institutional (robotics) MN-2y Commercial harbour Industrial MN-2z Recreational marina (expansion from Frenchman’s Bay) Recreational MN-3a Power generation (as an overall scenario) Power MN-3b Large-scale power generation Power

ID Opportunity Land Use Category MN-3c Converter station Power MN-3d Durham College/UOIT campus Institutional MN-3e No specific repurposed use noted. N/A MN-3f Wastewater treatment plant (expansion of the Duffin Creek Industrial Water Pollution Control Plant) MN-3g Power generation using biogas (from the Duffin Creek Water Power Pollution Control Plant) MN-3h Improving public access to the waterfront (using land along the Recreational site’s western edge) MN-3i Fast nuclear reactors for reuse of the used nuclear fuel Power MN-3j Energy-themed industrial uses, including research and Power development, consolidated OPG offices and alternative energy demonstration (including roof top farms) MN-3k Allotment gardens/community gardens Recreational MN-3l Energy-themed museum Institutional MN-3m Observatory Institutional MN-3n Combined exhibition space/art gallery/artist studios/workshop Institutional space MN-3o Ferry terminal (to the USA) and marina, including parkland and a Mixed Use waterfront promenade with cafes, restaurants and cinemas MN-3p Film studio/theatres Industrial MN-3q Educational facilities/UOIT campus Institutional MN-3r Concert hall (visual and performing arts) overlooking Lake Recreational Ontario MN-3s A focus/theme on food security and sustainable urban Industrial agriculture/food production, such as, aquaponics/hydroponics/aeroponics and vertical urban farming MN-4 MN-4 contains meeting notes from a kick-off meeting with the N/A CAC; this meeting did not include a brainstorming session, and is, as such, not applicable for identification of opportunities. MN-5a Liquid natural gas station Industrial MN-5b Renewable energy (for example, biofuel and geothermal) Power MN-5c Biogas generation (using gas from the Duffin Creek Water Power Pollution Control Plant) MN-5d Nuclear research centre Institutional MN-5e Medical isotope reactor facility Industrial MN-5f Data centre/server farm Industrial MN-5g Climate change and habitat research centre Institutional MN-5h Recreational waterfront uses Recreational MN-5i Training facility for police/fire workers/ ambulance Institutional personnel/Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)/military

ID Opportunity Land Use Category MN-5j Prison Institutional MN-5k Nuclear Museum of Canada Institutional MN-5l Centre of Excellence for ______Institutional MN-5m Not applicable. N/A MN-5n University/college campus Institutional MN-5o Mixed use neighbourhood Mixed Use MN-5p Distributed energy infrastructure Power MN-6a Expanded marina Recreational MN-6b Fisheries research centre Institutional MN-6c Education centre dedicated to marsh restoration Institutional MN-6d Education centre dedicated to research on the Great Lakes Institutional MN-6e Re-engineered marshland along the lakeshore Recreational MN-6f Winter storage of pleasure craft adjacent to the marina (on a Industrial five-acre parcel) MN-6g New nuclear power generation Power MN-6h Overseas shipping port Industrial MN-6i Centre of Excellence for Energy Institutional MN-6j Recycling centre Industrial MN-6k Retirement centre Institutional MN-6l RV park (in association with Durham Live) Recreational MN-6m Theme park Recreational MN-6n Parking space for the Coast Guard auxiliary rescue launch and a Industrial 40’ trailer on the waterfront MN-6o Centre of Excellence for Industrial Safety Institutional MN-6p Centre of Excellence for Nuclear Decommissioning Institutional MN-6q Education centre (on nuclear power and nuclear safety) Institutional MN-6r Temporary accommodations/hotel (to house visiting experts) Recreational MN-6s Community centre for seniors Institutional MN-6t Golf course Recreational MN-6u Large sports complex or stadium Recreational MN-6v Camp X living museum or theme park Institutional MN-6w College or university (for example, for tool and die training; Institutional gaming and computer animation; automotive support industry; carpentry) MN-6x Aquatic research and training centre (for example, for scuba Institutional school; fish research; boating; fish farming training centre) MN-6y Research centre on the recycling of nuclear fuel Institutional MN-6z Marketing and focus group test facility Industrial

ID Opportunity Land Use Category MN-6A Cruise ship dock and launch area Industrial MN-6B Large-scale green houses (for local food produce) Industrial MN-6C Indoor botanical gardens (tourist attraction) Recreational MN-7 MN-7 contains meeting notes from the fourth meeting with the N/A CAC; this meeting did not include a brainstorming session, and is, as such, not applicable for identification of opportunities. MN-8 MN-8 contains meeting notes from the fifth meeting with the N/A CAC; this meeting did not include a brainstorming session, and is, as such, not applicable for identification of opportunities. MN-9a Power production using a different energy source – such as a Power solar farm MN-9b Industrial training centre (radiation, security, etc.) Institutional MN-9c Science centre, nuclear museum (tour the reactors, etc.) Institutional MN-9d Observatory Institutional MN-9e Paintball facility Recreational MN-9f Learning area for the community Institutional MN-9g Other power use (gas, biomass, etc.) to take advantage of Power switchyards, etc. MN-9h Entertainment area (amusement park, etc.) Recreational MN-9i Airport (of a size and style similar to Toronto island airport) Industrial MN-9j Synchronous condensers (to reuse existing infrastructure) Power MN-9k Alternative energy power generation Power MN-9l Recreational areas (leaving the existing areas as is) Recreational MN-9m Training for a variety of trades (a lot of systems/equipment Institutional already exist for such uses) MN-10a Use for spare parts to other reactors (or for spare parts in Industrial general) MN-10b Wind farm or solar farm – or both Power MN-10c Condos or expansion of marina Residential MN-10d Ship port (could, e.g., include reusing large buildings for storage) Industrial MN-10e Self- sufficient community for both living and working (would Mixed Use have its own power production, water treatment, etc.) MN-10f University housed in existing buildings – and generally reuse Institutional structures when possible (such as, using the containment structures for experiments); could also be used by nuclear-spin off companies that would utilize the structures for testing, or any type of nuclear or non-nuclear research MN-10g Nuclear-related research (as a way to ensure that the nuclear Institutional operating experience is preserved) MN-10h OPG-related research Institutional

ID Opportunity Land Use Category MN-10i Other type of power generation, e.g., natural gas plant (reusing Power existing turbines and other infrastructure) MN-10j Casino and resort Recreational MN-10k Nuclear security/emergency preparedness training (reusing Institutional existing facilities) MN-10l Increase range of training capabilities (at the Pickering Learning Institutional Centre) to encompass, e.g., decommissioning and environmental protection MN-10m Conventional waste incinerator Power MN-10n Medical isotope production Industrial MN-10o Technical museum (including access to reactor buildings) Institutional MN-10p Other type of museum, such as natural history Institutional MN-10q Fusion research (could include reusing existing structures) Power MN-10r Power generation using alternative energy sources Power MN-10s Port Industrial MN-10t Centralized training facility for OPG (enhance and expand the Institutional Pickering Learning Centre, but could also use the Engineering Service Building (ESB) for training) MN-10u Lease the on-site water treatment plant to the municipality Industrial MN-10v Nuclear theme park (owner/lease arrangement) – would include Recreational nuclear-themed rides, e.g., bumper cars MN-10w Ripley’s aquarium Recreational MN-10x Beautification of the site to ‘revamp’ perception; e.g., paint the Other concrete structures (during safe storage) MN-10y Nuclear Disney park Recreational MN-10z Using the vacuum building for research and testing (to take Institutional advantage of vacuum capability in a large volume, such as for research and testing related to rocket science and rocket fuel) MN-10A Make use of power corridor (i.e., reuse existing infrastructure for Power other power-related uses) MN-10B Maintenance facility or warehouse facility for OPG (but could Industrial also be leased) MN-10C Residential Residential MN-10D Retirement facility Residential MN-11a No specific repurposed use noted. N/A MN-11b No specific repurposed use noted. N/A MN-11c Environmental, energy and nuclear research Institutional MN-11d Not applicable (refers to ideas suggested by others). N/A MN-11e Fast neutron reactors and used fuel recycling Power MN-11f Advanced energy storage systems Power

ID Opportunity Land Use Category MN-11g Windmills (with three turbines on top of each other) Power MN-11h Energy storage (using the vacuum building), by pumping air Power pressure when not needed and releasing through the turbines when it is MN-11i Small modular nuclear reactor Power MN-11j Wind turbines (two or three more) Power MN-11k Breeder reactor Power MN-11l Combined cycle plants (eight), making use of existing Power transmission capacity MN-11m High-voltage, direct current (HVDC) cable across Lake Ontario Power MN-11n Gas plant Power MN-11o Race track or dirt bike track Recreational MN-11p Swimming pool and athletic centre Recreational MN-11q Paintball park Recreational MN-11r Zoo Recreational MN-11s Expanded marina Recreational MN-11t Playgrounds Recreational MN-11u Make the area near the windmill part of the park – which would Recreational greatly improve beach access MN-11v Golf course and baseball fields Recreational MN-11w Amphitheatre Recreational MN-11x Amusement park Recreational MN-11y Urban park with greenspace Recreational MN-11z Scenic lookout (on the landfill, planning zone 6) Recreational MN-11A Larger and better recreation complex Recreational MN-11B Casino Recreational MN-11C Parks, greenspace, nature trails and improved waterfront access Recreational MN-11D Botanical garden Recreational MN-11E Waterfront trail should be on the waterfront Recreational MN-11F College or university campus Institutional MN-11G School of horticulture Institutional MN-11H Centre of Excellence that takes advantage of OPG employees’ Institutional knowledge and skills MN-11J New home for the National Museum of Science and Technology Institutional in Ottawa MN-11K Museum of nuclear power (in planning zone 3), using the control Institutional room simulator as a key exhibit MN-11L Combined training centre and CANDU museum Institutional MN-11M Hospital Institutional

100

ID Opportunity Land Use Category MN-11N Youth recreational centre Recreational MN-11O Affordable housing Residential MN-11P Federal or provincial government services centre Institutional MN-11Q No specific repurposed use noted. N/A MN-11R Not applicable. N/A MN-11S Water taxis (to Toronto and the U.S.) Industrial MN-11T Transit hub Industrial MN-11U Aquaculture farming Industrial MN-11V Restaurants and cafes Recreational MN-12 No additional repurposed uses noted. N/A

101

This page intentionally left blank.

102

Consultation Notes MN-1 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting No. 1

These notes are a compilation of questions and comments received during the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings held on December 8 and 9, 2014, on the Repurposing Pickering Project. Please note that this record of the meetings is not meant to be exhaustive and does not provide a verbatim transcript. In addition, names of individuals who expressed specific comments are not attributed. Support materials are provided in attachments to these notes.

Meeting Dates, Times and Locations For the convenience of TAC members, separate meetings were held at two different locations. TAC members were invited to attend either meeting. Pickering meeting Date: December 8, 2014 Time: 9.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. Location: Pickering Nuclear Information Centre 1675 Montgomery Park Rd., Pickering

Toronto meeting Date: December 9, 2014 Time: 9.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. Location: Mini-Auditorium 700 University Ave., Toronto Meeting Agenda 1. Repurposing Study Overview 2. Project Team Introductions 3. TAC Member Introductions 4. TAC Terms of Reference Review 5. Introduction to Pickering Nuclear 6. Overview of Decommissioning Process 7. Overview of Repurposing Pickering Project 8. Draft Agenda for Next TAC Meeting The complete meeting agendas for both TAC No. 1 meetings are provided in Attachment A.

January 21, 2015 103

Attendance Pickering meeting For the Pickering meeting on December 8, there were 13 members of the TAC in attendance, with 5 invited TAC members who were unable to attend.

Name Title Organization Attended Gary Bowen Duffins Carruthers Watershed Specialist TRCA Chris Jones Senior Planner TRCA Dr. Brent Lewis Dean, Faculty of Energy Systems and UOIT Nuclear Science Dr. George Bereznai Program Director, Industry Training UOIT Tony Prevedel CAO City of Pickering Tom Melymuk Director of City Development City of Pickering Richard Holborn Director of Engineering and Public Works City of Pickering Dorothy Skinner Principal Planner Region of Durham Russel White Land Developer, Fieldgate Developments Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) Rick Gowrie VP Planning, Capital Redevelopment, Rouge Valley Health System Facilities and Support Services (Pickering/Scarborough) Tony Doyle Chief of Staff, Office of the President Durham College Craig Smith Manager, Planning and Maintenance Veridian Corporation Dr. Robert Kyle Commissioner and Medical Officer of Health Durham Nuclear Health Committee Regrets Jon Dogterom Venture Services Lead, Cleantech MaRS Discovery District Dr. John Barrett President and CEO Canadian Nuclear Association Michael Angemeer President and CEO Veridian Corporation George Armstrong Vice President Corporate Services Veridian Corporation Paul Przybylo President Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade OPG Attendants Jerry Keto Vice President Nuclear Decommissioning OPG Kristopher Probodiak Individual Contributor OPG Consultant Team Attendants Bob Stasko Project Director Candesco Kristina Gillin Project Manager Candesco Dave Hardy Consultation and Stakeholder Engagement Hardy Stevenson and Associates Lead Limited Noah Brotman Stakeholder Engagement Manager Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited Julia Bubrin Consultation Coordinator Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited Sheila Botting Partner and Canadian Real Estate Leader Deloitte Antony Lorius Planning and Real Estate Lead Deloitte

104

Toronto meeting

For the Toronto meeting on December 9, there were 5 members of the TAC in attendance, with 4 invited members who were unable to attend.

Name Title Organization

Attended Christopher Burke Acting Director of Policy and Planning GO Transit

Carole Champion Energy & Environment Sector Lead Director, Ontario Centres of Excellence Industrial Engagement Ron Dizy Managing Director MaRS Discovery District

Aaron Barter Project Coordinator, Advanced Energy Centre MaRS Discovery District

Dr. Basma A. Shalaby President UNENE - University Network of Excellence in Nuclear Engineering Regrets Dennis Croft Executive Director Spark Centre

Greg Percy President GO Transit

Shantanu Mittal Business Development Manager Ontario Centres of Excellence

Bruce McCuaig President and CEO Metrolinx

OPG Attendants Jerry Keto Vice President Nuclear Decommissioning OPG

Kevin Powers Director, Nuclear Public Affairs OPG

Consultant Team Bob Stasko Project Director Candesco

Kristina Gillin Project Manager Candesco

Dave Hardy Consultation and Stakeholder Engagement Lead Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited Jane Allen Partner, Energy & Resources Deloitte

Antony Lorius Planning and Real Estate Lead Deloitte

105

Introductions and Purpose of the Meeting Jerry Keto opened the meeting by welcoming the participants, introducing himself, and providing a short safety briefing regarding fire alarm procedures, outdoor muster areas, and nuclear event alarms and procedures. Bob Stasko introduced himself and explained that the primary purpose of TAC meeting No. 1 was to familiarize TAC members with the project, to summarize what work had been completed so far, and to explain how the TAC will be consulted in the coming months. TAC members and project team members each introduced themselves and provided a brief statement of their organization’s interest in the project. The meeting agenda was then reviewed. TAC members posed no comments or questions regarding the agenda. TAC members were presented with highlights of the Terms of Reference (ToR), which had been distributed earlier. The ToR was accepted without modification. See Attachment B for the complete ToR.

Presentation Following the introductions and review of the meeting agenda, Bob Stasko, Jerry Keto and Dave Hardy presented TAC members with an overview of the Repurposing Pickering project, an overview of the site and existing facilities, the decommissioning process, and the consultation program that is to occur. The following key points were covered.  Introduction to the Repurposing Pickering study.  Review of project objectives.  Description of timelines for both the decommissioning and repurposing projects.  Summary of key project challenges.  Summary of study goals.  Introduction to the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station.  Overview of decommissioning process.  Overview of Repurposing Pickering.  Summary of project approach and desired outcomes.  Summary of decision-making methodology.  Review of community and stakeholder engagement approach.  Overview of TAC meeting plan and objectives.  Preliminary agenda for next TAC meeting.

106

Participant Comments and Questions Throughout the presentation, participants were invited to provide their comments and ask questions to clarify their understanding of the material. Comments, questions and responses were noted and can be found below. Questions are listed in chronological order of when they came up at the meetings. Names are not attributed.

A TAC member asked if the hydro corridor portion of the site is included in the lands being considered for repurposing. OPG’s response is that the portion of the hydro corridor lands that OPG owns and leases to Hydro One is up for consideration, whereas the hydro corridor lands that are owned by Infrastructure Ontario are not.

A TAC member asked if the used fuel will go to the Low and Intermediate Level Waste (L&ILW) site in Kincardine. The project team explained that the used fuel will not go to that repository but rather to the used fuel repository that is being developed by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO).

A TAC member asked if the approach to repurposing would be based on the assumption that the NWMO will complete their repository work in a timely manner. The project team replied that the decommissioning process assumes that the repository will be completed and that used fuel will be shipped there. Jerry Keto further clarified the purpose of the two repositories, explaining that the L&ILW repository will house decommissioning wastes, including everything from structural concrete, pipes and radiation cladding to gloves and radiation suits. The repository under development by the NWMO will be exclusively for used fuel.

A TAC member asked whether it is OPG’s intention to retain ownership of the land, and it was stated that it is OPG’s intention to retain ownership of the lands indefinitely.

A TAC member commented that it would be interesting to know the total revenue produced by the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (PNGS) over the life of the plant. OPG responded that that information was currently not available but that it could be looked into.

Following the explanation by OPG of available decommissioning funds, a TAC member asked whether the $14 billion decommissioning fund represents the total liability. It was explained that the fund represents the total liability for all of OPG’s nuclear reactors and that for the decommissioning of PNGS, $3.4 billion are set aside. Of that, overnight costs are $1.7 billion.

107

A TAC member asked whether the L&ILW will be kept on site during the decommissioning process. The project team explained that the waste will be kept on site until the deep geologic repository for L&ILW is available. Waste from the dismantlement of the facility will be moved directly to the repository. (That is, unlike the L&ILW that is generated during operation of the plant, and which is currently shipped to the Western Waste Management Facility for storage until the L&ILW repository is available.)

