DOCSLIB.ORG

Submissions of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper to the Canadian Nuclear

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Submissions of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper to the Canadian Nuclear Submissions of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Re: Relicensing hearing for the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station and Notice of Public Hearing, Ref. 2015-H-04 September 28, 2015 Submitted to Adam Levine via email: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] and [email protected] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ontario Power Generation (“OPG”) is seeking a 13-year licence that will allow it to operate and refurbish the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Clarington, Ontario (DNGS). The DNGS was built in the 1980s and is among the largest power plants in North America and within the top 25 globally. If the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (“the Commission”) approves OPG’s request for this 13-year licence, then the plant’s life will be extended until 2055. OPG formally notified the CNSC of its intention to refurbish the DNGS in 2011, and a screening level environmental assessment process began. The “screening” assessment was the lowest level of environmental assessment available under Canadian law at the time, offering the least scrutiny, public participation, and expert review. After the publication of the Draft Environmental Assessment Screening Report – Refurbishment and Continued Operation of the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper (“Waterkeeper”) participated in the review process. Waterkeeper raised a number of concerns, most focusing on the impacts of Darlington’s cooling water system on the aquatic ecosystem. Based on its review of the draft, Waterkeeper submitted that a more rigorous environmental assessment process was warranted: a “review panel” under Canadian environmental assessment law. This recommendation was ignored, and only minor adjustments were made to the draft Environmental Assessment Screening Report before its release. Waterkeeper continues to have concerns about the DNGS’s current and future impact on Lake Ontario. Waterkeeper has carefully examined documents related to this licensing hearing, including the Environmental Assessment Screening Report, its supporting technical documents, and the documents relating to OPG’s Fisheries and Oceans Canada (“DFO”) authorization. After reviewing this information, it is apparent the current plan does not make adequate protection for the environment. The Commission cannot issue a 13-year licence unless deficiencies in the plan are addressed. Waterkeeper recommends that Commission licence the DNGS for not longer than one year. A one-year licence would give OPG sufficient time to: 1) determine how it 2 will comply with its DFO authorization; 2) develop and implement programs to monitor impingement, entrainment and stormwater runoff; and 3) develop a plan for ensuring that water quality onsite and near-site consistently meets all water quality standards. Specifically, Waterkeeper is concerned by the following three (3) problems and offers the related six (6) necessary corrective measures: PROBLEM (a): The DNGS has failed to make adequate provisions to protect aquatic biota. This is apparent from: ● The large numbers of fish, fish eggs, fish larvae, invertebrates and plankton that the DNGS continues to impinge and entrain; ● The absence of a proper impingement and entrainment monitoring program that is required to predict future trends and understand the project's impact on endangered species; ● OPG’s failure to recognize and account for the fact that Lake Ontario’s ecosystems are in a state of flux; ● The DNGS’s history of non-compliance with the Fisheries Act; and, ● The inability of the DNGS to comply with its current DFO authorization. → CORRECTIVE MEASURE (a)(i): The Commission should require OPG to develop and implement a robust impingement and entrainment monitoring program for the DNGS. → CORRECTIVE MEASURE (a)(ii): The Commission should require OPG to immediately review available impingement and entrainment mitigation options and determine how it will comply with its current DFO authorization. PROBLEM (b): The DNGS has failed to make adequate provisions to minimize surface water pollution. 