Questions from Bruce

home      project description      project alternatives      legal framework      public participation
environmental & social impacts      lessons learned
Q & A      references      links
Power Point Presentation

Questions and Answers

Questions and Answers following Bruce New Nuclear Power Plant Project

EIS Review Presentation, Presented by the Review Team on April 7^th, 2009

Questions

What were the identified Aboriginal issues?
Why was the Round Lakefish suggested and finally accepted as a VEC?
How does the community view the project?
What compensation measures will the Bruce Project be responsible for to compensate for fish habitat losses from the proposed infill of MacPhearson Bay?
Was there a thorough study done to address the question of alternative energy supply options in the province of Ontario?

Question: What were the identified Aboriginal issues?

1) Decreased air quality due to traffic degradation.

2) Increased noise.

3) Increased radiation.

4) The sediment plume in MacPherson Bay resulting from construction.

5) The effect of cooling water discharge on nearshore Lake Huron during operations.

6) The removal of aquatic habitat provided by MacPherson Bay and the increased water temperatures on aquatic habitat at Baie du Dore and Loscombe Bank and on Lake Whitefish spawning and recruitment and the entrainment of Lake Whitefish larvae.

7) The removal of vegetation, modification of terrestrial habitat, removal of species and decrease in the population or degradation of health of terrestrial biota on-site during the construction phase.

8) Physical alteration of the areas encompassed by the First Nations' land claim to their traditional territories

9) Reduction in the aesthetic value of their land.

10) Housing demand during the construction phase.

Question: Why was the Round Lakefish suggested and finally accepted as a VEC?

Citizens for Renewable Energy sent an email to the CEAA Program Funding Officer, Suzanne Osborne, requesting that the Round Whitefish, a suggested VECS from Workshop#3, be included in the EIS. In the email CFRE state that Round Whitefish have distinct properties compared to Lake Whitefish and have been declared an “Endangered Species” by the New York State conservation Authority. As well, Round Whitefish is an exclusive bottom feeder and therefore a good species to monitor the effect of radioactivity on the food chain, showing the uptake of radioactive elements from lake sediment.

Question: How does the community view the project?

There is a lot of community support for this project. As well, the community is used to nuclear as there has been a nuclear plan on the site since the 1970s. Bruce Power has good community relations and the CEO, Duncan Hawthorne, has even been called the ‘King of Kincardine’ in some media sources. However, there are people who would like to see the money spent on the Project invested instead in research and development of green energy or in wind energy technology. As well, citizens signed a petition in support of a Nuclear Cost Responsibility Act that makes it illegal for nuclear power companies to pass their capital cost overruns onto electricity consumers or taxpayers.

Question: What compensation measures will the Bruce Project be responsible for to compensate for fish habitat losses from the proposed infill of MacPhearson Bay?

No agreement has yet been reached in terms of the acceptability of the infill and the compensation plan. DFO hopes to reach an agreement during the EIS Review Period.

The proponent is required to use DFO’s Habitat Alteration Assessment Tool (HAAT) “to assess the extent of the fish habitat losses and to support the development of a fish habitat compensation plan. The result of this exercise will help DFO determine the acceptability of the infill in terms of meeting DFO’s No Net Loss Policy objective” (BPJRP, 2008).

“The first step in DFO’s review of the infill proposal as a component of the Project is to determine if the loss of productive capacity of fish habitat associated with the infill of MacPhearson Bay is acceptable. If the outcome is that the loss is unacceptable this may have implications for the siting options available to Bruce Power” (BPJRP, 2008)

Question: Was there a thorough study done to address the question of alternative energy supply options in the province of Ontario?

The proponent provided an overall outlook of Ontario's energy supply mix as of today, as well as presented the Government of Ontario's future provincial energy policy. The study, however, was limited to the resources that were available to the developer and if the alternative was in the current interest of the developer.