Another TAC member asked whether the 2035 date is the earliest potential start-up of the used fuel repository and whether the fuel would remain at Pickering until then. The project team explained that this would be the case. The current plan is for the oldest used fuel to be shipped to the repository first. The PNGS would therefore likely commence shipping used fuel first. It was also asked whether there is sufficient space on the Pickering site for all of the fuel to be stored until the used fuel repository is available, and OPG explained that there will be sufficient space.

Following the conversation on used fuel and L&ILW, a TAC member asked about the status of wastes from the construction of the PNGS and whether those wastes were still on site. It was explained that those wastes are still on site and that they are standard construction wastes. The current plan is to leave the associated landfill areas in place.

A TAC member asked whether there was any push by OPG to put a small modular reactor on site or to use the $14 billion to construct new nuclear facilities. OPG clarified that, legally, the $14 billion is solely for the decommissioning of existing facilities. It was also explained that small modular reactors are an option for consideration; however those cannot be financed through the decommissioning fund.

Regarding the OPG objective of maintaining land ownership, a TAC member asked whether that assumption would limit the potential uses of the land. The project team explained that OPG might be looking to establish partnerships for a range of potential land uses. The options assessment process will at this early stage consider all suggestions for future uses.

A TAC member commented that they would like to hear more about Jerry Keto’s experience in decommissioning other facilities and whether there were any particular lessons learned from those experiences. Jerry provided a general overview of some of his previous project experience including lessons learned from other projects.

The TAC asked to hear more about how OPG’s objectives for repurposing will be determined. The project team explained that the process is underway at the moment and it will be working in parallel but slightly ahead of the TAC process. OPG provided a high-level statement of its objectives, including: the repurposing solution being financially viable; being in conformity with all regulations; maintaining ownership of the site; and, that the process must be safe.

108

TAC members asked who will make the final decision about repurposing options. The project team responded that the output of the repurposing study will assess options, group them into potential development portfolios, and ultimately be developed into business cases that will be presented to the OPG Board of Directors who will identify a single option portfolio to recommend to the shareholder (the Province).

A TAC member asked whether there is a map that shows how the decommissioning will happen over time and what lands will become available when. The project team answered that the site map with areas and their availability for repurposing is under development and will be presented to the TAC at a later meeting.

Following the discussion of available lands, TAC members commented that it would also be helpful to see a list of site constraints, as in which buildings would need to remain, the location of the security barrier, the presence of construction wastes, etc. Project team members answered that a key focus of this study would be to determine how the lands could be used prior to decommissioning given the existing constraints. OPG stated that in screening and evaluating the possible options we will lay out the key site constraints during the various decommissioning phases.

A TAC member asked if there would be potential for increasing access to the waterfront trail and potentially realigning it so that it does not have to go around the site. The project team expressed that increasing access to the waterfront trail can be considered. However, the presence of the security barrier prior to final decommissioning may make it challenging to have the trail go directly along the shoreline. A follow-up question arose as to whether there would be potential for municipal road expansion on the site, and the project team confirmed that at this time, anything is considered as a possibility.

A TAC member asked if there is any regulation requiring OPG to maintain ownership of the site. OPG explained that there is no regulation requiring it, however, it is OPG’s preference.

In response to a statement of uncertainty over how technological advances may impact the project, a TAC member asked for further explanation. OPG said that they are constantly scanning for new technologies and their potential application in the decommissioning process. For example, technologies for reprocessing of CANDU fuel are not available today, but could become options in the future.

109

A TAC member asked if, in 2020, when the last Pickering reactor is scheduled to be taken out of service, the site would no longer be considered a nuclear generating station and what this might mean for existing emergency programs. The project team answered that although the station would no longer be generating power, the site will remain a licensed nuclear site, with all associated security and safety practices in place, as required. Emergency programs will continue to exist, although it is anticipated that there may be step-wise changes along the way once fuel is moved out of the reactors and subsequently removed from the site.

A TAC member commented that, with the new Council having been recently elected and with new faces on Council, there should be a briefing about the project. The project team responded that there is currently a plan to brief Council and that scheduling is underway.

OPG asked for comments on the proposed public consultation and communications plan. A TAC member asked about the involvement of ratepayer groups and community associations and whether they should be invited to participate in the TAC or Community Advisory Council (CAC). The project team responded that community and ratepayer groups will be invited to the CAC and to the Open House, or liaise with OPG through individual meetings. It was clarified that the purpose of the TAC is to engage with larger institutional organizations, while the CAC will be the avenue for consultation with smaller groups and individuals.

A TAC member asked what they should do if a council member or community group asks if they can attend at TAC meeting. The project team responded that council members will be consulted directly on an individual basis, as needed. Community groups or individuals will be invited to participate in the CAC. It was also clarified that if TAC members receive any requests like this, to please direct them to Julia Bubrin, Consultation Coordinator for the project, who is the contact point for logistical details regarding the TAC and CAC.

A general discussion occurred about how OPG plans to accommodate a full range of voices and how to ensure that there are enough opportunities for input. The project team responded that there is a consultation plan that is designed to reach a wide range of stakeholders and that we invite input from the full range of voices. The repurposing study will strive to capture all perspectives for consideration.

The project team asked whether TAC members thought it would be preferable to combine the Toronto and Pickering TAC meetings into a single meeting. An open conversation ensued between a number of participants and the project team. It was clarified that the primary purpose of the split meetings was for the convenience of participants. A number of TAC members stated that they would want to combine the meetings in order to hear the Provincial Ministries’ perspective on the project. There appeared to be general support for combining the meetings. As a follow up, TAC members asked whether they would get minutes from the downtown meeting, and they were informed that a single set of meeting notes would be created for the two TAC meetings and circulated to all TAC members.

110

The conversation shifted to the consultation plan, with TAC members asking whether they would have an opportunity to see the plan and to comment on the stakeholder list. The project team responded that a synopsis of the consultation plan could be shared. A TAC member commented that it would be helpful to see a table with all stakeholders and outreach strategies.

A TAC member commented that it is important how you communicate with various stakeholders, in particular, with youth. The project team responded that a youth consultation program is currently being considered.

TAC members asked what the considerations are in regards to the portion of land that is part of the hydro corridor. The project team responded that while the corridor is assumed to be considered within the scope of the project, there are currently no plans to do anything with the hydro corridor. It is important to note that those lands would be subject to decisions by regulators and government ministries that may constrain possible repurposing options. Removing the hydro infrastructure may be possible, but that would be an important decision as the existence of the transmission infrastructure is a key factor in the potential use of the site as a generating station in the future. At this time, OPG does not want to limit any potential future projects.

A conversation occurred regarding the need for new uses to fit with the surrounding community and what limitation there may be on potential uses. OPG responded that, at the moment, everything is up for consideration, although it was noted that any potential uses should be contextually relevant. Determining the best uses of the land is exactly the purpose of this project, and how it integrates with the surrounding community is a key consideration.

A TAC member asked about the attendance of Ministry and Agency representatives (MMAH, MTO, Hydro One, etc.). The project team answered that they have been informed of the meetings and expressed interest, but that they unfortunately were unable to attend that day.

A TAC member commented that with respect to jargon, it shouldn’t be assumed that TAC members will know what OPG is talking about. Clarity is key. The project team agreed with the importance of clarity and asked TAC members to let them know if any jargon terms are used that are unclear.

A TAC member asked if the future land uses near or on the Pickering site could be residential as well. The project team answered that including residential might be a consideration long term. This will be dependent on the standard to which the soils will be cleaned up, as a residential standard would require the removal of significantly more material. Residential uses are part of the opportunities considered in the repurposing study. A follow-up question was asked about the proposed level of remediation of soil and the project team responded that the current plan is to remediate the soils to an industrial brownfield level.

111

A TAC member asked whether there were other post-nuclear sites that had been remediated to a greenfield level. OPG replied that it depended on the expectation of the community in terms of what was appropriate for the site. International examples of remediation to a greenfield level do exist.

A TAC member asked if the Pickering site had been looked at for use as a natural gas fired power plant or if that option had already been excluded. The project team answered that this is one of the options on the list currently under consideration, along with all other ideas for future uses at this stage.

A TAC member asked whether there is a breakdown of acreage inside and outside of the protected zone. The project team responded that planning will occur for lands that are known to be available. Some lands are licensed to the City of Pickering for sports fields and parks, and some lands are leased to Hydro One. OPG at this time anticipates that those uses will continue.

A TAC member asked that, while we understand that the decommissioning is funded, is OPG thinking of using the funds generated from repurposing to generate cash for decommissioning? Is OPG under pressure to generate maximum returns for the lands? Or, is it the case that generating funds from the lands is part of the general objective of OPG but the generation of funds is not driving repurposing options? The project team confirmed that although generating funds may be an overall OPG objective it is in no way tied to decommissioning funding. Profitable land uses may score higher in the assessment process, but that process will be taking a wide range of factors into account, with profitability being only one.

A TAC member commented that, in communicating with the public, it will be important to highlight the location of the lands in proximity to Lake Ontario and the sensitive wetland features of the site. So, rather than presenting the lands as a complete block, the lands should be presented as a series of blocks that will become available. The project team confirmed that this is the approach that is being taken in the repurposing study. The intent is to develop a staged plan that sequentially takes advantage of different parts of the site as they become available for redevelopment.

A TAC member commented that it would be valuable for members of the TAC to have a tour of the site and asked whether this would be possible to arrange prior to the January TAC meeting. The project team stated that they we would work to make arrangements for such a tour. TAC members will be informed of the details of the tour, along with a save-the-date email that will be sent for the January meeting.

A TAC member asked whether the Independent Energy System Operator (IESO) also ought to be on the TAC. OPG clarified that the IESO has been merged with the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) and that they have been invited.

112

A TAC member asked whether the Organization of CANDU Industries (OCI) should also be invited to sit on the TAC, pointing out that they have 99 companies in their supply chain. The project team responded that OPG has identified a long list of organizations to consult through various mechanisms. Social media is also being considered as a tool for stakeholder communications, which further would widen the range of outreach.

A TAC member commented that it might also be helpful to have a liaison with professional associations, such as urban planners. The colleges and universities will be interested, such as Trent University, UOIT and Durham College. Students could be challenged to come up with alternative uses. Perhaps these ideas could evolve into future uses at the site. Some of the organizations represented on the TAC could potentially also host consultation events for OPG.

A TAC member commented that it will be important to have two-way communication with the public. As an example, the closing of Whiteshell Nuclear Laboratories in Pinawa, Manitoba, had several positive outcomes, as a number of new businesses located in the community.

It was pointed out that TAC members and members of the public would benefit from hearing examples from OPG on experience from overseas (Sellafield was mentioned as a specific example). The project team responded that, from a review of international examples of repurposing efforts, there are no clear trends of note as the experiences were largely dependent on the unique circumstances at each site. An overview of some of these projects can be provided at a future TAC meeting.

A TAC member commented that local industry in the Brock Industrial Area north of the Pickering site should also be asked for comments. OPG would be advised to check with the City of Pickering’s Economic Development and Planning Department. OPG was also advised to get the City of Pickering and Region of Durham much more involved as partners. Otherwise there may be a conflict with the local municipal vision and OPG’s vision of the future of the site.

A TAC member commented that OPG had said it was looking for innovative solutions, but that the presentation slides communicated a more bland industrial future for the site. If OPG is looking for innovation it might be better communicated. For example, is OPG saying that the site will be industrial land use or cleaned up to an industrial standard? If it is the latter, a wide range of land uses would be contemplated, such as parkland. If it is the former, there is not much to discuss with the public. The project team clarified that the intention was to remediate the lands to a level of industrial brownfield, however this would not mean that only industrial uses are possible.

113

A TAC member commented that it will be important to avoid giving the impression that decisions are made on various lands that would be released. Local input, the timeframes and geography all matter. There will be parts open for repurposing now and parts after a long intervening period. Communications need to refer to the stratified opportunity. Presenting the lands as a stratified release opportunity allows OPG to be nimble. Also, without the plant, one can draw the conclusion that the Hydro One lands and the corridor would be useless. There also needs to be a strategy for these lands. People will need to gain a realization of the short- and longer- term time frames. A time lapse video of the site showing how the lands would evolve and which buildings would disappear and when might be useful. This would show what can and can’t be done over periods of time. Both TAC members and the project team indicated a general agreement with this comment.

ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – TAC No. 1 Meeting Agenda Attachment B – TAC Terms of Reference

114

Attachment A – TAC No. 1 Meeting Agenda

Agenda for Initial TAC Meetings

Date: December 8, 2014 Time: 9:30am-11:30am Location: Pickering Nuclear Generating Station Information Centre 1675 Montgomery Park Rd, Pickering, ON L1V 2R5

Purpose of the Meetings: The purpose of the initial Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings will be to provide a general introduction to the Pickering Repurposing Project. The goal will be to familiarize the committees with the members of project team and to provide an overview of the process that will occur over the next year in developing and evaluating the potential repurposing portfolios. The TAC is comprised of representatives of various municipal, regional, and provincial government departments and regulatory authorities, and businesses that have information that OPG believes will support Repurposing Pickering.

Purpose of the Technical Advisory Committee:

TAC members have specific information and/or responsibilities about technical, scientific and governmental matters that have relevance to the project. TAC members will be directly consulted regarding specific fields of their expertise as is appropriate.

Meeting Agenda:  Repurposing Project Overview  Project Team Introductions  TAC Member Introductions  TAC Terms of Reference Review  Introduction to Pickering Nuclear  Overview of Decommissioning Process  Overview of Repurposing Pickering Project  Draft Agenda for Next TAC Meeting

115

Agenda for Initial TAC Meetings

Date: December 9, 2014 Time: 9:30am-11:30am Location: OPG Head Offices, 700 University Avenue, Toronto Mini Auditorium

Purpose of the Technical Advisory Committee:

116

Attachment B – TAC Terms of Reference

Repurposing Pickering Technical Advisory Committee Terms of Reference

INTRODUCTION Owned and operated by Ontario Power Generation (OPG), the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (PNGS) is one of the world’s largest nuclear power plants. The station is located just east of the City of Toronto, on the shores of Lake Ontario. In addition to eight CANDU® reactors, the Pickering nuclear site encompasses the Pickering Waste Management Facility (PWMF), which operates under a separate licence. In 2010, OPG announced that the Pickering reactors will not be operated beyond 2020. Since the Pickering site represents a significant asset, OPG is undertaking a three-phased initiative called Repurposing Pickering: Proud Past, Promising Future, to develop a strategy for repurposing the site.

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MANDATE The purpose of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will be to represent government departments and agencies, to receive project related information, and to provide comments, questions and input into Repurposing Pickering. The focus of the TAC will be to comment and advise on the development of Repurposing Pickering. The mandate of the TAC will be as follows:  To share information and knowledge of the PNGS.  To participate in the decision-making process by asking questions and providing suggestions to the Project Team.  To assist in the identification of current and potential constraints and opportunities relative to Repurposing in the study area.  To comment on Project Team presentations and reports within an agreed upon time frame.  To provide input on the communications material prepared for Public Information Centres and other public activities.  To provide information to their organization about the project and serve as a liaison between the Project Team and their organization.

117

The TAC is a non-voting advisory committee that makes recommendations to the Project Team for their consideration. The decision-making process resides with OPG, which will include consideration of the TAC recommendations. ROLE The TAC will bring forth comments and questions and act as a representative of their organization to assist in developing the strategy. Their focus will be on identifying possible issues and opportunities for consideration in Repurposing Pickering.

INPUT In fulfilling their mandate, members of the TAC will be responsible for the following: 1. Commenting on consultant and staff presentations and reports. 2. Assisting in the identification of current and potential technical issues relative to repurposing in the Study Area. 3. Sharing information with respect to quality of life effects on Pickering’s residents and/or businesses arising from Repurposing Pickering. 4. Commenting on mitigation measures that OPG can take to improve the quality of Repurposing decisions. 5. Working co-operatively with other members, staff and consultants. The input received from the TAC is critical to the success of Repurposing Pickering because TAC members will have local infrastructure knowledge and specific technical expertise that will complement the Project Team’s experience. TAC members will receive project information to review before each TAC meeting. They will also receive project information made available to the public and be invited to attend Public Information Centres.

CHAIR A representative of the consulting team will chair the TAC meetings. The Chair will plan meeting agendas, act as meeting chair and coordinate activities of the TAC. The Chair will also provide meeting process rules and other procedures related to Committee effectiveness.

MEDIA For the purpose of Repurposing Pickering, only OPG will be responsible for media relations.

118

TERM OF THE TAC The TAC will stand for the duration of Phase 3 of the Repurposing Pickering project, which is anticipated to be until Winter 2015. Each member of the TAC will be expected to sit on the Committee for the full term of the study. TAC members can send delegates or alternates to meetings, but strong preference is placed on keeping the same representative for the duration of the TAC consultation process. There will be a maximum of six meetings over the course of Phase 3. AGENDAS AND MINUTES Meeting agendas will be prepared by the project team and distributed to TAC members in advance of meetings. Meeting notes will be prepared following each meeting and these will be circulated within 14 days. Comments will be recorded without attribution to names of specific individuals.

Date: November 14, 2014

119

This page intentionally left blank.

120

Consultation Notes MN-2 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting No. 2

These notes are a compilation of questions and comments received during the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting held on January 26, 2015, on the Repurposing Pickering Project. Please note that this record of the meeting is not meant to be exhaustive and does not provide a verbatim transcript. In addition, names of individuals who expressed specific comments are not attributed.

Meeting Date, Time and Location Date: January 26, 2015 Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Location: Pickering Nuclear Information Centre 1675 Montgomery Park Rd., Pickering

In addition, an optional introductory briefing and a site tour were held on the same day, starting at 11:30 a.m. for the briefing and 12:00 p.m. for the tour.