3 This is apparent from: ● The DNGS’s history of stormwater pollution. Existing stormwater data indicates that stormwater running off the DNGS site routinely exceeds Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQOs), and stormwater samples failed acute lethality testing in 1996 and 2001; ● The absence of a regular stormwater monitoring program; ● Contaminant concentrations in onsite and near site water bodies that regularly exceed PWQOs. → CORRECTIVE MEASURE (b)(i): The Commission should require OPG to develop and implement a regular stormwater monitoring regime. → CORRECTIVE MEASURE (b)(ii): The Commission should require OPG to take corrective actions to ensure that onsite and near site water bodies meet PWQOs. PROBLEM (c): Flaws in the Environmental Assessment Screening Report have deprived the Commission of the information necessary to assess whether the DNGS has taken adequate measures to protect the environment. → CORRECTIVE MEASURE (c)(i): The Commission should not allow refurbishment of the DNGS to begin until the flaws in the Environmental Assessment Screening Report are addressed. → CORRECTIVE MEASURE (c)(ii): If the CNSC does issues OPG a general operating licence, it should be for no more than one year, and it should incorporate the recommendations outlined above. These problems and corrective measures were identified with the assistance of two experienced advisors who assisted Waterkeeper in considering the plant’s impact on local aquatic biota and surface water quality: ● Dr. Richard Seaby of Pisces Conservation is a fisheries biologist with a doctorate in freshwater ecology from the University of Liverpool. He is a 4 specialist in aquatic ecology and much of his recent work has involved examining the effects of industrial plants on aquatic ecosystems. ● Kevin Draganchuk of Carpenter Environmental Associates is an Environmental Engineer whose areas of expertise include designing stormwater treatment and management systems, stormwater permitting, designing site remediations and analyzing the operation and design of sanitary sewer systems. He is a registered Professional Engineer in New York State. This submission also draws upon relevant findings in expert reports that Waterkeeper commissioned for previous hearings before the CNSC concerning the proposed refurbishment of the DNGS and the proposal to build new reactors at the DNGS. These additional reports were authored by: ● Dr. Peter Henderson of Pisces Conservation, an experienced fisheries biologist and a leading expert on cooling water intake structures. ● Bill Powers, a pollution control engineer with considerable experience in the design and evaluation of cooling towers for the power industry. He has provided engineering testimony in numerous regulatory proceedings, drafted portions of policy notes related to cooling towers for the Edison Power Research Institute, a leading energy-industry body, and advised on the feasibility of cooling tower retrofits at a large number of existing industrial facilities; 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………….. 2 BACKGROUND………………………………………………………………………….. 10 Lake Ontario Waterkeeper is a charity participating in this process in the public interest…………………………………………………………………... 10 Lake Ontario is an irreplaceable source of life, beauty and recreation…... 11 Lake Ontario has a changing, severely stressed ecosystem………………. 11 Durham Region is changing………………………………………………………. 13 The DNGS’s continues to kill fish and degrade water quality……………... 15 DISCUSSIONS…………………………………………………………………………... 16 Does the DNGS make adequate provisions for the protection of the Environment?.................................................................................................... 16 a. The DNGS, as it currently operates, does not make adequate provisions for the protection of the environment……………….... ……... 16 a.1. The DNGS has not made adequate provisions to protect aquatic biota…………………………..………………………………........... 17 a.1.1. The DNGS kills large numbers of fish, invertebrates and plankton………………………………………………………………….... 17 a.1.1.1. Impingement………………………………………………… 17 a.1.1.2. Entrainment…………………………………………………. 19 6 a.1.2. Old impingement and entrainment data may not be predictive of future trends………………………………………………. 20 a.1.3. The DNGS has a history of non-compliance with the Fisheries Act……………………………………………………………… 22 a.1.4. The Commission is obliged to consider the impact that relicensing the DNGS will have on fish populations and whether the plant will comply with the Fisheries Act………………… 24 a.1.5. The DNGS will exceed the terms of its DFO authorization…... 26 a.1.5.1.The plant will kill more than 2,200 kilograms of Age+1 per year………………………………..……………………… 26 a.1.5.2. The plant may kill species of conservation concern……. 29 a.2. The timelines for future impingement and entrainment studies are not acceptable………………………………………………………….... 30 a.2.1. The current monitoring plan will make it impossible to know whether the DNGS complies with the Fisheries Act or SARA………. 31 a.2.2. The current monitoring plan will deprive the Commission of a complete record in future relicensing hearings…………………. 31 a.2.3. The current monitoring plan will deprive the public of information it is entitled to be provided with…………………………. 32 b. The DNGS has not made adequate provisions to minimize surface water pollution………………………………………………………… 33 b.1 Stormwater from the DNGS runs directly into Lake Ontario……….. 33 7 b.2 Stormwater from the DNGS
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (“Enbridge”) Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project (“Project”) Application
    Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project Enbridge Revised Response to Durham Citizens Lobby for Environmental Awareness and Responsibility Inc. File OF-Fac-Oil-E101-2012-10 02 Page 1 of 3 Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (“Enbridge”) Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project (“Project”) Application under section 58 and Part IV (“Application”) of the National Energy Board Act OH-002-2013 File OF-Fac-Oil-E101-2012-10 02 Enbridge Revised Response to Durham Citizens Lobby for Environmental Awareness & Responsibility Inc. (“DurhamCLEAR”) Information Request No. 1 The potential Environmental and socio-economic effects of the proposed project, including the potential effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the proposed project 4.b.iiR Request: (b) Durham Region extends for approximately 40 kilometers along the North shore of Lake Ontario. Line 9 runs across the full width of the region and in so doing crosses numerous rivers and streams that flow into the lake. Please provide for each of the following rivers and streams: ii) Time that it would take for oil from a spill to reach Lake Ontario from the time it first reached the water at maximum flow rate. Note that Line 9 crosses 2, 3, or more branches of each of these, all of which have individual flows and individual potential for spreading an oil leak Petticoat creek Duffins Creek Carruthers Creek Lynde Creek Pringle Creek Corbett Creek Oshawa Creek Harmony Creek Farewell Creek Black Creek Tooley Creek Darlington Creek Bowmanville Creek Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project Enbridge Revised Response to Durham Citizens Lobby for Environmental Awareness and Responsibility Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Oral Presentation Submission from Ontario Power Generation Exposé
    CMD 18-M55.1 File/dossier : 6.02.04 Date : 2018-10-11 Edocs pdf : 5712587 Oral Presentation Exposé oral Submission from Ontario Power Mémoire d’Ontario Power Generation Generation In the Matter of the À l’égard du Mid-Term Report on Results of Compliance Rapport de mi-parcours sur les résultats des Activities and Performance of Ontario activités de conformité et le rendement du Power Generation’s Darlington New nouveau projet nucléaire de Darlington Nuclear Project d’Ontario Power Generation Commission Meeting Réunion de la Commission December 13, 2018 Le 13 décembre 2018 Public Document Number: Usage Classification: Report NK054-REP-01210-00101 N/A Retention: Revision: LOF R000 Title: DARLINGTON NEW NUCLEAR PROJECT - SITE PREPARATION LICENCE MIDTERM REPORT Darlington New Nuclear Project - Site Preparation Licence Midterm Report NK054-REP-01210-00101 R000 2018-09-14 Public Lead Author: [Electronic Signature] Daniel Côté, P.Eng Date Section Manager – Darlington New Nuclear Project New Nuclear Development Reviewed by: [Electronic Signature] Tho Dien Le Date Manager - Darlington New Nuclear Project New Nuclear Development Approved by: [Electronic Signature] Jeff Lehman Date Vice President - New Nuclear Development Corporate Business Development & Strategy Associated with document type REP N-TMP-10010-R012, Controlled Document or Record (Microsoft® 2007) Public Document Number: Usage Classification: Report NK054-REP-01210-00101 N/A Retention: Revision Number: Page: LOF R000 2 of 52 Title: DARLINGTON NEW NUCLEAR PROJECT - SITE PREPARATION
    [Show full text]
  • Calibration and Sensitivity Analysis Notes