Meeting Agenda 1. Introductions 2. Baseline Conditions – Overview and Feedback 3. Vision and Potential Opportunities – Brainstorming 4. Identifying Opportunities – Introduction 5. Screening and Assessment Framework – Introduction 6. Draft Agenda for Next TAC Meeting

February 17, 2015 121

Attendance

Name Title Organization Attended Michael Angemeer President and CEO Veridian Corporation Aaron Barter Project Coordinator, Advanced Energy Centre MaRS Discovery District Dr. George Bereznai Program Director, Industry Training UOIT Gary Bowen Duffins Carruthers Watershed Specialist TRCA Christopher Burke Acting Director of Policy and Planning GO Transit Energy & Environment Sector Lead Director, Carole Champion Ontario Centres of Excellence Industrial Engagement Ron Dizy Managing Director MaRS Discovery District Sean Finlay Vice President, Land Development Infrastructure Ontario VP Planning, Capital Redevelopment, Facilities Rouge Valley Health System Rick Gowrie and Support Services (Pickering/Scarborough) Nevzat Gurmen Vice President of Corporate Services and CFO Durham College Dr. Robert Kyle Commissioner and Medical Officer of Health Durham Nuclear Health Committee Tom Melymuk Director of City Development City of Pickering Senior Policy Advisor Mark Olsheski Ministry of Energy (Supply, Transmission & Distribution) Paul Przybylo President Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade UNENE - University Network of Dr. Ben Rouben Secretary/Treasurer Excellence in Nuclear Engineering Darrell Selsky Manager, Capital Projects & Infrastructure City of Pickering Dorothy Skinner Principal Planner Region of Durham Regrets George Armstrong Vice President Corporate Services Veridian Corporation Dr. John Barrett President and CEO Canadian Nuclear Association Jon Dogterom Venture Services Lead, Cleantech MaRS Discovery District Richard Holborn Director of Engineering and Public Works City of Pickering Dean, Faculty of Energy Systems and Nuclear Dr. Brent Lewis UOIT Science Bruce McCuaig President and CEO Metrolinx Shantanu Mittal Business Development Manager Ontario Centres of Excellence Tony Prevedel CAO City of Pickering Building Industry and Land Mara Samardzic Planner, Policy and Government Relations Development Association (BILD) UNENE - University Network of Dr. Basma A. Shalaby President Excellence in Nuclear Engineering Craig Smith Manager, Planning and Maintenance Veridian Corporation Building Industry and Land Russel White Land Developer, Fieldgate Developments Development Association (BILD)

122

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) Attendants Executive Sponsor and Vice President, Nuclear Jerry Keto OPG Decommissioning Kristopher Probodiak Repurposing Coordinator OPG Director, Pickering End of Commercial Operations Allan Webster OPG Strategic Planning Consultant Team Attendants Hardy Stevenson and Associates Noah Brotman Stakeholder Engagement Manager Limited Hardy Stevenson and Associates Julia Bubrin Consultation Coordinator Limited Kristina Gillin Project Manager Candesco Hardy Stevenson and Associates Dave Hardy Consultation and Stakeholder Engagement Lead Limited Antony Lorius Planning and Real Estate Lead Deloitte Saleha Shafiq Manager, Infrastructure Advisory Deloitte Bob Stasko Project Director Candesco

Introductions and Purpose of the Meeting Jerry Keto opened the meeting by welcoming the participants, introducing himself, and providing a short safety briefing on what to do in the event of a fire or radiation alarm. A roundtable with brief introductions of everyone who attended was then performed. Bob Stasko presented the agenda for the meeting and asked whether TAC members had any comments on the TAC Meeting No. 1 consultation notes. TAC members had no comments or questions regarding the agenda or the consultation notes from the previous meeting. As part of the introduction, Dave Hardy gave an update and led a discussion on other public and stakeholder engagement activities:  A first meeting on Repurposing Pickering has taken place with the Community Advisory Council (CAC). Participants had expressed an interest in hearing more about the public consultation plans, with a particular interest in the approach to youth engagement.  An overview was presented on the development of plans for public open houses, youth engagement and social media strategy. TAC members were happy to hear of the progress in this area and agreed with the importance of hearing from the community.  A TAC member asked what had happened to the plans for a Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC). It was explained that the CAC already fulfills the function that the SAC was intended to accomplish and that any community member that would like to engage further would be invited to participate in the CAC.

123

 A TAC member pointed out that there is a need to inform the City and Regional Councils. In response, the TAC was informed that such briefings are already planned and have been scheduled.

Baseline Conditions Discussion Kristina Gillin described the purpose of capturing the baseline conditions. It was explained that – unlike decommissioning (which primarily only requires knowledge about the site itself) – for repurposing, an understanding of the site’s local and regional context is needed. To achieve this, a desktop study was first undertaken to gather preliminary data. The Baseline Conditions Summary that was distributed at the previous TAC meeting contained the key points that the project wanted feedback on from TAC members. Highlights of the findings were presented. The uniqueness of the site was noted, in that it is a large-scale nuclear facility located in a heavily populated urban area. This is a major factor for consideration when assessing potential repurposing opportunities. A TAC member commented that the summary mentions a “water treatment plant” but that the correct reference to this plant is “wastewater treatment plant.” A TAC member commented that the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant is an essential piece of infrastructure for Durham and York Regions. A TAC member commented that the Baseline Conditions Summary is focused on current conditions, but also looks at some policies and market predictions for the future. The Repurposing Pickering team responded that this was intentional, as it is important to understand the current conditions but also take into account various forecasts for the future. A discussion of the section on Economic and Market Drivers occurred:  A TAC member commented that Metrolinx plans to improve westward traffic. Transit in Pickering may change the development demand in the area as the frequency of train service increases.  The project team noted that there are significant industrial and office developments occurring further west in the GTA. TAC members discussed how this partly explains the prevalence of warehousing and distribution uses in the west GTA that are not prevalent in Pickering. This was considered to be a significant factor for development near term.  The Seaton development and its potential competition with Repurposing Pickering were discussed.  The project team pointed out that economic and market analyses will be done in much more detail further into the project.

124

A TAC member asked whether there are any requirements to take into account the broader GTA’s power needs in planning for repurposing. Jerry Keto responded that determinations of power requirements come through the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), and explained that power generation is considered to be an option for Repurposing Pickering – but that it, at the moment, is not a requirement. A TAC member commented that the population projections are outdated. The project team explained that it had used the latest official data that was available at the time of the study, although realizing that these may need to be revised. Representatives of both Durham Region and the City of Pickering said that they would provide the team with up-to-date projections. A TAC member asked how the Baseline Conditions will be communicated to the public. The project team responded that an overview will be made available to the public, using information contained in the Baseline Conditions Summary, but after further revision, as applicable.

Brainstorming of Vision and Potential Opportunities Bob Stasko introduced the brainstorming session, including providing guidelines for effective brainstorming. The purpose of this session, it was explained, was to start thinking about a vision for the future, that is, how people would like the lands to look once fully redeveloped.

A TAC member asked whether it should be assumed that there would no longer be any used fuel on the site 60 years from now. Jerry Keto responded that it is OPG’s intent to have removed all used fuel by then, stressing that complete repurposing would require that the used fuel has been transferred off site. Another TAC member commented that, as long as the used fuel remains on site, power generation of some kind is a viable use – whether nuclear or conventional power. The project team reiterated that it is not a matter of if the used fuel will be removed, but when.

A TAC member asked whether it is to be assumed that Seaton will be fully developed by the time that decommissioning will be completed. The project team responded that it is projected that Seaton development will be completed well before then.

A TAC member asked whether there will be limitations on what can be done while used fuel remains on site. OPG responded that, other than the direct foot print of the buildings and the surrounding security fencing, it can be assumed that the remaining areas of the site can be released for redevelopment.

A TAC member commented on the information provided in TAC Meeting No.1, that Hydro One has a 999-year lease on some of the lands. The project team responded that the Hydro One lease arrangement will limit certain uses. As well, retaining the transmission lines will be a requirement for consideration of any new power generation uses.

125

A TAC member commented that they would like to see the site being used to place OPG as a global leader in nuclear energy and decommissioning technologies.

A TAC member noted that the Province has been focused on energy and water as increasingly important global issues, and that the site represents a number of opportunities in these areas. The suggestion was made that the site would be ideal for efficient energy generation or a district energy system. A comment was made that this would be an opportunity to leverage the existing infrastructure on the site for other large industrial and power generation uses. The commenter encouraged the group to think of the site as an ecosystem that links water, energy, and transportation together to provide mutually beneficial solutions to each issue.

It was pointed out by a TAC member that intensification is going to be significant on the land abutting Lake Ontario, making the Pickering nuclear site even more important for community development. In the long term, the site can expect to see significant pressure to shift from industrial to residential and commercial uses, such as community centres, arts centres, sports park and general social space.

The potential for educational and training opportunities was mentioned by a TAC member. Specifically, Durham College and University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) would like to get more involved in the nuclear-related training already present on the site. Establishing a global centre of decommissioning excellence was suggested, and the importance of pursuing other research opportunities was stressed.

A TAC member stressed that it will be important not to look at the site in isolation, as this is a huge opportunity that will be a catalyst for change in surrounding areas.

It was pointed out that it should be an objective to retain as much flexibility as possible, in terms of long-term future uses, since it is rare to have such a large area by the lake available for future redevelopment. There will be key trends, which cannot yet be predicted, but that will have significant long-term implications.

A TAC member recommended that shorter term uses take advantage of the local skill base and build synergies off of that.

A TAC member pointed out that the current recreational uses of Kinsmen Park are extremely popular and well used by the Pickering community. It was suggested that the park use continue or be enhanced.

TAC members discussed how proximity to downtown Toronto and being far from the airport would likely encourage residential uses with light commercial uses in the long term, rather than industrial uses or distribution centres.

A TAC member noted that electrification of the GO Transit rail corridor may become a factor.

126

A TAC member suggested that, if people were interested in another OPG repurposing project, they could take a look at Inspiration Lakeview.

The complete list of suggestions for a vision and potential opportunities captured during the brainstorming is as follows:

 No used fuel remaining on site  Non-generation nuclear uses, such as medical isotope production  Leverage the existing infrastructure on the site for other large industrial and power generation uses  Encourage uses that provide synergy  Long term, development pressure in southern Pickering will likely encourage community recreational facilities and social spaces  Take advantage of opportunities for cutting edge research  Continuous waterfront access along the lake  Continue recreational use of Kinsmen Park or locate facilities elsewhere  Heritage of energy innovation should be maintained and adapted to the new energy economy  Mixed use neighbourhood with a potential for some nightlife  Lease out the lands for use and remain a ‘landlord’  Healthcare infrastructure (such as, homecare and hospices)  Education and training opportunities (such as, college or university campus)  Efficient energy generation systems  District energy system  Clean port  Community centre  Arts centre  Sports fields  Global centre of excellence for decommissioning  Recreational green spaces along the waterfront  Research park geared toward renewable energy, sustainability and climate change  Research park for advanced manufacturing technologies (robotics)  Commercial harbour  Recreational marina expansion from Frenchman’s Bay

127

Introduction to Identifying Opportunities and the Screening and Assessment Framework

Kristina Gillin gave an overview of the main steps of the project’s methodology and explained that options would first be identified, then screened and assessed, and then ultimately grouped into cohesive development portfolios for assessment at the portfolio level.

A TAC member commented that it did not seem logical to screen and assess the options before putting them together into development portfolios. The project team explained that the intent of the screening framework was to first eliminate any options from further consideration since they would never be viable regardless. The TAC member pointed out that the systematic nature of the process may lead to less engagement by the public as it may be viewed as too dry and emotionally detached. The suggestion was made to present more complete development portfolios for consideration, as this would enable telling a clearer and more complete story of the purpose and benefits of each scenario.

A TAC member noted that it would be important to communicate clearly to the public so that they do not view potential options as having been discarded too early. It was suggested that the project team look into the work of an Ottawa developer that had produced a values list up front, so that the public could see what the boundaries of the project were.

A TAC member commented that the combined session of bringing together TAC members from both Pickering and downtown Toronto had been beneficial and should be continued in future meetings.

128

Consultation Notes MN-3 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting No. 3

These notes are a compilation of questions and comments received during the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting held on March 3, 2015, on the Repurposing Pickering study. Please note that this record of the meetings is not meant to be exhaustive and does not provide a verbatim transcript. In addition, names of individuals who expressed specific comments are not attributed.

Meeting Date, Time and Location Date: March 3, 2015 Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Location: Pickering Nuclear Information Centre 1675 Montgomery Park Rd., Pickering

Meeting Agenda 1. Additional Opportunities – Brainstorming 2. Availability of Land Areas 3. Screening and Assessment Framework 4. Public and Stakeholder Consultation Overview 5. Next Steps

March 27, 2015 129

Attendance

Name Title Organization Attended Aaron Barter Project Coordinator, Advanced Energy Centre MaRS Discovery District University of Ontario Institute of Dr. George Bereznai Program Director, Industry Training Technology (UOIT) Toronto and Region Conservation Gary Bowen Duffins Carruthers Watershed Specialist Authority (TRCA) Tony Doyle Chief of Staff, Office of the President Durham College Sean Finlay Vice President, Land Development Infrastructure Ontario Richard Holborn Director of Engineering and Public Works City of Pickering Cedric Jobe Director of Energy Supply, Nuclear Ontario Ministry of Energy Dr. Robert Kyle Commissioner and Medical Officer of Health Durham Nuclear Health Committee Project Manager, Engineering and Planning Barry Laverick Region of Durham Studies Tom Melymuk Director of City Development City of Pickering Independent Electricity System Steven Norrie Regional Transmission Planning Operator (IESO) Dr. Peter Poruks Manager of Regulatory Affairs Canadian Nuclear Association Jordana Ross Infrastructure Ontario

University Network of Excellence in Dr. Basma A. Shalaby President Nuclear Engineering (UNENE) Dorothy Skinner Principal Planner Region of Durham Craig Smith Manager, Planning and Maintenance Veridian Corporation Building Industry and Land Russel White Land Developer, Fieldgate Developments Development Association (BILD) Regrets Michael Angemeer President and CEO Veridian Corporation George Armstrong Vice President Corporate Services Veridian Corporation Dr. John Barrett President and CEO Canadian Nuclear Association Christopher Burke Acting Director of Policy and Planning GO Transit Energy & Environment Sector Lead Director, Carole Champion Ontario Centres of Excellence Industrial Engagement Dennis Croft Executive Director Spark Centre Ron Dizy Managing Director MaRS Discovery District Jon Dogterom Venture Services Lead, Cleantech MaRS Discovery District VP Planning, Capital Redevelopment, Facilities Rouge Valley Health System Rick Gowrie and Support Services (Pickering/Scarborough) Nevzat Gurmen Vice President of Corporate Services and CFO Durham College Steve Heuchert Associate Director, Planning and Development TRCA Dean, Faculty of Energy Systems and Nuclear Dr. Brent Lewis UOIT Science Bruce McCuaig President and CEO Metrolinx

130

Shantanu Mittal Business Development Manager Ontario Centres of Excellence Senior Policy Advisor Mark Olsheski Ontario Ministry of Energy (Supply, Transmission & Distribution) Greg Percy President GO Transit Tony Prevedel CAO City of Pickering Paul Przybylo Chair Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade Dr. Ben Rouben Secretary/Treasurer UNENE Mara Samardzic Planner, Policy and Government Relations BILD Darrell Selsky Manager, Capital Projects & Infrastructure City of Pickering Ontario Power Generation (OPG) Attendants Kristopher Probodiak Repurposing Coordinator OPG Director, Pickering End of Commercial Operations Allan Webster OPG Strategic Planning Consultant Team Attendants Sheila Botting Partner and Canadian Real Estate Leader Deloitte Hardy Stevenson and Associates Noah Brotman Stakeholder Engagement Manager Limited Hardy Stevenson and Associates Julia Bubrin Consultation Coordinator Limited Kristina Gillin Project Manager Candesco Hardy Stevenson and Associates Dave Hardy Consultation and Stakeholder Engagement Lead Limited Saleha Shafiq Manager, Infrastructure Advisory Deloitte Bob Stasko Project Director Candesco

131

Introductions and Update on Project Progress Allan Webster opened the meeting by welcoming the participants, introducing himself, and providing a short safety briefing on what to do in the event of a fire or radiation alarm. A roundtable with brief introductions of everyone who attended was then performed. Dave Hardy presented the agenda for the meeting and asked whether TAC members had any comments on the TAC Meeting No. 2 consultation notes. TAC members had no comments or questions regarding the agenda or the consultation notes from the previous meeting. Dave Hardy provided an update on input received and experience gained from the various consultation activities. He mentioned that, based on feedback from the TAC and the Community Advisory Council (CAC), the project is considering shifting its focus towards defining specific complementary land uses that could be put in place during the decommissioning period, while establishing a more general vision for the long term; the long-term vision could then evolve over the years. Consideration is also given to assessing larger groups of options – rather than assessing each individual option separately. It was stated that a key consideration for short-term uses will be to ensure that they do not compromise the potential for realizing longer-term uses once decommissioning has been completed. TAC members commented that it appears that the project is heading in the right direction. Having a vision will be essential for guiding planning, and Repurposing Pickering should be responsive to changing conditions over time. A TAC member commented that taking a land use management approach would be appropriate, as it would help potential partners understand how best to align with OPG when making proposals for potential land uses. A TAC member commented that one of the challenges for the project will be to look at individual land parcels over a very long term. The TAC member stated that, in order to have productive conversations, it will be important to know specifically how the site would eventually be left, as that will have implications for the various development options. For example, if the large concrete structures will remain underground, buildings that require deeper foundations may be less viable. The remediation standard for the lands was cited as a concern. A TAC member commented that one of the fundamental assumptions of the project is that the used fuel will be removed from the site. This, in turn, is based on the assumption that the deep geological repository (DGR) for used fuel will be completed as planned, although much remains to be worked out. The suggestion was made that, if there ends up being a delay with regards to the DGR, the used fuel could remain on the Pickering Nuclear site as a fallback storage area since it already is a licensed nuclear site.

132

A TAC member asked whether there have been any discussions with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) about repurposing. OPG responded that the CNSC has defined a state to which the lands need to be returned in order to be released from CNSC regulatory control. However, discussions have not yet taken place regarding potential restrictions of land uses while the used fuel remains on site. A TAC member asked OPG to clarify whether there will be enough space on the site for putting all used fuel into dry storage. OPG responded that there will be enough space for that.

Brainstorming of Additional Opportunities A TAC member commented that, rather than specifying “district energy” as a potential use, “energy generation” in general would be the appropriate scenario or option bundle to consider. Since energy-related uses will change along with technological innovations over time, it would be better to avoid being too specific. A TAC member commented that the implementation of new large-scale power generation would be a very strong option since the infrastructure is in place. A TAC member noted that Veridian needs to increase local transmission infrastructure and that they are open to the prospect of locating a converter station on the Pickering Nuclear site (for conversion from high voltage power to local residential/office use). The best location for a converter station would be immediately adjacent to the Hydro One transmission infrastructure. The project team asked what Veridian’s timeline would be for such an expansion and was informed that they are starting to reach capacity (particularly south of Highway 401), so Veridian would like to move forward within the next few years. A TAC member commented that it, based on the previous meetings, seemed like residential development will be very limited in the short term and that it is likely that the lands would be more focused on employment. The project team responded that it could be a good location for residential development if there were no issues with the site in terms of remediation. The TAC member pointed out that it, for this reason, will be important to have a complete understanding of the constraints. A TAC member noted that the Clarkson Petro Canada refinery had remained undeveloped for the past fifty years, and that this could be an indication that residential uses may not be reasonable to consider. The project team responded that certain segments of the site may be more conducive for residential uses than others. A TAC member said that Durham College and UOIT are interested in the possibility of a shared campus on the site. Durham College is currently undertaking campus planning, but at the moment, the provincial government does not allow satellite campuses. There would have to be provincial policy changes in order for the site to be institutionally developed. This does not reduce Durham College’s interest in the site, but is something that needs to be considered.

133

A TAC member pointed out that locating a college/university campus on the site would encourage neighbouring lands to redevelop towards mixed use, so as to provide housing and services for students. Participants observed that repurposing on the site generally would have an impact on surrounding land uses and could influence local development. Consideration should be given to possible synergies between employment uses on the site and new uses in the site’s surroundings. A TAC member noted that the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant has planned capacity to 2031 and has a plan to expand eastward when required (that is, in the opposite direction of the site). Residential uses are not permitted to be built within a certain buffer area, so it was concluded that the plant may limit the potential for certain repurposing options within planning zones 5, 6, and 7 (on the map mentioned below). It was also noted that the plant currently uses biogas in its processing of solids and that the plant’s buildings are heated using waste heat. The complete list6 of ideas captured as part of this meeting is as follows:

 Power generation as an overall scenario  Large-scale power generation  Converter station  Durham College/UOIT campus  Development opportunities in adjacent (non-OPG owned lands) that may be encouraged by the presence of a new campus  Expansion of the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant  Power generation using biogas (from the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant)  Using land along the site’s western edge to improve public access to the waterfront  Fast nuclear reactors for reuse of the used nuclear fuel  Energy-themed industrial uses, including research and development, consolidated OPG offices and alternative energy demonstration (including roof top farms)  Allotment gardens/community gardens  Energy-themed museum  Observatory  Combined exhibition space/art gallery/artist studios/workshop space  Ferry terminal (to the USA) and marina, including parkland and a waterfront promenade with cafes, restaurants and cinemas  Film studio/theatres  Educational facilities/UOIT campus  Concert hall (visual and performing arts) overlooking Lake Ontario  A focus/theme on food security and sustainable urban agriculture/food production, such as, aquaponics/hydroponics/aeroponics and vertical urban farming (which requires a large power supply). (Food processing could take place in the Brock Industrial Area.)

6 This includes a list of ideas for future uses submitted by a TAC member to the project team prior to this meeting.

134

Availability of Land Areas Allan Webster presented a map, which outlines the site divided into eight planning zones. Current conditions and key constraints for each of the zones were noted.

A TAC member asked how the exclusion zone would be impacted over time. OPG gave an overview of the main phases of decommissioning, including the transfer and storage of used fuel. It was explained that, over the course of decommissioning, as the safety case changes, the exclusion zone would be assumed to decrease accordingly. It was also noted that, if applicable, new nuclear uses on the site may require the existing exclusion zone to remain in effect.

A TAC member asked whether it was an absolute requirement for OPG to continue to be the owner of the site. OPG responded that it is their preference to maintain ownership, although a sale could be considered if a compelling proposal were to be presented.

A TAC member commented that OPG might need both a short-term and a long-term plan. OPG responded that a vision would be needed for the end result – with incremental steps along the way of how to get there. The TAC member responded that the potential uses and vision for the decommissioning period would be distinctly different from a long-term vision. OPG responded that, for this reason, it will be important to apply an adaptive approach that seeks to avoid interim uses that may preclude certain uses of the site long term. The TAC member responded that – rather than a specific vision – what is really needed may be a land management process.

A TAC member suggested that, on the west side of the site, near the windmill, there may be some potential for improving public access to the shoreline and the park.

A TAC member asked OPG to confirm the understanding that OPG owns all lands on the site. OPG confirmed their ownership of the lands, including lands leased long term to Hydro One.

A TAC member suggested that identified options be grouped into two groups: those that have synergies with operations during the decommissioning period and therefore could be implemented short term, and those that only would be relevant once decommissioning has been completed. OPG confirmed that they are looking for synergistic, short-term uses, as well as a vision for the long term (after decommissioning) – and that an important consideration for early uses will be that they do not restrict the longer-term uses.

Screening and Assessment Framework Kristina Gillin provided an overview of the screening and assessment framework (which had been distributed at the previous TAC meeting). The framework consists of one set of screening criteria and one set of objectives and associated key attributes against which the various repurposing options would be assessed.

135

A TAC member mentioned fast nuclear reactors and the prospect of reusing used fuel in the future. Planning assumptions will need to be very fluid since we do not know what technologies will be in place towards the end of the process. It was suggested that new nuclear power generation options should be considered as screening criteria, since such options would clash with a number of other land use options. The TAC member noted that there is a need to hear from Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of Energy on a strategic direction with regards to preferred technologies for new nuclear options. OPG responded that a challenge for the project is to ensure that we do not get too far ahead of ourselves in terms of predicting the future. The current planning assumptions are based on today’s knowledge but need to be updated along the way. A TAC member suggested that the various options could be organized into “if/then” statements (such as, if nuclear power generation then residential uses are not possible).

A TAC member commented that, from a process perspective and given the timeframes, it should be ensured that we stay open to new objectives as they arise in the coming years. Another TAC member noted that, within the next five years, there will likely be a need for more power generation capacity in the area, given the City of Pickering’s plans for intensification.

A TAC member asked why compatibility with the City’s and Region’s plans is part of the assessment and not considered as one of the screening criteria. The project team responded that this largely is due to the policies being quite broad and that they are subject to change.

A TAC member asked what the final documentation of the project will look like. OPG responded that it can be assumed to include a list of options that could be implemented immediately, together with a general future vision for the site and a description of how the ongoing visioning would be managed over time. It was recommended by a TAC member that the final project documentation clearly outline the process for making decisions – while not actually identifying specific long-term uses; such a document, it was advised, would state who will be involved in making the decision, when the decision will be made – and what OPG would be deciding on at each step.

A TAC member asked whether the report will be going to OPG’s Board and when they will be making decisions based on the report. OPG confirmed that the report will be going to the Board.

A TAC member mentioned the visioning exercise undertaken by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) across Canada and asked whether the Repurposing Pickering study is missing any groups for consultation based on that experience. The project team responded that there are some industry sector groups that are yet to be heard from. NWMO also consulted First Nations/Métis groups, who are not proposed for engagement through this process but who will be informed. Another TAC member asked whether any industry groups or developers have been interviewed. The project team explained that such consultations would occur in the later stages of the study.

136

Consultation Notes MN-4 Community Advisory Council – Meeting No. 1

These notes are a compilation of questions and comments received during the Community Advisory Council (CAC) meeting that was held on December 16, 2014. This meeting was the first CAC at which the Repurposing Pickering project participated. Please note that this record of the meeting is not meant to be exhaustive and does not provide a verbatim transcript. In addition, names of individuals who expressed specific comments are not attributed.

Meeting Date, Time and Location Date: December 16, 2014 Time: 6.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. Location: Pickering Nuclear Information Centre 1675 Montgomery Park Rd., Pickering

Meeting Agenda This meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting for the CAC and as such, Repurposing Pickering provided a presentation that fit into the agenda of the larger meeting. The following represents the agenda items for the Repurposing Pickering presentation and discussion. 1. Project Team Introduction 2. Repurposing Study Introduction 3. Overview of Decommissioning Process 4. Overview of Repurposing Pickering Project 5. Draft Agenda for Next CAC Meeting The complete meeting agenda for CAC Meeting No. 1 is provided in Attachment A.

137

Attendance:

Name Title Attended John Earley Donna Fabbro Keith Falconer Mary Gawen Donald Hudson Tim Kellar Doug Lockrey Greg Lymer Dan Shire Deborah Wylie Regrets Elliotte Boyko Jim Dike Norma Drummond Kevin Heritage Pat Mattson Helen Shamsipour Observers Bill Houston Heather Jessop PDA Attendants Eileen Clark Francis Gillis John Vincett OPG Attendants Vanessa Hughes Jerry Keto Vice President Nuclear Decommissioning Kevin Powers Director, Nuclear Public Affairs Glenn Pringle Vince Smyth Consultant Team Attendants Bob Stasko Project Director, Candesco Dave Hardy Consultation and Stakeholder Engagement Lead, Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited Noah Brotman Stakeholder Engagement Manager, Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited

138

Introductions and Purpose of the Meeting John Vincett, the CAC facilitator, provided a brief introduction to the project and handed the meeting over to Jerry Keto. Jerry Keto thanked the CAC members for inviting the project team to present, and introduced himself, the project team, and the Repurposing Pickering project in general. Jerry Keto also presented the agenda for this part of the meeting. Bob Stasko introduced himself and explained that the primary purpose of this meeting with the CAC was to familiarize CAC members with the project, to summarize what work had been completed so far, and to explain the consultation process that will be occurring in the coming months.

Presentation Following the introductions and review of the meeting agenda, Jerry Keto, Bob Stasko and Dave Hardy presented CAC members with an overview of the Repurposing Pickering project, an overview of the site and existing facilities, the decommissioning process, and the consultation program that is to occur. The following key points were covered:  Introduction to the Repurposing Pickering study  Review of project objectives  Description of timelines for both the decommissioning and repurposing projects  Summary of key project challenges  Summary of study goals  Overview of decommissioning process  Overview of Repurposing Pickering  Summary of project approach and desired outcomes  Summary of decision-making methodology  Review of community and stakeholder engagement approach  Overview of CAC meeting plan and objectives  Preliminary agenda for next CAC meeting

139

Participant Comments and Questions Throughout the presentation, participants were invited to provide their comments and ask questions to clarify their understanding of the material. Following the presentation, the floor was opened up for comments by CAC members. Comments, questions and responses were noted and can be found below. Questions are listed in chronological order of when they came up at the meeting. Names are not attributed.

A CAC member commented that they had recently had a representative of Ontario Power Authority (OPA) speak to them and who mentioned the possibility of rethinking the decommissioning timeline. They wondered if that, if this was the case, would impact the schedule presented at this meeting. OPG responded that any change to the decommissioning timeline would certainly have impacts on the repurposing timelines as well. A CAC member asked what the status of the site would be once the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) releases OPG from responsibility for the site. OPG responded that attaining such a release from the CNSC is the goal of decommissioning as it means that all issues and responsibilities have been appropriately dealt with. The CAC asked whether all of the buildings and structures would be removed at that point. OPG replied that all structures (to a certain depth) must be removed in order to be released from regulatory control by the CNSC. It was also clarified that the decommissioning funds will cover all of those tasks. A project team member briefly described the Greifswald nuclear site and repurposing activities that have occurred there. The particular focus was on how companies that were involved in the decommissioning process have now set up permanent facilities on the site in order to provide decommissioning services to the global market. A CAC member asked OPG to clarify whether repurposing would mean that OPG would ultimately be pulling out of Pickering entirely. OPG answered that the intention is to maintain ownership of the site and that seeking partnerships and synergies with other organizations/companies would allow for new uses while maintaining OPG ownership of the lands. It was further pointed out that, at this point, no options should be off the table, including new nuclear applications. A CAC member commented that, at a previous meeting, they had heard about the City of Pickering economic study and wondered whether the two studies would be working together or separately. OPG answered that the Pickering economic study is independent of this process as that study would not be assuming any repurposing of the site. Rather it is based on the current decommissioning plan. Deborah Wylie, Principal Planner for the City of Pickering, responded that, in setting up the study, they knew that looking at economic impacts without knowing the repurposing approach would be limiting, so the scope was set accordingly. As options start to get identified, the City will have to look at what further studies may be required. The studies are not in competition, but are more collaborative.

140

Deborah Wylie asked whether there was a project website yet, as she was trying to share information with the planner for the Downtown Pickering study about Repurposing Pickering. She also asked whether it would be possible to provide the planner with a copy of the presentation. The project team responded that the plan is to circulate digital copies of the presentation materials to participants, so the planner could be provided with a copy that way. A CAC member commented that, in 40 years, many of the people at the table would not be around, so it will be very important to get the voice of young people heard as part of the consultation process. Engaging the schools will be helpful. It was further stated that it will be important to understand the demographic changes that are coming in the area. A CAC member commented that they see a great opportunity for the Ajax Pickering Board of Trade to get involved, since there is a lot of opportunity here. The project team responded that the Board of Trade had been invited to participate in the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings. A CAC member commented that dealing appropriately with any contaminants on the site would be a key concern. A CAC member commented that the public consultation plan did not really excite them and that young people would want to see a lot more of an online presence with social media engagement. The project team commented that plans for youth engagement and social media engagement are currently in the works and would be presented to the CAC at a future meeting. A CAC member asked what would happen to all of the asphalt and concrete. The project team responded that any radioactively contaminated materials would be taken to the deep geologic repository (DGR) for low- and intermediate-level waste currently being developed by OPG. Any conventional wastes will be dealt with like demolition wastes from any other project. A CAC member commented that it would be a challenge that land uses that seem good now, may be completely irrelevant in forty years. The commenter noted that, while you cannot wait to start figuring things out, the goal posts will keep moving over the life of the project. A CAC member commented that they would expect Hydro One lands to become a significant part of the deliberation, because a huge chunk of the lands are dedicated to power transmission infrastructure. In response to a discussion around the challenge of bringing Pickering residents out to participate in the consultation process, a CAC member pointed out that there was a significant level of engagement in the 1990s when the consultation around the evacuation plan and warning systems were occurring. The suggestion was made that Pickering residents would see the importance of these decisions and engage with the process, unlike other recent consultation efforts that had seen limited success. A CAC member commented that it may be possible to locate a vast amount of infrastructure in the hydro corridor.

141

The possibility of nuclear fuel re-use or gas fired generation on the site was mentioned by a CAC member. This member also commented that it would be a shame to give up a site that already had full approval as a nuclear site and that options should be explored to use that licence. It is a location that is particularly well suited for energy production. A CAC member commented that they felt that the proposed consultation process looks strong. A CAC member suggested that, in light of the shutdown of the Chalk River facility, perhaps the creation of a medical isotopes facility would be a good use to consider. A CAC member commented that maintaining an environmental perspective on the repurposing will be important. Another member stressed the importance of greenspace, particularly along the waterfront. A CAC member commented that ensuring high-quality employment should be a key criteria. A CAC member stated that they appreciated that the presentation about Repurposing Pickering was very comprehensive and that a lot of thought had gone into it. A CAC member commented that, since the decision about what long-term land uses to promote would be a moving target, it would be more important to get the decision-making criteria right so that the basis for the decision can be adjusted as the change occurs. A CAC member commented that they expect the public to be most interested once the options start to be presented, as that is when they would be most likely to want to provide input. It was pointed out by a CAC member that the Pickering nuclear site is the one gap in a very long waterfront open space system and that finding ways to reclaim the waterfront for public use should be a priority. A CAC member noted that, due to the proximity to downtown Pickering, the lands would have a strong selling point for future residential development. A CAC member suggested that one way to engage youth may be the creation of an award or a contest that rewarded the best repurposing idea. A CAC member asked how trust can be developed regarding ensuring that radiation and ground contamination concerns will be properly dealt with. Another CAC member responded that the development of a clear set of criteria through an open and inclusive process would help assure the public of the integrity of the process. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – CAC No. 1 Meeting Agenda

142

Attachment A – CAC No. 1 Meeting Agenda

Sub-Agenda for Initial CAC Meeting

Date: December 16, 2014 Location: Pickering Nuclear Information Centre 1675 Montgomery Park Road, Pickering

Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the initial meeting of the Community Advisory Council (CAC) and the Repurposing Pickering team is to provide a general introduction to the project. The goal is to familiarize the CAC with the project team and to provide an overview of the process that will occur over the next year in developing and evaluating potential repurposing opportunities. CAC members have specific knowledge about the community and the characteristics of the area that will be invaluable input to the project. The CAC will invite community members to comment on and contribute to Repurposing Pickering directly to the project team. By engaging with a smaller and more focused group of interested community members, there will be an opportunity to have more nuanced conversations about the evaluation of potential new land uses.

Meeting Agenda:  Project Team Introduction  Repurposing Study Introduction  Overview of Decommissioning Process  Overview of Repurposing Pickering Project  Draft Agenda for Next CAC Meeting

143

This page intentionally left blank.

144

Consultation Notes MN-5 Community Advisory Council – Meeting No. 2

These notes are a compilation of questions and comments received during the Community Advisory Council (CAC) meeting that was held on February 17, 2015. This was the second CAC meeting at which the Repurposing Pickering project participated. Please note that this record of the meeting is not meant to be exhaustive and does not provide a verbatim transcript. In addition, names of individuals who expressed specific comments are not attributed.