    Forward ii Earth Science Information Systems Thursday, January 22, 2009 Gayle SooChan, P.Geo. Director – Groundwater Resources Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority 100 Whiting Avenue Oshawa, Ontario L1H 3T3 RE: Tier 1 Water Budget Study of the Watersheds in the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Area Dear Gayle: We have reviewed the additional peer review comments and have made revisions to the text and figures of the report to address the concerns raised. We are pleased to provide this final copy of the Tier 1 assessment of the surface water and groundwater balance within the CLOCA area watersheds. We trust this final report meets with your satisfaction. We would like to thank you for the opportunity to work on this project. If you have any questions, please call. Yours truly Earthfx Inc Dirk Kassenaar, M.Sc., P.Eng. E.J. Wexler, M.Sc., M.S.E., P.Eng. Subsequent to revisions completed by Earthfx Inc stated above, this report was further revised in November 2009 to incorporate comments provided by the CTC Source Protection Committee. The final revisions include the finalized Significant Groundwater Recharge mapping and reference changes to reflect requirements in the provincial Director’s Rules versus the earlier released guidelines. 3363 Yonge St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4N 2M6 T: 416.410.4260 F: 416.481.6026 www.earthfx.com CLOCA Tier 1 Water Budget Report January, 2009 Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................10 2 INTRODUCTION
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Minutes
    Canadian Nuclear Commission canadienne Safety Commission de sûreté nucléaire P.O. Box 1046 C.P. 1046 Station B Succursale B Meeting Minutes 280 Slater Street 280, rue Slater Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa (Ontario) E-Docs #:3436799 Canada K1P 5S9 Canada K1P 5S9 File/Dossier: 2.01 Date: August 28, 2009 Task #16200 MEETING CNSC OPG MINUTES SENT A. McAllister L. Swami TO R. MacDonald DFO J. Peters S. Haayen D. Pawlowski J. Kwan-Czuppon TC D. Zeit CTA J. Woodward (teleconference) EC S. Leonardelli N. Ali J. Fischer D. Gration D. Kim J. Moreno A. Thompson HC M. Lalani SUBJECT OBJET Workshop on Darlington New Nuclear Project – EIS LOCATION OF OPG Head Office MEETING 700 University Ave., Toronto, ON ENDROIT DE LA Room 6 (Mezzanine Level) RÉUNION Date: Friday, August 28, 2009 Time/Heure: 9:30 am to 11:30 am REMARKS L. Swami (OPG) welcomed everyone and went over the objectives of the workshop: familiarize Toronto-based federal authorities with OPG's EIS REMARQUES prior to government submission in September 2009; and, provide an opportunity for federal authorities to learn about work OPG has undertaken in accordance with federal EA requirements. A. McAllister (CNSC) provided introductory remarks and described the purpose of the workshop and the future role that the Joint Review Panel (JRP) will play in the OPG New Nuclear at Darlington Project. It was also noted that greater clarity regarding the submission and review process will be achieved following the formation of the JRP. OPG Presentation OPG made a presentation to Federal Agencies/Departments located in the Greater Toronto Area.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 DNNP Annual Report
    OPG Proprietary Document Number: Usage Classification: Report NK054-REP-01210-00115 N/A Sheet Number: Revision: R001 Title: 2019 DARLINGTON NEW NUCLEAR PROJECT ANNUAL REPORT © Ontario Power Generation Inc., 2020. This document has been produced and distributed for Ontario Power Generation Inc. purposes only. No part of this document 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 Ontario Power Generation Inc. 2019 Darlington New Nuclear Project Annual Report NK054-REP-01210-00115-R001 2020-03-11 Order Number: N/A Other Reference Number: N/A OPG Proprietary Prepared By: Reviewed By: Senior Technical Date Senior Technical Date Engineer Darlington New Officer Darlington New Nuclear Project Nuclear Project Approved By: Reviewed By: Manager Date Section Manager Date Darlington New Nuclear Darlington New Nuclear Development Project Associated with document type REP N-TMP-10010-R012, Controlled Document or Record (Microsoft® 2016) OPG Proprietary Document Number: Usage Classification: Report NK054-REP-01210-00115 N/A Sheet Number: Revision Number: Page: R001 2 of 20 Title: 2019 DARLINGTON NEW NUCLEAR PROJECT ANNUAL REPORT Table of Contents Page Revision Summary ...................................................................................................................... 4 Overview ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Central Lake Ontario Source Protection Area Water Budget and Stress Assessment Approved July 24, 2015