Meeting Date, Time and Location Date: February 17, 2015 Time: 6.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. (7.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. for the Repurposing Pickering portion of the CAC meeting) Location: Pickering Nuclear Information Centre 1675 Montgomery Park Rd., Pickering

Meeting Agenda This meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting for the CAC, and the Repurposing Pickering project provided a presentation that fit into the agenda of the larger meeting. The following represents the agenda items for the Repurposing Pickering presentation and discussion. 1. Introductions 2. Baseline Conditions – Overview and Feedback 3. Vision and Potential Opportunities – Brainstorming 4. Identifying Opportunities – Introduction 5. Draft Agenda for Next CAC Meeting

145

Attendance

Name Title Pickering CAC Elliotte Boyko Jim Dike John Early Keith Falconer Mary Gawen Bill Houston Tim Kellar Doug Lockrey Pat Mattson Helen Shamsipour Dan Shire Deborah Wylie Observers Ralph Sutton Ron Oberth President, Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries (OCI) Miguel Santini Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Ontario Power Generation (OPG) Carole Gregoris Manager, Emergency Preparedness Vanessa Hughes Manager, Corporate Relations and Communications Jerry Keto Executive Sponsor and Vice President, Nuclear Decommissioning Brian McGee Senior Vice President, Pickering Nuclear Glenn Pringle Facility Manager, Pickering Waste Management Facility Consultant Team Attendants Noah Brotman Stakeholder Engagement Manager, Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited Julia Bubrin Consultation Coordinator, Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited Kristina Gillin Project Manager, Candesco Bob Stasko Project Director, Candesco CAC Facilitators Francis Gillis Facilitation Support, Public Dialogue Alternatives John Vincett Facilitator, Public Dialogue Alternatives

146

Presentation Jerry Keto thanked the CAC members for, once again, inviting the project team to present, and he reintroduced himself and the project team. Bob Stasko introduced himself and presented the agenda for the Repurposing Pickering segment of the CAC meeting. Julia Bubrin provided an update on the development of public consultation activities for the project. Highlights were provided of the public open house, the pop up consultation booth, the youth engagement activities and the development of a web and social media presence. A CAC participant pointed out that OPG will be involved as a sponsor in ‘Jamfest’ in June and that this could be a good opportunity for further consultation with the public. Kristina Gillin presented highlights of and asked for feedback on the Baseline Conditions Summary, which had been distributed to the CAC members at the previous meeting. After that, Bob Stasko facilitated the brainstorming session, which focused on a vision and potential opportunities for repurposing. A lively conversation ensued in which CAC members shared a wide range of ideas for consideration. After the brainstorming session, Kristina Gillin provided a brief overview of the process for capturing ideas for future uses of the Pickering site, including highlighting a few examples of other significant repurposing projects that have been studied as part of identifying opportunities for Repurposing Pickering. To close the meeting, a draft agenda for CAC 3 was presented. The CAC facilitator then asked if the CAC members would like to extend the time dedicated to Repurposing Pickering at the next meeting, in order to provide further time for brainstorming, and the CAC members were in favour of that suggestion.

Baseline Conditions A CAC member asked for an explanation of the discrepancy between the current population numbers and the future numbers. A project team member explained that the “current” population numbers were taken from the 2011 Census, while the future numbers came from the Durham Regional Official Plan projections. The primary cause of the discrepancy was the delay in the development timeline of the Seaton community development, which represents a significant proportion of the growth that was to have occurred over the previous five years. It

147

was also noted that the City of Pickering and Durham Region had released updated population projections since the Baseline Conditions study. A CAC member asked for clarification of the timeframe for redevelopment, particularly when the various land areas would become available. The project team responded that the Baseline Conditions did not include the timeframe of redevelopment, but rather documented the current conditions and provided some general projections as context for repurposing. OPG responded that Repurposing Pickering would look at all phases of the project, and it was stressed that, at this time, no options are off the table. A CAC member commented that the description of the Pickering Nuclear site should show the number of acres. OPG noted that a map currently is under development and that it will show the specific areas, including their acreage. A CAC member asked whether the lands will be released to the private or public sector for redevelopment. OPG responded that the intent is to maintain OPG ownership but that the lands could be leased so as to maintain control of the site. A CAC member commented that a liquid natural gas station could be a good use of the land. The provincial government wants to get into exporting natural gas, and this may be an excellent opportunity. A CAC member noted that there should be a distinction drawn between repurposing the site and repurposing the facilities on the site. OPG responded that all options are on the table and that the existing nuclear facilities may be beneficial for new nuclear uses, and that any such options would be screened and assessed along with all other identified opportunities. A CAC member asked about who owns the hydro corridor and pointed out that the acreage of the corridor almost is more than the site itself. OPG explained that Infrastructure Ontario owns the hydro corridor and leases it to Hydro One. OPG also acknowledged that the hydro corridor represents a significant opportunity; however, it is essential to remember that any new power generation uses would require the corridor to remain in place. A CAC member commented that the rail spurs would be helpful for any large industrial uses of the site. A CAC member expressed the feeling that they still see Pickering as a bedroom community to Toronto, but that is not reflected in the Baseline Conditions Summary. A CAC member suggested that the school boards should participate and give input on future school planning for the area. A CAC member asked what would happen to the exclusion zone over the timeframe of redevelopment. OPG responded that it may be assumed that the exclusion zone can be reduced over time. The CAC member also asked whether the licence will change, and the response was that it is anticipated that the licence and licence conditions will change a number of times over the lifetime of the project.

148

A CAC member asked about the potential for a high-speed rail corridor running from Windsor to Quebec, and whether this would impact repurposing. The project team responded that, over the years, a number of proposals have started and stopped regarding high-speed rail. Since, at this time, there are no concrete plans for a high-speed rail corridor, this is currently not considered a factor for the project. However, when and if plans progress in this area, OPG would certainly be considering the impact on Repurposing Pickering. A CAC member asked how a provincial-level decision to import power from Quebec might impact repurposing. OPG responded that a decision of this kind would impact the consideration of new generation on the site. A CAC member asked how the project would address the significant population growth that is expected in Pickering in the coming years. OPG responded that this growth is a key consideration for repurposing, and that it will be important to maintain flexibility of uses to allow the redevelopment to evolve, as conditions in Pickering evolve.

Vision and Opportunities Brainstorming A CAC member asked how the used fuel fits into the repurposing plan and whether consideration has been given to recycling/reusing the fuel as is done in some countries. In response, the project team provided examples of reprocessing facilities around the world. OPG noted that reprocessing currently is a major challenge, although that could change in the future. A CAC member noted that it would be important to leverage the natural areas around the site. Using the area as a focal point for studying climate change and habitat change would be a valuable use of the lands. A CAC member pointed out that the waterfront is a great opportunity for recreation, and that they would like to see it kept and improved. It was suggested that recreation would be one of the best possible long-term uses for the Pickering community. A CAC member noted that, in the short term (during decommissioning), the site would not be attractive for residential development. A CAC member suggested that there should be consideration given to uses that recognize the nuclear history of Canada. A nuclear museum built within the actual nuclear plant would be a fascinating and powerful experience. A CAC member pointed out that strong consideration should be given to uses that maintain the nuclear licence of the site, as such licences are extremely hard to come by. It was also noted that such uses would maintain a lot of jobs. Other CAC members noted that it really was the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station that built Pickering, and that it continues to be the largest employer. The greatest use of existing resources would be to take advantage of the nuclear licence, as well as the existing facilities and infrastructure.

149

A CAC member noted that it is highly unlikely that the community would want to see residential development on Kinsmen Park or the Hydro Marsh. Another CAC member pointed out that the only reason that those have not already been developed is the presence of the exclusion zone. A CAC member stressed the importance of considering the significant proportion of the tax base represented by OPG and OPG employees. A CAC member expressed that, in sixty years, it would be good to see the site used as a “Centre of Excellence for ______.” The only question is what that blank should be. It was recommended that there be a link to the values that OPG has always stood for (nuclear, community engagement, sustainability, nature, safety, etc.) The complete list of suggestions for a vision and potential opportunities captured during the brainstorming (or as part of discussions during other agenda items) is as follows:  Liquid natural gas station  Renewable energy (for example, biofuel and geothermal)  Biogas generation from the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant  Nuclear research centre  Medical isotope reactor facility  Data centre/server farm  Climate change and habitat research centre  Recreational waterfront uses  Training facility for police/fire workers/ ambulance personnel/Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)/military  Prison  Nuclear Museum of Canada  Centre of Excellence for ______ Long linear park using hydro corridor  University/college campus  Mixed use neighbourhood  Distributed energy infrastructure

150

Consultation Notes MN-6 Community Advisory Council – Meeting No. 3

These notes are a compilation of questions and comments received during the Community Advisory Council (CAC) meeting that was held on March 17, 2015. This was the third CAC meeting at which the Repurposing Pickering project participated. Please note that this record of the meeting is not meant to be exhaustive and does not provide a verbatim transcript. In addition, names of individuals who expressed specific comments are not attributed.

Meeting Date, Time and Location Date: March 17, 2015 Time: 6.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. (6.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. for the Repurposing Pickering portion of the CAC meeting) Location: Pickering Nuclear Information Centre 1675 Montgomery Park Rd., Pickering

Meeting Agenda This meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting for the CAC. The Repurposing Pickering project team presented an update and conducted a brainstorming session as part of the agenda of the larger meeting. The following represents the agenda items for the Repurposing Pickering presentation and discussion: 1. Project Update 2. Additional Opportunities – Brainstorming 3. Availability of Land Areas 4. Public and Stakeholder Consultation Overview 5. Next Steps

151

Attendance

Name Title Pickering CAC Elliotte Boyko Donna Fabbro Keith Falconer Mary Gawen Kevin Heritage Bill Houston Donald Hudson Doug Lockrey Greg Lymer Pat Mattson Dan Shire Ralph Sutton Observers Keith Gilligan Reporter, Pickering Advertiser Miguel Santini Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Josh Suresh Uma Suresh Ontario Power Generation (OPG) Vanessa Hughes Manager, Corporate Relations and Communications Jerry Keto Executive Sponsor and Vice President, Nuclear Decommissioning Brian McGee Senior Vice President, Pickering Nuclear Glenn Pringle Facility Manager, Pickering Waste Management Facility Kris Probodiak Repurposing Coordinator Consultant Team Attendants Noah Brotman Stakeholder Engagement Manager, Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited Julia Bubrin Consultation Coordinator, Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited Kristina Gillin Project Manager, Candesco Dave Hardy Stakeholder and Consultation Lead, Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited Bob Stasko Project Director, Candesco CAC Facilitators Francis Gillis Facilitation Support, Public Dialogue Alternatives John Vincett Facilitator, Public Dialogue Alternatives

152

Introduction Jerry Keto thanked the CAC members for inviting the project team and presented some highlights. The CAC was informed that, as a result of the management of the investment, the decommissioning fund has made money for OPG. CAC members were also informed about the development of an OPG-produced information video on decommissioning. He also informed the CAC that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is producing a film about the reuse of nuclear facilities and sites. As part of creating that film, a team will likely be visiting Pickering during the summer to get footage related to Repurposing Pickering; for example, they may be invited to attend and film at a CAC meeting. Dave Hardy provided an update on project developments since the previous CAC meeting. The City of Pickering and Region of Durham had provided revised population projections, commentary on baseline conditions, a number of potential repurposing suggestions and some strategic advice for the project. He also gave an overview of feedback received from the TAC. This included the advice to focus on larger groups of potential land uses rather than specific, individual options; the need to identify short-term, synergistic uses; consideration of subdividing land parcels further (depending on certain uses); and shifting towards defining a land management process rather than a specific and concrete long-term plan. A CAC member asked whether OPG intends to maintain ownership of the lands and what impact that would have on the consideration of options. OPG responded that the intent is to maintain ownership; however, this would not be overly restrictive, since it would still allow for partnership and land leases. A CAC member asked whether there would be a map showing constraints. The project team responded that a map was on the agenda later on during this meeting. A CAC member showed a letter that had been received from MP Corneliu Chisu regarding the potential for reusing used fuel on the site. OPG responded that they are aware and that this idea is being considered as an input to the study – along with all other ideas.

Brainstorming Session For the brainstorming session, John Vincett divided the CAC members into four groups. Each group was given a general theme (from those that emerged during the brainstorming session in CAC meeting #2), and participants were asked to identify other potential options within that category. As well, each group was asked to come up with two “wild card” ideas that did not necessarily have to do with their theme. Following the brainstorming, the groups were asked to report back to the CAC about their conversations. The four groups were: 1) Natural environment and recreation; 2) Employment generating uses; 3) Centres of Excellence; and 4) Educational campus.

153

Natural Environment and Recreation The group felt that a key value should be to maintain the naturalized areas and enhance them where possible. The group identified a need for a research and education centre that is focused on habitat and species of the Great Lakes. The group also noted that Alex Robertson Park is a provincially significant wetland and that the expectation is that it will remain so for the foreseeable future. The group suggested the possibility of re-engineering or constructing a marsh area along the lakeshore. A comparable example was suggested from the Port Union and Rouge River area. This would help connect the waterfront trail along the lake and provide recreational opportunities. The complete list of ideas from this group is as follows:  Expanded marina  Fisheries research centre  Education centre dedicated to marsh restoration  Education centre dedicated to research on the Great Lakes  Re-engineered marshland along the lakeshore  A five-acre parcel for winter storage of pleasure craft adjacent to the marina7

Employment Generating Uses This group suggested that it is likely that the option that would generate the most employment opportunities would be to build a new nuclear power plant. They pointed out that everything that is required for that already exists on site, including licences and transmission infrastructure. New nuclear power was viewed as the top option for generating employment and making money for OPG. The group also suggested an international shipping port, either for commercial goods, natural gas or other major export products. A ‘truck to ship’ transfer station was considered appropriate for the location. The complete list of ideas from this group is as follows:  New nuclear power generation  Overseas shipping port  Centre of Excellence for Energy  Recycling centre

7 This idea was received from a CAC member after the meeting and was added into this group’s results, since the idea relates to expansion of the marina.

154

 Retirement centre  RV park that might work in association with Durham Live  Theme park  Parking space for the Coast Guard auxiliary rescue launch and a 40’ trailer on the waterfront8

Centres of Excellence The group suggested that a Centre of Excellence would make the most sense if it were thematically tied to OPG’s experience and professional capacity. There appears to be great opportunity to leverage the knowledge and history of OPG at the Pickering nuclear site to establish a truly innovative centre. The group recommended the creation of a Centre of Excellence for Industrial Safety, which would leverage the skills and knowledge of OPG’s employees to create safety-focused training programs, procedures and policies. Both nuclear-specific and general industrial safety would be appropriate. The group pointed out that, regardless of the focus of the Centre of Excellence, it is expected that there would be some international interest, particularly if it were to be focused on decommissioning or repurposing of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (PNGS). It was noted that, in order for this to happen, accommodations for foreign visitors would be needed (either on site or in the surrounding community). The complete list of ideas from this group is as follows:  Centre of Excellence for Industrial Safety  Centre of Excellence for Nuclear Decommissioning  Education centre to teach new immigrants about nuclear power and nuclear safety  Temporary accommodations/hotel to house visiting experts  Community centre for seniors  Golf course  Large sports complex or stadium  Camp X living museum or theme park

8 This idea was received from a CAC member after the meeting and was added into this group’s results, since the idea relates to employment generating uses.

155

Educational Campus This group stated that there is significant potential for an educational campus on the site. It was noted that the focus of the campus could synergize to some degree with PNGS during the decommissioning period, but that it could become a broader institution in the longer term. The group suggested that a campus would be most appropriate for planning zones 2, 3 and 4. The group suggested that a marketing and focus group test facility could be put on the site in the short or long term. This would help attract other businesses to Pickering, as there is a market for facilities of this kind to help develop products and test advertising campaigns. The complete list of ideas from this group is as follows:  College or university: o Tool and die training centre o Gaming and computer animation o Automotive support industry o Carpentry  Aquatic research and training centre: o Scuba school o Fish research o Boating o Fish farming training centre  Research centre on the recycling of nuclear fuel  Marketing and focus group test facility  Cruise ship dock and launch area  Large-scale green houses or indoor botanical gardens: o Local food produce o Tourist attraction

General Comments A CAC member commented that anything built should be financially independent and not be supported by government; self-sufficiency should be a key value in order not to burden the local tax payers. A CAC member stated that, whatever the new uses end up being, the Pickering Nuclear Information Centre should remain, since it has been a valuable resource for the community and should be kept throughout the decommissioning timeframe.

156

Land Use Availability Map Jerry Keto provided an overview of the land use availability map, describing the key features of each zone and highlighting some of the factors that would influence the potential repurposing options in each zone. In regards to Zone 7 (the ‘East Complex’), a CAC member asked what would happen if the off- site used fuel repository is not completed for decades and the fuel cannot be removed from the site. “Is there a possibility to move the fuel to another part of the site if you want to use those lands for something else?” OPG responded that one of the key assumptions of the repurposing study is that the repository will be completed in time, although the used fuel can safely remain in storage on site for an extended period of time. Relocating the used fuel to another part of the site may be possible; however, this would require complex approvals and would be costly, so it would likely not be a preferred approach. A CAC member asked about remaining radioactivity in the buildings once the used fuel has been removed from the power block. OPG clarified that, once the used fuel has been removed, the demolition process will not begin for a number of years, thereby allowing such remaining radioactivity to decay. A CAC member asked how long after shutdown the lands in Zones 6 and 7 will remain within the exclusion zone, and in general, how the exclusion zone would be impacted after shutdown. OPG responded that it is expected that the exclusion zone can be reduced in stages after shutdown. It was emphasized that this has not yet been discussed with the regulator, so it is premature to state how and when such a reduction will occur. A CAC member asked what is involved in the manufacturing of medical isotopes and what it would take to convert PNGS to that. OPG responded that there are two methods for creating medical isotopes: reactors and cyclotrons. The existing reactors are not designed for this purpose, so if such a facility were to become one of the future uses, the existing equipment could not be reused. That said, the construction of a medical isotope facility is relatively simple compared to the PNGS, and the existing nuclear licences would help in the approval process. A CAC member asked about the current status of the Chalk River facility. OPG responded that it is reaching its end of life, with a shutdown expected in 2018. A CAC member asked what it would take to convert the PNGS to a medical isotope facility and whether it would be profitable. OPG responded that such a facility would likely not be profitable, however it would perform an important public service and that there may be value in that. A CAC member asked how much of Alex Robertson Park is within the exclusion zone. OPG responded that the exclusion zone extends 914 m away from the reactor buildings and that a large portion of the park is within that zone. The project team confirmed that the CAC member’s comment was correct in that a large part of Alex Robertson Park is within the exclusion zone, but it was clarified that the table did not include reference to the exclusion zone for Planning Zone 1, since it was considered not applicable for repurposing as a whole.

157

A CAC member asked if OPG knows how long the lease is for the Hydro One corridor and whether the transmission equipment within the corridor is nearing the end of its life as well. OPG responded that the hydro corridor and parts of the PNGS site are on a long-term lease to Hydro One (999 years). The current status of the equipment and its timeframe for replacement are not known by OPG at this time. It was also stated that Hydro One likely views the corridor and equipment as very valuable resources.

Public Consultation Update Julia Bubrin provided an update on other consultation activities that have occurred, as well as on upcoming events. A CAC member suggested community centres and the Pickering GO station as possible locations for pop up consultation booths. It was also suggested that the consultation activities be expanded beyond the City of Pickering and encompass, in particular, public consultations in Scarborough and Ajax. A CAC member recommended that, for the youth workshop, there would likely be far more interest from youth if it were held on a weekday during school time. With youth, there tends to be a better response if the event is mandatory, as weekends can be a challenge for many. A CAC member suggested that providing volunteer hours to students may not be enough to get them interested and that giving out a $25 gift card would be much more likely to interest them. A CAC member commented that engaging the community through social media could be problematic. However, it could elicit a different kind of conversation, which might be interesting.

158

Consultation Highlights MN-7 Community Advisory Council – Meeting No. 4

As part of the public and stakeholder engagement activities for the Repurposing Pickering project, the following consultation meeting took place: Date, Time and Location: April 21, 2015, from approximately 5:45 to 6:15 p.m. at the Pickering Nuclear Information Centre, Pickering Purpose: To provide an update to the Community Advisory Council (CAC) members on status and plans of the upcoming public engagement activities, including showing the pop up displays and handouts. Attendees: A total of approximately 20 CAC members and OPG staff Presenters: Kris Probodiak (OPG), Noah Brotman (Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited) and Kristina Gillin (Candesco) Summary of Meeting: The pop up booth and poster boards were displayed inside the main auditorium, and prior to the start of the formal meeting, several CAC members stopped and looked at the contents before taking their seats. CAC members were also provided with copies of the main handouts at the public events (brochure and FAQ sheet) before the meeting. At 6 p.m., when the CAC meeting started, Kris Probodiak introduced the team and provided a summary of the two pop ups held to date. Noah Brotman then briefed the CAC members on the upcoming pop up and open house on April 23, 2015. He also gave an update on the situation on youth engagement; that is, that there was interest and sessions had been booked at two schools, but due to the teacher strike in Durham we are most likely not able to conduct those as planned. We are monitoring the situation and will adapt accordingly. We then opened up for questions and comments, and the following main points were noted:  Consider using more historic photos in various information products (to reflect the 'Proud Past' part of the tag line).  The importance of engaging youth was re-emphasized. One suggestion was to approach youth through other existing forums, such as scout organizations. Approaching the University of Toronto Scarborough campus was also suggested.  A CAC member asked about status of recommendation from the previous CAC meeting of doing pop ups also in Ajax and Scarborough. The team responded that, although this had not been added for the current pop up series, we agreed with the suggestion and are considering that for future activities. The team also mentioned that ad campaigns and invitations for the current activities have been distributed far beyond Pickering. Kris Probodiak concluded the briefing, thanked the CAC members for their interest and re-emphasized that we hope to see them at the open house on April 23, 2015.

159

This page intentionally left blank.

160

Consultation Highlights MN-8 Community Advisory Council – Meeting No. 5

As part of the public and stakeholder engagement activities for the Repurposing Pickering project, the following consultation meeting took place: Date, Time and Location: May 19, 2015, at 6 p.m. at the Pickering Nuclear Information Centre, Pickering Purpose: To provide an update to the Community Advisory Council (CAC) members of the recently held public engagement activities. Attendees: A total of approximately 20 CAC members and OPG staff Presenters: Kevin Powers (OPG)

Summary of Meeting: As one of the agenda items on the regularly scheduled CAC meeting, Kevin Powers presented a summary of the recently conducted pop up booth and open house public consultation sessions. The presentation included information on number of visitors, commonly heard themes and examples of the ideas submitted during these consultations. Questions from the CAC members and OPG’s responses during the presentation were as follows:

Q: Did people know ahead of time about the pop up info booths and open house? Or did they just drop by? A: Both were well advertised.

Q: Is the Federal government interested and/or involved? A: Individual MPs have taken interest but there has been no mass interest on the Federal level. We are provincially owned.

Q: Where are the criteria you will be using to consider the suggestions? This has not been shared with us yet. A: You are correct – it has not been shared yet.

161

Q: Did young people attend the sessions? A: Not that many. We are looking to get more youth involvement in the fall through in-school programs.

Q: What about involving students at the university and college level? A: This would also be part of the fall program. The plan is to engage students at schools in Urban Planning-type programs.

Q: Did you approach the Catholic school board about hosting in-school programs for youth (given the public board is on strike)? A: We did consider the Catholic board but decided to hold off on the in-school program until the fall.

Q: How many quality jobs are dependent on the plant? A: Approximately 3,000.

Q: How many jobs will come after station stops operation and during decommissioning? A: We don't know this yet; it is part of the work that the Pickering End of Commercial Operations (PECO) group is undertaking. But it will not be anything close to 3,000.

Q: When will you know this? A: Around 2017.

162

Consultation Highlights MN-9 Lunch and Learn – Pickering Engineering Department

As part of the public and stakeholder engagement activities for the Repurposing Pickering project, the following consultation meeting took place: Date, Time and Location: April 22, 2015, from noon to 1 p.m. at the Pickering Nuclear Information Centre, Pickering Purpose: To give an overview of the Repurposing Pickering project and conduct a brainstorming session to capture ideas as input to the screening and assessment of options. Attendees: A total of 23 people from the Pickering Engineering Department Presenters: Kris Probodiak (OPG) and Kristina Gillin (Candesco) Summary of Meeting: After introductions, Kris Probodiak gave an overview of the project. The overview included the purpose and main steps of the project, as well as a summary of the consultation activities taking place at this stage. Kristina Gillin then gave an overview of decommissioning of the Pickering station and associated waste management, after which Kris Probodiak presented the map of available land areas and briefed participants on the project’s process for identifying opportunities for consideration in the upcoming screening and assessment of options. Participants were then asked to brainstorm, in smaller groups, ideas for repurposing and thereafter summarize to the group as a whole. The ideas that were generated were as follows:  Using the site for different energy source – such as a solar farm  Industrial training centre (radiation, security, etc.)  Science centre, nuclear museum (tour the reactors, etc.)  Observatory  Paint ball facility  Learning area for the community  Convert to other power use (gas, biomass, etc.) to take advantage of switchyards, etc.  Entertainment area (amusement park, etc.); thought to be synergistic with existing parks  Airport (of a size and style similar to Toronto island airport)  Synchronous condensers – to reuse existing infrastructure  Alternative energy power generation  Leaving recreational areas as is (assuming they already generate revenue)  Training for a variety of trades (a lot of systems/equipment already exist for such uses) Kris Probodiak concluded the meeting by summarizing the next steps of the project, thanking participants for their ideas and inviting them to the open house on April 23, 2015.

163

This page intentionally left blank.

164

Consultation Highlights MN-10 Lunch and Learn – Darlington Engineering Department

As part of the public and stakeholder engagement activities for the Repurposing Pickering project, the following consultation meeting took place: Date, Time and Location: May 5, 2015, from 11:45 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station (in the Engineering and Support Services Building) Purpose: To give an overview of the Repurposing Pickering project and conduct a brainstorming session to capture ideas as input to the screening and assessment of options. Attendees: A total of 19 people from the Darlington Engineering Department Presenters: Kris Probodiak (OPG) and Kristina Gillin (Candesco) Summary of Meeting: Jeff Lehman, Director of Engineering at Darlington Nuclear, gave an introduction and welcomed the attendees and presenters. Kris Probodiak then gave a project overview, which included the purpose and main steps of the project, as well as a summary of the consultation activities that are being conducted at this stage. Kristina Gillin gave an overview of the plans for decommissioning of the Pickering station, after which Kris Probodiak presented the map of available land areas and briefed participants on the project’s process for identifying opportunities for consideration in the upcoming screening and assessment of options. Participants were then asked to brainstorm, in smaller groups, ideas for repurposing and thereafter summarize to the group as a whole. The ideas that were generated were as follows:  Use for spare parts to other reactors (or for spare parts in general)  Wind farm or solar farm – or both  During safe storage: Decommission the structures and release the lands that are along the waterfront for other types of uses (e.g., condos or expansion of marina) in order to generate revenue to help pay for decommissioning  After 2060: Ship port (could, e.g., include reusing large buildings for storage)  Self-sufficient community for both living and working (would have its own power production, water treatment, etc.)  University housed in existing buildings – and generally reuse structures when possible (such as, using the containment structures for experiments); could also be used by nuclear spin-off companies that would utilize the structures for testing, or any type of nuclear or non-nuclear research  Ensure that the nuclear operating experience is preserved! E.g., through nuclear-related research

165

 OPG-related research (such as, related to Darlington new build)  Convert to other type of power generation and reuse existing turbines and other infrastructure (e.g., natural gas plant)  Casino and resort  Nuclear security/emergency preparedness training (reusing existing facilities)  For the Pickering Learning Centre: Increase range of training capabilities to encompass, e.g., decommissioning and environmental protection  Conventional waste incinerator  Medical isotope production  Technical museum (including access to reactor buildings)  Other type of museum, such as natural history  Fusion research (could include reusing existing structures)  Power generation using alternative energy sources  Port  Centralized training facility for OPG (enhance and expand the Pickering Learning Centre, but could also use the Engineering Service Building (ESB) for training)  Lease the on-site water treatment plant to the municipality  Remediate parking and convert to nuclear theme park (owner/lease arrangement) – would include nuclear-themed rides (e.g., bumper cars)  Ripley’s aquarium  During safe storage: focus on beautification of the site to ‘revamp’ perception; e.g., paint the concrete structures  Nuclear Disney park  For the vacuum building: use for research and testing, etc., to take advantage of vacuum capability in a large volume (e.g., related to rocket science and rocket fuel)  Make use of power corridor  Maintenance facility or warehouse facility for OPG (but could also be leased)  Residential  Retirement facility

Kris Probodiak concluded the meeting by summarizing the next steps of the project and thanking participants for their ideas.

166

Consultation Notes MN-11 Pop Up Booth # 1, 2, 3 and Public Open House

These notes summarize the pop up booth events on April 18, April 20 and April 23, 2015, as well as the public open house held on April 23, 2015. A compilation of questions and comments received from the public at the events is provided (received in direct conversations or via comment cards). This record of the consultations is not meant to be exhaustive, and comments are not verbatim. Names of visitors have not been associated with specific comments, unless specifically requested by the visitors.

Locations, Dates and Times Pop Up Booth #1: Location: Pickering Town Centre 1355 Kingston Road, Pickering Date: April 18, 2015 Time: 9.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.

Pop Up Booth #2: Location: Pickering Library 1 The Esplanade, Pickering Date: April 20, 2015 Time: 3.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.

Pop Up Booth #3: Location: Pickering Recreation Complex 1867 Valley Farm Road, Pickering Date: April 23, 2015 Time: Noon to 4.00 p.m.

Public Open House: Location: Pickering Recreation Complex 1867 Valley Farm Road, Pickering Date: April 23, 2015 Time: 6.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.

167

Pop Up Booth #1: Pickering Town Centre Booth Location and Logistics: The first pop up booth was located in a high-traffic area in the Pickering Town Centre (PTC) mall. The visibility of the booth was excellent, as the location was at the intersection of multiple key entrances to the mall; it was also quite visible from the food court. Arranging logistics with the PTC was a straightforward process. PTC personnel were helpful for logistical planning, as well as for ensuring that everything that was needed was in place when booth staff arrived on site. A well-designed display table was provided, which enhanced the appearance of the booth.

Booth Staffing: Working in shifts over the course of the day, the booth was staffed by three Ontario Power Generation (OPG) employees and three Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited (HSAL) employees: OPG: Vanessa Hughes, Cheryl Johnston, Kris Probodiak HSAL: Noah Brotman, Julia Bubrin, Dave Hardy

Number and Description of Visitors: Over the course of the day, around 185 people stopped to talk, ask questions or provide suggestions in conversation with booth personnel. Around 200 additional people stopped to look at the pop up booth and take materials, but did not discuss with booth personnel. Given the high-traffic location, a large number of other people saw the booth but without stopping to talk or read the materials. During the first part of the day (until around noon), the majority of visitors were seniors, including a number of former OPG/Ontario Hydro employees who had extensive knowledge of the site. In the afternoon and evening, more middle-aged visitors came to the booth, often with families in tow. Only a small number of younger people visited the booth, although, given the location across from a toy store, a number of parents sent their kids to play in the store while they spoke with booth personnel.

Summary of Comments and Questions: In general, people reacted positively to the pop up booth and were interested to hear about Repurposing Pickering. While most people had generally known that the station is facing shutdown, the fact that a date has been set (around 2020) was new information to many. The repurposing aspect of the process was also new to many people, and a general sentiment was expressed by numerous people that it was encouraging to see OPG thinking ahead and considering the future of the site and the Pickering community in general. Some had heard about the repurposing initiative already and were excited to get more details.

168

Pop Up Booth #2: Pickering Library Booth Location and Logistics: The second pop up booth, which occurred at the Pickering Library, was located just inside the main entrance and had good visibility. Arranging logistics was a straightforward process, as the Pickering Library staff members were quite helpful and had hosted pop up booths before. The assigned space was smaller than at the Pickering Town Centre, so the decision was made to use only the banner displays (and not the poster boards on tripods).

Booth Staffing: Working in shifts, the booth was staffed by: OPG: Vanessa Hughes, Kris Probodiak HSAL: Noah Brotman, Julia Bubrin

Number and Description of Visitors: Over the course of the afternoon and evening, 29 people stopped to talk, ask questions or provide suggestions in conversation with booth personnel. About the same number of people stopped to look at the booth and take materials, but without staying and talking with booth personnel. Visitors tended to be middle aged or seniors who had lived in the community for years. A number of families also visited the booth, although the children generally went directly into the library while the parents stopped and spoke with booth staff.

Summary of Comments and Questions: Much like the experience at the Pickering Town Centre, most people reacted positively to the pop up booth and were interested to hear about Repurposing Pickering. While some people were only just learning about the shutdown of the station, they were interested to hear that OPG is being proactive in planning for the end of commercial operations. People were interested to hear about when different portions of the site would become available and wanted to discuss what they felt would be the best fit for the community. While many people were focused on potential new uses once decommissioning has been completed, several were also interested to discuss how certain uses could fit with the decommissioning process during the interim period.

169

Pop Up Booth #3: Pickering Recreation Complex Booth Location and Logistics: The third pop up booth took place at the Pickering Recreation Complex. The booth was located in the main lobby area and had excellent visibility for people entering or exiting the building. The Pickering Recreation Complex staff members were helpful in regards to logistical planning, and they helped in selecting the specific location and provided tables and chairs for use by the booth staff. The assigned space was large enough to include all banners and poster boards. Booth Staffing: This booth was staffed by: OPG: Vanessa Hughes, Kris Probodiak HSAL: Noah Brotman, Julia Bubrin Candesco: Kristina Gillin

Number and Description of Visitors: Over the course of the afternoon, 42 people stopped to talk, ask questions or provide suggestions in conversation with booth personnel. Around the same number of people stopped to look at the pop up booth and take materials, but opted not to discuss with booth personnel. Compared with previous pop ups, the conversations that occurred at this pop up were longer, and visitors generally asked more detailed questions. Visitors tended to be middle aged or seniors who had lived in the community for a number of years. Rogers TV Durham visited and conducted interviews with Jerry Keto (OPG), Councillor Dave Pickles, Janet McNeill (Durham Nuclear Awareness) and a city planner from the City of Toronto (not as an official representative but there for a personal visit).

Summary of Comments and Questions: As with the previous two pop ups, most people were positive and were interested to learn about the project. While some were only just hearing about the planned shutdown, they were interested to learn that OPG is being proactive in planning for end of commercial operations. People were excited to discuss how Pickering will evolve in the coming years, and how this project can be a key factor in long-term development. Overall, visitors found the “what we’ve heard so far” poster board interesting and were eager to discuss how some of those options could be implemented on the site. Compared with previous pop ups, visitors were generally more interested in discussing potential uses for the interim period (2020-2060) than long-term uses.

170

Public Open House: Pickering Recreation Complex Booth Location and Logistics: The open house at the Pickering Recreation Complex took place in meeting rooms 1-3 on the second floor. The space was conveniently located near where the pop up had occurred earlier in the day. The size of the space was appropriate for the prepared displays and the anticipated number of people. Open House Staffing: This open house was staffed by: OPG: Carrie-Anne Atkins, Vanessa Hughes, Donna Pawlowski, Kris Probodiak, Allan Webster HSAL: Noah Brotman, Julia Bubrin, Dave Hardy Candesco: Julia Dinner, Kristina Gillin, Mike Grey Deloitte: Antony Lorius

Number and Description of Visitors: Over the course of the evening, 39 people visited the open house. Compared with the pop ups, the conversations that occurred tended to be significantly longer; visitors seemed to be more interested in the details related to the complexities of both decommissioning and repurposing. Summary of Comments and Questions: Visitors were welcomed by project personnel, invited to sign in, given information materials and then toured through the displays. Staff provided a general introduction to Repurposing Pickering, describing the timeline for decommissioning and discussing potential repurposing options. Using an informal conversational approach, the focus of these discussions naturally flowed to aspects in which the visitors were most interested. At a table dedicated and set up for interviews, visitors were invited to share their thoughts on repurposing in a more comprehensive and focused conversation. Compared with the pop ups, visitors appeared to have a greater familiarity with the Pickering site and the planned decommissioning and repurposing. This allowed for detailed discussions regarding specific uses and the potential impacts on the community. In general, the focus for many community members was in line with the kinds of comments and questions heard at the pop ups. A number of visitors took extra copies of the information materials, in order to share with neighbours/parents/friends, so as to continue the conversation around potential new uses.

171

Commonly Asked Questions The following is a summary of commonly asked questions at the pop up booth sessions and the public open house.

General:  What is this? Why are you here today?  When is the Pickering station shutting down?  How many acres is the site?  What can be done with the land?  Does this have anything to do with Hydro One being sold?  Does the wastewater treatment plant need to expand?  Who owns the hydro corridor?

Decommissioning and Waste Management:  What happens to the buildings?  How long will everything be there?  What is being done with the waste?  Have they identified a place for the waste?  Did they look into refurbishing the plant?  Where is the used fuel stored?  Why did OPG spend all that money on emergency sirens and iodine pills if they knew the plant was about to shut down?

Employment:  What happens to the jobs?  How will this impact employment, taxes and services in Pickering?