    Approved Updated Assessment Report: Water Budget and Stress Assessment Central Lake Ontario Source Protection Area 3.0 WATER BUDGET AND STRESS ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 3-1 3.1 Conceptual Water Budget ............................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 Physical Geography .......................................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.1 Topography .......................................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.2 Physiography ........................................................................................................ 3-4 3.3 Geology ............................................................................................................................ 3-9 3.3.1 Stratigraphic Framework ..................................................................................... 3-9 3.3.2 Bedrock Geology ................................................................................................ 3-10 3.3.3 Quaternary Sediments ....................................................................................... 3-10 3.3.4 Hydrogeologic Units ........................................................................................... 3-17 3.4 Surface Water Flow System ........................................................................................... 3-18 3.4.1 Surface Water and Drainage .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Report Public NK054-REP-01210-00101 N/A LOF
    Public Document Number: Usage Classification: Report NK054-REP-01210-00101 N/A Retention: Revision: LOF R000 Title: DARLINGTON NEW NUCLEAR PROJECT - SITE PREPARATION LICENCE MIDTERM REPORT Darlington New Nuclear Project - Site Preparation Licence Midterm Report NK054-REP-01210-00101 R000 2018-09-14 Public Lead Author: [Electronic Signature] Daniel Côté, P.Eng Date Section Manager – Darlington New Nuclear Project New Nuclear Development Reviewed by: [Electronic Signature] Tho Dien Le Date Manager - Darlington New Nuclear Project New Nuclear Development Approved by: [Electronic Signature] Jeff Lehman Date Vice President - New Nuclear Development Corporate Business Development & Strategy Associated with document type REP N-TMP-10010-R012, Controlled Document or Record (Microsoft® 2007) Public Document Number: Usage Classification: Report NK054-REP-01210-00101 N/A Retention: Revision Number: Page: LOF R000 2 of 52 Title: DARLINGTON NEW NUCLEAR PROJECT - SITE PREPARATION LICENCE MIDTERM REPORT Table of Contents Page List of Tables and Figures ............................................................................................................. 4 Revision Summary ........................................................................................................................ 5 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 6 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Ontario Waterkeeper C/O Mr. Mark Mattson, President
    Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant Project Joint Review Panel ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Projet de nouvelle centrale nucléaire de Darlington Commission d’examen conjoint PMD 11-P1.164 File / dossier : 8.01.07 Date: 2011-02-21 Edocs:36814445 Written submission from Mémoire de Lake Ontario Waterkeeper Lake Ontario Waterkeeper In the Matter of À l’égard de Ontario Power Generation Inc. Ontario Power Generation Inc. Environmental Assessment pursuant to the L’évaluation environnementale, en vertu de la Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of Loi canadienne sur l’évaluation a proposal by Ontario Power Generation for a environnementale, du projet d’Ontario Power Project that includes site preparation, Generation qui inclut la préparation de construction, operation, decommissioning l’emplacement, la construction, l’exploitation, and abandonment of up to four new nuclear le déclassement et l’abandon de jusqu’à quatre power reactors at its existing Darlington nouveaux réacteurs nucléaires sur le site de la Nuclear Site located near Oshawa, Ontario, centrale nucléaire Darlington près d’Oshawa in the Municipality of Clarington and a (Ontario), dans la municipalité de Clarington, et Licence to Prepare a Site application for the une demande de permis de préparation de Project under the Nuclear Safety and Control l’emplacement, aux termes de la Loi sur la Act. sûreté et la réglementation nucléaires.