Energy:  Does Ontario need this generation capacity? Is there a plan to replace it?  What will be the change in electricity prices?  If there is no more power generation on site, will the hydro corridor be removed?

Environment and Safety:  Is there contamination on site?  Does OPG own the wetlands? How will it affect the wetlands?  Will the wetlands be part of the repurposing plans?  Is planning zone #6 (the east landfill) contaminated?  Could the shore be expanded around the station so that the waterfront trail can be continuous? Could this happen in the short term?  What will the impacts be on fishing?

172

Site Repurposing:  Would OPG consider selling parts of the land?  How will it impact property values of houses in the area?  What is zone #5? What are the constraints on that piece of land?  What can actually be done with the old landfill (zone #6)?  Which buildings will be removed in the short term and which will take 40 years to remove?  The City of Pickering receives money from OPG; will that funding cease immediately when power generation ceases?

Recreation:  Is there going to be development in Kinsmen Park?  Are they getting rid of the sports fields?

173

Observations and Visitor Comments The following is a summary of the general public sentiment and specific comments made by the visitors.

General:  Two nuclear waste quality control specialists visiting from the U.S. attended the open house and were very interested in the project, and also wanted to learn more about other OPG projects.  A visitor expressed the need to ensure that the waterfront benefits everyone and not just people who are rich (potential future condo owners).  A concern was raised that new uses would see increased traffic in the area and that transit planning should take that into account.  A visitor commented that it seems to be very early in the process to start planning for something so far into the future.  A visitor expressed concerns that, given the challenges that energy planning in Ontario has faced in recent years, they do not have confidence in that the desires of and suggestions from the community will be properly taken into account.  A number of visitors expressed that they were happy that the station will be shutting down, as they had never been supporters of nuclear power.  A number of visitors were interested to see the boundaries of OPG-owned property in the area, as they had not realized how far the OPG-owned lands extend.  A large number of visitors joked that they would not be alive in 2060, but agreed that discussing repurposing now would be important for their children and grandchildren.  A visitor commented that this seems like a huge opportunity for Pickering and that they hope that OPG and the City will ‘get it right.’  A visitor who had worked at the Pickering station for 32 years stated that they were happy to see this pioneering nuclear station come to its final resting place and wished the team good luck with the decommissioning and repurposing processes.  A visitor suggested that it would be premature to plan for a future in an unknowable future context. Instead, the site should be minimally redeveloped, and it should be left to the next generation to decide on what to do. Recreational uses would be acceptable.  A representative from an organization called Mindfirst attended the open house to learn more about the project. They are possibly interested in hosting a presentation on the project, as part of their seminar series.

174

Land Uses:  A number of visitors expressed a desire to have Kinsmen Park remain for community use.  Opposition was expressed by some visitors to the theme park or sports stadium ideas. It was suggested that the site should be used year round and not limited to the summer.  Support was expressed by a number of visitors for a natural gas plant on the site. The 20-30 year average life span of such a plant was seen as fitting well with the decommissioning timeline, as it would be production in the interim – while not precluding potential future uses of the site.  A visitor expressed opposition to the idea of locating a prison on the site.  A visitor commented that zone #4 seems to have the most short-term potential, as parking lots are easy to build on or replace with multi-storey parking structures.  It was suggested that Kinsmen Park be sold to the City so that it cannot be repurposed.  A visitor recommended reusing existing buildings when possible.  Visitors commented that zone #3 would be suitable for a museum or university campus, given that the training simulator would be an important resource.  Visitors noted that mixed-use residential appears on the “what we’ve heard” poster board, although residential uses will not be practically possible until 2060.  A visitor recommended that OPG look at examples of repurposing in the U.S.  A visitor expressed opposition to high-rise residential use of the site.  A visitor said that they do not want to see a large and high-noise use, such as a theme park.  A visitor recommended that, whatever the use, it should be something that puts Pickering on the map and attracts people to come and live here. That is what the Pickering station did – bringing the community from farm town to city; something is needed to continue that growth.

175

Repurposing Pickering Consultation:  An OPG pensioner mentioned that they had received a mailing about Repurposing Pickering and had already submitted a suggestion through email.  Some visitors commented that they had seen the newspaper articles on repurposing, while others stated that seeing the pop up booth was the first time that they had learned about it.  A visitor recommended that there be a display to go along with the pop up booth, showing what people have said that they don’t want for the lands.  A visitor stated that it would be very important to keep up the engagement and interaction with the community, in order to have an ongoing conversation about repurposing.  It was suggested that, for future consultations, a “Dave Ryan style Town Hall meeting” would be good.  A visitor asked where else the pop up booth would be and suggested that a wider area be covered (including Scarborough, Ajax and Whitby).  A number of visitors stressed the importance of engaging and hearing from youth, as they will be the ones who eventually will see the repurposing taking place.  A variety of engagement strategies were recommended by various visitors, including more open houses; newspaper ads and articles; telephone calls informing people of meetings; and door-to-door discussions.  An OPG employee stated that they did not think that the study or the consultations would go anywhere in terms of considering the input from the public or employees; it was believed that, ultimately, the decision would be made by OPG with no consideration of the input.  A visitor suggested consulting with the steelworkers union on potential uses of the site.  A visitor suggested that it might be helpful to ask people what they do not wish to see on the site – in addition to what they do want.

Decommissioning and Used Fuel Management:  Staff explained to a number of visitors that the plant shutdown was not simply a matter of shutting off a switch and letting go of all employees, but rather would be a staged process over time.  A number of visitors found it surprising that decommissioning would be happening over such a long time period.

176

 A few participants were quite blunt in their expectations of the timing for the used fuel being moved off the site. It was felt that, at best, movement of the fuel would be significantly delayed relative to the timelines shown on the display – and, at worst, would never occur.  Dr. Ottensmeyer attended the open house and made a case for fast neutron reactors.  A number of visitors suggested that the nuclear licence is too important to give up, so something nuclear related should be done with the site, such as putting in small modular reactors. One visitor commented that the environmental assessment to refurbish the Pickering Nuclear station had been approved and that there continues to be a lot of life left in the plant.  A visitor stated that they would rather it continue as a nuclear station than be converted to wind or a gas power plant, as the noise and air pollution would be worse than now.

Employment:  The issue of employment loss came up a number of times. There were questions about estimates of how many, when and what the plans are to replace – not only the direct jobs at the facility – but also the supply chain firms. Essentially the view was that the plan should seek, at minimum, to replace the total jobs lost.  Related to employment loss, there were questions about the employment density of the various potential uses shown on the “what we’ve heard” poster board. There was a strong interest in a use profile that either has a high employment density on the site or, if not, a sufficient indirect impact that would support significant ancillary employment elsewhere in the community.  There were a few questions about the future of the Brock industrial area, and it was suggested that the potential for it to be a “completely different place” be factored into the assessment.  A teenage visitor expressed that she would be looking to the nuclear sector for a job once finished school and hoped that there would still be available positions within the community.

Area Home Owner Concerns:  A couple living just outside the exclusion zone was interested as they were considering selling their house and were sure that potential buyers would be inquiring. So in anticipation of that, they wanted to learn more. They were encouraged to take a couple of extra brochures and to monitor the web site as the project progresses.  A number of residents commented that the repurposing would have a significant impact on property values in the area.

177

Costs and Funding:  There was discussion about the cost to restore and repurpose the site, and on the distinction between ‘state of readiness’ for repurposing, and between funds for decommissioning and funds for any additional investment (which would be dependent on the ultimate repurposing solution).  Visitors asked about the funding for decommissioning and repurposing. The general sentiment was that people were happy to hear that funds had been set aside for decommissioning, and found it reasonable that any repurposed uses ideally would be economically self sustaining and not require significant capital investment from OPG.  A visitor suggested that, whatever use is put in place, it should generate a year-round tax base and not be a seasonal use.  A visitor suggested that tax payers should not subsidize a new site use and that it should be financially self supporting.  An OPG retiree suggested that some of the land be sold to fund the pension plan.

Alternative Power:  There was discussion of alternative power-related uses, including wind, solar, energy storage, distribution, etc. The extent and types of power generation that were recommended varied, but there was clear direction that power options should be considered.  A visitor stated that a gas plant would be bad for the area, as there is already enough burning from the sewage plant, the Ajax steam plant and the Durham incinerator.  A visitor suggested that this would be a good site for large-scale energy storage systems, which are predicted to become feasible in the near future. The site could be a test area for the novel systems until one technology emerges – and then that system can be implemented on a large scale, with the good transmission infrastructure in place.

Health and Environment:  One visitor asked about KI pills, and had a concern that the distribution of the pill must mean that a radioactive release had occurred and that there was significant contamination on the site.  It was stated that, over the course of decommissioning, residents will want regular updates on the progress and the monitoring of potential contamination issues.  A visitor suggested that this would be a good opportunity to further develop marine and shoreline habitats for local and migrating species.

178

Infrastructure:  A number of visitors asked about what would happen with the hydro corridor, and they were interested in the potential that those lands represent.  A visitor commented that, in 40 years, both south Pickering and Ajax would be fully built out and be far more dense than they are today. There will be a need for significantly more recreational facilities by that time.  A visitor commented that road and highway transportation in the area is challenging and that, when development proceeds on the Pickering site, serious consideration should be given to putting a 401 on/off ramp on Liverpool Road.

179

Specific Ideas for Repurposing Pickering The following is a summary of ideas heard at the pop up booth events and the open house. General:  No use at all; leave it and let the next generation decide the use after 2060  Concrete sarcophagus to contain entire nuclear plant  Environmental, energy and nuclear research  Many people commented on the “Some of the Ideas We’ve Heard So Far” display board and expressed their support for: o College or university campus o Centre of Excellence for nuclear decommissioning o Medical isotope production o Parkland (especially in light of how densely populated Pickering is likely to get long term) o Marina and waterfront area o Renewable energy (either generation or manufacturing) o Large-scale greenhouses for food production o Community centres

Energy:  P.A.R.C. (“Pickering Advanced Recycling Centre”) fast neutron reactors  Advanced energy storage systems  Windmills with three turbines on top of each other  Using the vacuum building for energy storage (pump air pressure when not needed and release through the turbines when it is)  Small modular nuclear reactor  Two or three more wind turbines  Breeder reactor  Eight combined cycle plants, and making use of existing transmission capacity  High-voltage, direct current (HVDC) cable across Lake Ontario to more easily sell power to the U.S.  Gas plant

Recreation:  Race track or dirt bike track  Swimming pool and athletic centre  Paintball park  Zoo  Expanded marina

180

 Playgrounds  Area near the windmill could be made part of the park – which would greatly improve beach access  Golf course and baseball fields  Amphitheatre  Amusement park o One visitor suggested “Shopkins” theme (a children’s toy)  Urban park with greenspace  Zone 6, if not leveled but left as a hill, could be a really good location for a lookout  Larger and better recreation complex  Both support and opposition to a casino was expressed  Strong support for parks, greenspace, nature trails and improved waterfront access  Botanical garden  Waterfront trail should be on the waterfront

Education:  College or university campus  School of horticulture  Centre of Excellence that takes advantage of OPG employees’ knowledge and skills  New home for the National Museum of Science and Technology in Ottawa  Museum of nuclear power in zone #3, using the control room simulator as a key exhibit  Combined training centre and CANDU museum

Social Services and Infrastructure:  Hospital  Youth recreational centre  Affordable housing  Federal or provincial government services centre  Future uses would be helped by a link to the GO station  Pedestrian and bike path in the hydro corridor to connect Bayly to the waterfront trail  Water taxis to Toronto and the U.S.  Transit hub

Other Employment-Generating Uses:  Aquaculture farming  Restaurants and cafes

181

This page intentionally left blank.

182

Consultation Highlights MN-12 Ajax Pop Up Booth Consultation Session

As part of the public and stakeholder engagement activities for the Repurposing Pickering project, the following consultation session took place: Date, Time and Location: May 12, 2015, at 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Ajax Community Centre, 75 Centennial Road, Ajax Purpose: To expand the series of public consultation sessions to neighbouring communities. Visitors: 28 members of the public stopped and engaged in conversations Booth Staffing: Vanessa Hughes (OPG), Kris Probodiak (OPG) and Noah Brotman (Hardy Stevenson and Associates)

Summary of the Consultation Session: Due to the positive responses and engagement during the initial pop up sessions and advice received from the Community Advisory Council (CAC), OPG decided to conduct an additional pop up in the neighbouring community of Ajax. The main theme that emerged from the conversations that took place during this session was that people were very interested in the project and would like to receive further information. The conversations that took place at this consultation event were generally similar to those at previous pop up sessions and at the open house, and as such, further details are not repeated in this summary. No comment cards were submitted by the visitors at this pop up session, and the ideas suggested in the conversations were similar to those heard at previous events.

183

This page intentionally left blank.

184

Attachment D – Screening and Assessment Framework

185

This page intentionally left blank.

186

Screening and Assessment Framework

Repurposing Pickering is a multi-year planning effort launched to determine beneficial uses for the Pickering nuclear site after the station ends commercial operations around 2020. Once commercial operations have ended, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) will begin a decommissioning process to remove used fuel from the units, dismantle the structures and eventually restore the site. Decommissioning of Pickering is scheduled to be completed in phases over 40 years. The total land area of OPG-owned property on and adjacent to the Pickering nuclear site is approximately 500 acres. Due to the site’s complexities with regards to varying physical, environmental, legal and regulatory constraints, portions of the site will be made available for repurposing in a phased manner. Given its significant size and attractive location, the Pickering site has tremendous potential. Because of the long timeframes associated with decommissioning, OPG is well aware that – between the end of commercial operations and the time that the site has been completely restored – societal changes will occur that are of a scale that would not make it meaningful to create a detailed repurposing plan for the entire site at this time. For that reason, Repurposing Pickering – while being highly cognisant of the long-term potential of the site – intends to focus primarily on repurposing land areas as they become available – but in a manner that does not create obstacles for realizing the site’s long-term potential. To achieve this balance, Repurposing Pickering will strive to be adaptive, holistic and inclusive throughout both planning and implementation. To make its decisions on what the site’s future uses will be, OPG has adopted a stepwise decision-making process. As part of that process, the identified land use opportunities will be passed through a screening and assessment framework. The purpose of the screening is to quickly rule out any ideas for future uses that would be impossible to implement on the site at any time (such as a gold mine or an oil well). Opportunities that pass the screening will subsequently be subject to a more comprehensive assessment, which aims to maximize the benefits that can be gained from the site – both short and long term. On the following pages, the criteria against which identified opportunities will be screened and assessed are defined.

187 January 2015

Screening Criteria

Since the screening framework is intended to be a means for quickly ruling out any land use opportunities that obviously are not viable on the site, it has purposely been designed as a relatively simple tool. It comprises a set of straight-forward questions; if the answer to all of these questions is ‘yes,’ the opportunity would pass through the screening step and become a candidate for the next step in the decision-making process. The aspects considered relevant for screening at this early stage of Repurposing Pickering are of two kinds:  Requirements that are imposed by governments9, since these requirements override OPG’s decision-making power over the repurposing solution.  Requirements associated with constraints due to natural laws. Based on this, the resulting screening criteria for Repurposing Pickering are indicated below.

1. Is it legal? 2. Is it technically possible? 3. Can it be implemented on 500 acres of land or less? 4. Are the geological and hydrological conditions on the site conducive?

9 This includes requirements imposed by statutes, regulations, licences and permits.

188

Assessment Criteria

The purpose of the assessment framework is to facilitate comparison of opportunities in order to determine which future uses of the site would be the most beneficial – both during the decommissioning period and beyond. Due to the long timeframes associated with decommissioning, it is, at this stage, only relevant to assess and compare opportunities and their associated benefits at a high level. To maximize the benefits that the Pickering site will provide after commercial operations, a number of basic aspects need to be considered, such as:  What type of use would be implemented?  Where on the site would it be located?  When would it be implemented?  Who would be implementing it?  How much would the return on investment be? Assessment of the first aspect above – the ‘what’ – is done by scoring each of the opportunities against a set of assessment criteria – and then comparing the opportunities’ overall scores with each other. As part of that, the ‘where’ and the ‘when’ are also considered. In order to maximize the benefits from the site it is necessary to also assess combinations of opportunities, including combinations of new uses and reuses. As part of that, both synergies and incompatibilities between different types of uses need to be assessed. This includes factoring in that the site will continue to encompass storage for used fuel and other radioactive materials after the end of commercial operations. The resulting combinations of opportunities that are the most promising will be subject to further assessments, including taking into account the ‘who’ and ‘how much.’ OPG’s overarching aim of Repurposing Pickering is that the site will continue to be utilized in a way that benefits both OPG and the community. For that reason, the goal of the assessment framework is that it will show which opportunities that seem – at this early stage of Repurposing Pickering – to be the most beneficial future uses of the site for both:  OPG and its shareholder (the Province of Ontario), and  Local and regional communities.

189

To enable assessment, in practice, of how well an opportunity would achieve the goal, the assessment framework comprises a set of:  Objectives: These express a specific achievement that supports the goal. To exemplify, for someone who has a goal of finding a new home, an objective might be “minimize resources required for commuting to and from work.”  Attributes: These are properties that can be used to measure the degree to which a given opportunity satisfies the objectives. In the example above, associated attributes may be “low total cost of commuting,” “short total commuting time,” and “located within walking distance.” It is recognized that, for a complex endeavour like Repurposing Pickering, a multitude of objectives could be expressed – but to facilitate transparency, traceability and discussion – it is desirable to include only the most important ones in the assessment framework. Using the goal of the assessment framework as the starting point, the following assumptions are therefore made for purposes of deriving objectives:  The benefits that are most desirable for OPG and its shareholder are that the site provides economic value and that the power generation franchise on the site is retained.  The benefits that are most desirable for local and regional communities are that the future uses generate employment opportunities and that they are compatible with the City’s and Region’s overall visions and plans. Due to the long timeframes associated with the decommissioning – and the uncertainties that this entails for Repurposing Pickering – it will, furthermore, be crucial to maintain a high degree of flexibility in order to maximize the benefits from the site’s future uses (both for uses during the decommissioning period and beyond). When taken together, five objectives for the Repurposing Pickering assessment framework therefore emerge, as illustrated below.

Maximize generation of employment opportunities

Maximize Maximize economic compatibility with value for OPG and the communities' its shareholder visions and plans Objectives

Maximize likelihood of retaining power Maximize flexibility generation for future uses franchise

190

When assigning attributes to each of the objectives, they should be specified such that the attributes are displayed by all opportunities – but differ in terms of the degree to which they are likely to meet the associated objective (to enable comparison between the various opportunities). Like the objectives, it is preferable to specify only the most important attributes, since the larger the number, the more difficult it is ‘to see the forest for the trees.’ Based on this, the following is assumed with regards to attributes for each of the assessment framework’s objectives:  Maximize economic value for OPG and its shareholder: This addresses the long- term economic benefits that would be gained by OPG and the Province of Ontario from the future uses. While OPG will not receive revenue from the Pickering station after end of commercial operations, other parts of the site may be put to uses that generate revenue until the decommissioning has been completed and the entire site repurposed. When assigning attributes regarding the economic value it is assumed that:  It is preferable that the economic benefits that would be gained from repurposed uses generate revenue long term.  The economic benefits should maximize return on investment and require investments that are prudent, sustainable or within OPG’s means.  The site’s market value is considered part of the site’s total economic value.  Maximize generation of employment opportunities: This addresses the long-term benefits that would be gained by the local and regional communities through employment opportunities created as a result of the repurposed uses. Employment opportunities, in this context, include both direct jobs (employees of businesses operating on the site) and indirect jobs (employees of businesses that provide goods and services to businesses operating on the site). When assigning attributes for the generation of employment opportunities it is assumed that:  Local businesses – existing or new – will continue to provide goods and services to OPG, hence providing opportunity for indirect employment.  Maximize compatibility with the communities’ visions and plans: This addresses the need to ensure that the repurposed uses align with visions and plans of the surrounding communities. While some of the opportunities may be constrained by these visions and plans, others may be highly compatible and might enable synergies. When assigning attributes for maximizing compatibility it is assumed that:  The visions and plans of the Province of Ontario are taken into consideration as part of the objectives related to benefits to OPG and its shareholder, or are reflected in the plans developed by the City of Pickering and Region of Durham.

191

 The primary communities for assessing compatibility are, in this context, the City of Pickering and Region of Durham.  Local and regional governments’ visions and plans are expressed in their respective policy documents.  Maximize likelihood of retaining power generation franchise: This addresses the need to retain the franchise that OPG has to use the Pickering site for power generation. In this context, ‘franchise’ means the legal mandate awarded to OPG for using the site for power generation and the right that OPG has to reserve the site for future power generation and other power-related purposes, despite the fact that there may be interim periods when the site (or parts of it) is put to other uses. When assigning attributes for retaining the power generation franchise it is assumed that:  Besides new power generation, there are other repurposed uses that relate to the power generation franchise, such as uses that contribute to grid stability and reliability – without generating power.  Given the value of the existing generation and transmission infrastructure, it is desirable for OPG and its shareholder that these be reused.  OPG will continue to want to contribute to advances in generation technology, and the Pickering site would be an alternative for developing such technologies.  Maximize flexibility for future uses: This addresses the need to retain flexibility throughout repurposing, in order to facilitate reaction to changing circumstances. When assigning attributes for flexibility it is assumed that:  Repurposed uses should be relatively easy to convert to other uses, in order to ensure that any uses established prior to completion of decommissioning do not hinder pursuit of more desirable solutions once the entire site has been restored.  Flexibility is gained if the use requires minimal time and resources to be changed.

192

Based on the above, the resulting assessment criteria – that is, the set of objectives and associated attributes – are indicated below.

Maximize economic value for OPG and Maximize compatibility with the its shareholder communities’ visions and plans

 Creation of positive return on  Compatibility with City of Pickering’s investment policies  Generation of long-term revenue  Compatibility with Region of Durham’s  Avoidance of exposure to loss of policies investment

Maximize generation of employment Maximize likelihood of retaining power opportunities generation franchise  Creation of direct jobs

 Contribution to meeting future power-  Creation of indirect jobs related needs  Reuse of existing generation and

transmission infrastructure Maximize flexibility for future uses  Contribution to advances in generation  Convertibility to other uses technology  Modification of use in short time and with low resources

The likelihood that an option will display the attributes above will, unless specified, be assessed for a specified period of time, and as applicable, for a specified parcel of land. Specification of the options’ ability to display the attributes will, to the extent practicable, be based on precedents.

193

This page intentionally left blank.

194

Attachment E – Planning Zones

195

This page intentionally left blank.

196

654500 655000 655500 656000 656500

BROCK RD REPURPOSING PICKERING

LIVERPOOL RD 4853600 Legend 2 Planning Zone 1 Alex Robertson Park - 101ac 5 2 Kinsmen Park - 38ac

SANDY BEACH RD Pickering Learning Centre - 3 23ac

4853200 Administration / Parking Area - 4 3 54ac 1 5 General Employment - 11ac MONTGOMERY PARK RD 6 6 Landfill - 39ac 4 Nuclear Waste / Controlled 7 Area - 72ac 8 Power Block - 134ac 4852800 Hydro One Lease/Easement

7 Utility Line 8 Transportation Route

Road

Railway 4852400 *Planning Zone acreages are approximate*

0 60 120 240 360 480 Meters Projection: UTM NAD83 CSRS Zn17N

DISCLAIMER: © Ontario Power Generation Inc. 2015. This map has been produced and distributed for Ontario Power Generation Inc. purposes only. No part of this map may be reproduced, published, converted, or stored in any data retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of OPG. The information on this map may not be accurate or up to date. OPG makes 4852000 no representations or warranties, either express or implied, regarding this map. Any third party relies on the information in this map at its own risk and neither OPG nor any agent acting on Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, OPG’s behalf assumes any liability with respect to the use by a third party of this map. This map : swisstopo, and the GIS User Community may contain data and other information sourced from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and ESRI. This information is greatly acknowledged.

654500 655000 655500 656000 656500 Prepared by: Nick Bryan I OPG RES I 2015-02-19

Planning Zones – Current Uses, Repurposing Constraints and Other Key Considerations

# Planning Zone/ Primary Current Key Constraints and Considerations for Repurposing # Planning Zone/ Primary Current Key Constraints and Considerations for Repurposing Size* Uses Size* Uses 1 Alex Robertson Recreation • Park licensed to the City of Pickering (licence renewed 5 General N/A • Designated General Employment for industrial uses. Park Parks, wetland every five years; current licence agreement expires on Employment Heavily vegetated, • Uncertainties regarding environmental constraints. – 101 acres (Hydro Marsh), June 30, 2018). – 11 acres undeveloped area • South-western section within the exclusion zone** (that is, no beach and trails • Includes environmentally sensitive lands and wetlands residential uses permitted while it remains in effect). (Hydro Marsh classified provincially significant wetlands); • Immediate vicinity to wastewater treatment plant. considered not applicable for repurposing due to the • Vicinity to storage of radioactive materials while these remain environmental constraints. on site. • Compatibility with heavy transports, dust and noise (primarily 2 Kinsmen Park Recreation • Park licensed to the City of Pickering (licence renewed during demolition and site restoration). – 38 acres Sports fields every five years; current licence agreement expires on June 30, 2018). 6 Landfill Waste Storage • Designated Natural Areas. • South-east corner under 999-year easement to Hydro One – 39 acres Landfill (waste from • Uncertainties regarding environmental constraints, including (part of the hydro corridor). construction of the whether it will be possible to remove the soils. • Park lands designated Active Recreational Areas in the power plant); heavily • Majority of area within the exclusion zone** (that is, no Pickering Official Plan. vegetated and no residential uses permitted while it remains in effect). • Within the exclusion zone** (that is, no residential uses longer in use • Immediate vicinity to wastewater treatment plant. permitted while it remains in effect). • Immediate vicinity to storage of radioactive materials while • Vicinity to storage of radioactive materials while these these remain on site. remain on site. • Compatibility with heavy transports, dust and noise (primarily during demolition and site restoration). 3 Pickering Education and • Training centre includes Darlington simulator, which will Learning Centre Transportation continue to be used (until either relocated or Darlington end 7 Nuclear Waste/ Waste Storage and • Within the exclusion zone** (that is, no residential uses – 23 acres Training centre of commercial operations). Controlled Area Industrial permitted while it remains in effect). (simulators) and • Portions under 999-year easement to Hydro One (part of – 72 acres Used fuel storage, • Vicinity to wastewater treatment plant. parking areas the hydro corridor). workshops, machine • Uncertainties regarding regulatory constraints imposed as part • Western section designated General Employment for shops and offices of releasing the area from control under the Nuclear Safety and industrial uses. Control Act (that is, after completion of decommissioning). • Within the exclusion zone** (that is, no residential uses • Compatibility with storage of radioactive materials while these permitted while it remains in effect). remain on site. • Vicinity to storage of radioactive materials while these • Compatibility with heavy transports, dust and noise (primarily remain on site. during demolition and site restoration). • Compatibility with heavy transports, dust and noise • Compatibility with the decommissioning end state. (primarily during demolition and site restoration). 8 Power Block Power Generation, • Within the exclusion zone** (that is, no residential uses 4 Administration/ Industrial and • Significant portions under 999-year easement or lease to – 134 acres Waste Storage and permitted while it remains in effect). Parking Area Transportation Hydro One. Industrial • Vicinity to wastewater treatment plant. – 54 acres Offices (Engineering • Within the exclusion zone** (that is, no residential uses Nuclear power plant, • Uncertainties regarding regulatory constraints imposed as part Service Buildings) permitted while it remains in effect). wind turbine, used of releasing the area from control under the Nuclear Safety and and parking areas • Vicinity to wastewater treatment plant. fuel and radioactive Control Act (that is, after completion of decommissioning). • Vicinity to storage of radioactive materials while these waste storage, • Compatibility with storage of radioactive materials while these remain on site. landfill, switchyards, remain on site. • Compatibility with heavy transports, dust and noise turbine buildings, etc • Compatibility with heavy transports, dust and noise (primarily (primarily during demolition and site restoration). during demolition and site restoration). • Compatibility with the decommissioning end state. * Planning zone acreages are approximate.

** “Exclusion zone” means the land within or surrounding a nuclear facility on which there can be no permanent dwelling and over which a licensee has the legal authority to exercise control. For nuclear reactors, the boundary of the exclusion zone usually is 914 metres (1,000 yards) from the outer wall of the reactor building.

February 26, 2015

Attachment F – Brochure and Frequently Asked Questions

199

This page intentionally left blank.

200

Legend Planning Zone 1 Alex Robertson Park - 101ac

2 Kinsmen Park - 38ac

REPURPOSING 3 Pickering Learning Centre - 23ac 4 Administration / Parking Area - 54ac

5 General Employment - 11ac

6 Landfill - 39ac 2 7 Nuclear Waste / Controlled PICKERING Area - 72ac 8 Power Block - 134ac Proud Past, Promising Future 1 Hydro One Lease/Easement 3 5

4 6

# Zone/Size Primary Current Uses Key Features What is Repurposing Pickering? Alex Robertson Park Recreation • Environmentally sensitive lands and wetlands. 1 101 acres • Beach and recreational trails. Repurposing Pickering is a study to determine the most beneficial uses for the Pickering Nuclear site Kinsmen Park • Park licensed to the City of Pickering. 2 38 acres Recreation • Sports fields. once the station has ended commercial operations Pickering Learning • Training centre includes Darlington and Pickering simulators. around 2020. 3 Centre Education and Transportation • Sections are within the hydro corridor. The goal of the project is to help identify a broad 23 acres Administration/ range of potential uses of the site both during and Parking Area • Offices (Engineering Service Buildings) and parking areas. 4 Industrial and Transportation • Sections are within the hydro corridor. after decommissioning. 54 acres General Employment • Undeveloped, heavily vegetated area. We are seeking input from many people, including: 5 Wood Lot 11 acres • Immediate vicinity to wastewater treatment plant. the local community, our employees, community Landfill • Landfill from construction of the Pickering Nuclear station. leaders, industry, government and planning 6 Waste Storage • Heavily vegetated (no longer in use). 39 acres specialists. • Next to wastewater treatment plant and used fuel storage. Nuclear Waste/ • Used fuel storage, workshops, machine shops and offices. 7 Controlled Area Waste Storage and Industrial 72 acres • Vicinity to wastewater treatment plant. Power Block Power Generation, Waste • Includes used fuel storage, switchyards, turbine buildings, 8 Storage and Industrial wind turbine and a small, overgrown landfill (no longer in use). 134 acres • Sections are within the hydro corridor. Planning for Repurposing Approximately 2020 Pickering Nuclear Generating Station 1. Identify Opportunities End of Commercial Operations Potential opportunities for repurposing +3 years • The Pickering station is scheduled to end will be identified through a variety of commercial operations around 2020. consultation activities. Safe Storage Period Begins • Power generation will cease at this time, and preparations for decommissioning of the station will begin. • Once the station is in safe storage, • The first step involves removing the fuel routine operations will continue with from the reactors and draining water and regards to security, monitoring and other liquids from most systems to maintenance. 2. Screen for Viability prepare the station for safe storage. • The purpose of the safe storage +13 years All identified opportunities will be period is to allow radiation levels to screened for legal and technical viability. decrease. • Potential repurposing options that are All Used Fuel Transferred to Dry Storage compatible with decommissioning operations may be implemented. • During the first 10 years of safe storage, used fuel will continue to be transferred into dry storage containers and moved to 3. Assess Options +30 years the adjacent waste management facility. Viable options will be grouped into • The process and equipment needed for this transfer are already in place, and the cohesive development portfolios and All Used Fuel Transported Off-site site can easily accommodate all used assessed against OPG’s objectives. fuel from the Pickering station. • Once all fuel has been transferred into • After the safe storage period, it is dry storage, more lands could become expected that the used fuel will be available for repurposing. transported off-site. +40 years • At this time, the physical demolition of 4. Evaluate Business Cases remaining structures will begin. End of Decommissioning Business cases for the top development • Once used fuel has been removed from portfolios will be evaluated. the site, restrictions on potential new uses will be reduced further. • At this point, the decommissioning of the nuclear facilities will be complete and the site can be released from regulatory control. • The remainder of the lands will then be TELL US WHAT YOU THINK available for repurposing. • The potential options for new land uses will expand greatly. This is when the Website: www.opg.com/repurposingpickering vision for a fully repurposed site can Email: [email protected] begin to be realized.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is Repurposing Pickering? Repurposing Pickering is a study to determine the most beneficial uses for the Pickering Nuclear site once the station has ended commercial operations around 2020. The goal of the project is to help identify a broad range of potential uses of the site both during and after decommissioning. We are seeking input from many people, including: the local community, our employees, community leaders, industry, government and planning specialists. 2. What is the difference between decommissioning and repurposing? Decommissioning of the Pickering Nuclear station is a multi-decade process that includes a safe storage period, removal of used fuel and other radioactive materials from the site, demolition of structures, and site restoration in preparation for new uses. Repurposing is an effort to identify and implement new land uses for the site – both short and long term – to ensure that the site lands continue to benefit the City of Pickering, Durham Region, the Province, and OPG. 3. What is the timeframe of decommissioning and repurposing? The Pickering station is scheduled to stop generating electricity around the year 2020. After that, the station will be prepared for safe storage and the multi-decade process of decommissioning will begin. The current planning assumption is that decommissioning will be completed around 2060. Repurposing of the Pickering site is anticipated to occur in two main phases. In the first phase, parts of the site will be repurposed in parallel with the decommissioning activities; once decommissioning has been completed and the entire site is available for repurposing, the second phase will begin – and it is during this second phase that the site’s full repurposing potential can be realized. 4. What is OPG’s objective for repurposing? OPG’s objective for repurposing of the Pickering site is to identify and implement new land uses that take advantage of the existing lands and resources in a way that does not interfere with decommissioning and that does not prevent the site’s full potential from being realized once decommissioning has been completed. 5. What lands will be available for repurposing? Throughout the decommissioning period, portions of the site will be made available for new uses. The Pickering site as a whole will be available for repurposing once decommissioning has been completed and the lands released from regulatory control around 2060. Until 2060, the challenge is to repurpose the site in a way that is consistent with OPG’s decommissioning and used fuel management obligations. As well, in a way that ensures that flexibility is retained for long-term uses once decommissioning has been completed. 6. Would OPG consider selling the land? OPG’s intent is to maintain ownership of the Pickering site property. Like today, however, OPG would consider making parts of the site available for use by other entities through lease or licence agreements.

April 2015

7. How will decisions on new land uses be made? Repurposing Pickering includes four main steps to help OPG determine the most beneficial uses of the site once the station has ceased commercial operations: 1. Identify Opportunities Potential opportunities for repurposing will be identified through a variety of consultation activities. 2. Screen for Viability All identified opportunities will be screened for legal and technical viability. 3. Assess Options Viable options will be grouped into cohesive development portfolios and assessed against OPG’s objectives. 4. Evaluate Business Cases Business cases for the top development portfolios will be evaluated. 8. Would a new power plant be an option? At this time, all ideas for new uses or reuses are being considered. This includes a variety of options for new power generation, and those will be screened and assessed alongside all other ideas captured through the Repurposing Pickering consultation program. 9. How will repurposing and decommissioning be funded? Funds for decommissioning are continually being set aside during operation of the Pickering Nuclear station. This is done as part of the Ontario Nuclear Funds Agreement (ONFA), which is a risk- and cost- sharing agreement between OPG and the Province of Ontario. In addition to the decommissioning costs, the ONFA covers the costs for long-term management of the used fuel. Costs associated with repurposing of the site are not covered by the ONFA or by other existing funds. Costs for new uses or reuses of the site’s lands and structures will therefore be taken into consideration when assessing the various options suggested for Repurposing Pickering. 10. How can I get involved and share my ideas? Repurposing Pickering includes a broad range of consultation activities, since OPG would like to take a wide variety of perspectives into account when planning for the site’s future. In the consultation program, OPG will receive input from the public and key stakeholders through:  Public open houses.  Pop up consultation booths throughout the community.  Technical Advisory Committee.  Community Advisory Council.  Youth engagement sessions.  Online and social media. 11. Where can I learn more about repurposing, decommissioning and nuclear waste management?  More information on Repurposing Pickering is available at www.opg.com/repurposingpickering.  For information on decommissioning, please visit www.opg.com.  To learn more about nuclear waste management, please visit www.opgdgr.com and www.nwmo.ca.