    [Show full text]
  • ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT and ASSESSMENT of EFFECTS on NON- HUMAN BIOTA TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT NEW NUCLEAR – DARLINGTON NK054-REP-07730-00022 Rev 000
    ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON NON- HUMAN BIOTA TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT NEW NUCLEAR – DARLINGTON NK054-REP-07730-00022 Rev 000 Submitted To: Ontario Power Generation Inc. Prepared By: SENES Consultants Limited September 2009 New Nuclear – Darlington Ecological Risk Assessment Environmental Assessment and Assessment of Effects on Non-Human Biota Ontario Power Generation Inc. Technical Support Document EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ontario Power Generation (OPG) was directed by the Ontario Minister of Energy in June 2006 to begin the federal approvals process, including an environmental assessment (EA), for new nuclear units at an existing site. This Ecological Risk Assessment and Assessment of Effects on Non-Human Biota TSD was written in support of the EA for the New Nuclear – Darlington (NND) Project. This TSD describes the potential effects on non-human biota as a result of exposures to radiological and conventional constituents from NND. The assessment of effects of the Project was completed in two stages: 1) Assess the baseline (existing) environmental exposures to non-human biota; and 2) Determine the potential incremental exposures as a result of the NND Project. A baseline data collection program was designed and implemented to assess the existing concentrations of constituents and radionuclides in the Site, Local and Regional Study Areas. The baseline program was developed using the preliminary description of the NND Project and a review of previous Ecological Risk Assessments (ERAs) completed for the DN site. The baseline program collected information on concentrations of radiological and conventional constituents in various environmental media. A screening process was undertaken related to constituents measured in water (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Darlington B Nuclear Generating Station
    Project Description for the Site Preparation, Construction and Operation of the Darlington B Nuclear Generating Station Environmental Assessment Submitted to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission April 12, 2007 PROJECT DESCRIPTION for the SITE PREPARATION, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF THE DARLINGTON B NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Attachment to CD# N-CORR-00531-05863 Submitted to The CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION April 12, 2007 Project Description for the Darlington B Nuclear Generating Station TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND............................................................... 1 1.1 Background................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Need for the Project................................................................................... 1 1.3 Nature of the proposed Project .................................................................. 2 1.4 Purpose and Content of this Document ..................................................... 3 2.0 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT.................................................. 5 2.1 Location of the Project ............................................................................... 5 2.2 Previous Environmental Studies ................................................................ 5 2.3 Legislation, Regulations and Potential Authorizations Required................ 9 2.3.1 Federal Authorizations .................................................................... 9 2.3.2
    [Show full text]
  • Darlington New Nuclear Project Commitments Report
    OPG Proprietary Document Number: Usage Classification: Report NK054-REP-01210-00078 N/A Sheet Number: Revision: N/A R006 Title: DARLINGTON NEW NUCLEAR PROJECT COMMITMENTS REPORT © Ontario Power Generation Inc., 2021. This document has been produced and distributed for Ontario Power Generation Inc. purposes only. No part of this document 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 Ontario Power Generation Inc. Darlington New Nuclear Project Commitments Report NK054-REP-01210-00078-R006 2021-02-17 Order Number: N/A Project ID: 16-27600 OPG Proprietary Prepared by: [Electronic Signature] Robin Ahmed Date University Student New Nuclear Development Reviewed by: [Electronic Signature] Constantin Bibire Date –Senior Technical Engineer New Nuclear Development Approved by: [Electronic Signature] Tho Dien Le Date Manager - DNNP New Nuclear Development Associated with document type REP N-TMP-10010-R010, Controlled Document or Record (Microsoft® 2007) OPG Proprietary Document Number: Usage Classification: Report NK054-REP-01210-00078 N/A Sheet Number: Revision Number: Page: N/A R006 2 of 169 Title: DARLINGTON NEW NUCLEAR PROJECT COMMITMENTS REPORT Table of Contents Page Revision Summary ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Corridor Protection and Enhancement Plan
    WILDLIFE CORRIDOR PROTECTION & ENHANCEMENT PLAN Action Plan #5 March 2015 Cover Photo Credits (clockwise from left): Lou Wise, I. Maciver, CLOCA, G. Ernest Wildlife Corridor Protection & Enhancement Plan March 2015 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Purpose of the Wildlife Corridors Protection and Enhancement Plan .......................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Context of this Plan and Watershed Planning ............................................................................................................................................... 5 CLOCA Action Plans ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Planning Context .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 2. IDENTIFYING AND EVALUATING WILDLIFE CORRIDORS ........................................................................................................................................ 8 2.1 Characteristics of Healthy Wildlife Corridors ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]