McGill University
Master of Science in Renewable Resources
1
Environmental Assessment Concentration
NRSC 610 & 611
April 7, 2009

Environmental Assessment (EA) Review: Roxana Ionescu

Project Description: Roxana Ionescu

Legal and Regulatory Framework: Roxana Ionescu

Alternatives to project: Justin Palmer

Aquatic Environment: Lisa Gualtieri

Radioactivity: Justin Palmer

Socio-economic Issues: Claudia Kis-Madrid

Human Health and Safety Considerations: Roxana Ionescu

Public Participation and Aboriginal Engagement: Annetta Markussen-Brown

Aboriginal Issues: Annetta Markussen-Brown

Cumulative Impacts: Lisa Gualtieri

Lessons Learned: team

Roxana Ionescu
References: team
 2

Assess the adequacy and quality of the EA report
Take account of public comment
Determine if the information is sufficient
Identify any deficiencies in addressing the terms the
reference as well as the methodology used in the EA
Source: UNEP Manual
Roxana Ionescu
3

Does the report address the terms of reference?
Is the necessary information provided for each major component of
the EA report?
Is the information correct and technically sound?
Are any reviews of EA reports of comparable proposals in similar
settings available?
Have the views and concerns of affected and interested parties
been taken into account?
Is the statement of the key findings complete and satisfactory, e.g.
for significant impacts, proposed mitigation measures?
Is the information clearly presented and understandable by decision-
makers and the public?
Is the information relevant and sufficient for the purpose of decision-
making and condition setting?
Roxana Ionescu
Source: UNEP Manual
4

Bruce Power proposes to maintain and if possible increase its

nuclear power capacity by constructing and operating a new
nuclear power plant of approximately 4,000MW at the site in
Kinkardine, ON
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) considered

that, with the potential addition of four nuclear reactors and the
refurbishment of existing reactors, the Bruce Nuclear site could
have up to 12 reactors operating all at once, making it one of the
largest nuclear facilities in the world in terms of power produced
on a single site.
Bruce Power is currently considering a range of reactor

designs, but has not yet decided on the specific technology.
Nevertheless, it is anticipated that the new reactors would have
an approximate 60-year operating life, which would include a
mid-life refurbishment.
Source: CNSC, 2008
Roxana Ionescu
5

Roxana Ionescu
Source: www.brucepower.com
6

Bruce
Power LP
Golder
Wildlife Associates
Ltd.
Local
NGOs
Bruce Communities
Power
Project
Local, regio Canadian
nal and Nuclear
national Safety
Commission
authorities
Canadian
Bruce
Environmental
Power Assessment
Workers Agency
Roxana Ionescu
7

The project will cover the following areas:

Preparation of
Construction Operation Decommission Abandonment
the site
Roxana Ionescu
8

February
2007 •Federal Minister of
Environment refers EA
•Bruce Power applied
•Notice of to a Joint Review
for a License to
Environmental Panel (JRP) (Federal
Prepare Site (Bruce
Assessment posted Minister of
Power)
(CNSC) Environment)
August 2006 June 2007
Roxana Ionescu
Source of information: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)
9

April - June
2008
•Draft Environmental •Final EIS Guidelines and
Impact Statement (EIS) JRP Agreement
•Comment period on
Guidelines and JRP published (Minister of
draft EIS Guidelines and
Agreement published for Environment)
JRP Agreement
comments (CNSC and
CEEA)
April 2008 August 2008
Roxana Ionescu
Source of information: CNSC
10

September
2008 •Notice on review
period on EIS and
•Appointment of JRP
•Bruce Power complete
(Minister of
submitted EIS with application for
Environment and
final documentation Licence to Prepare
Governor in Council)
for Licence to Site (JRP)
Prepare Site to JRP
September November
(Bruce Power)
2008 2008
Roxana Ionescu
Source of information: CNSC
11

February 2009
•Public comment period.
Review of EIS and
•Information request 2
complete application for •Information request 1 (JRP)
Licence to Prepare Site
(JRP)
by the public, other
stakeholders and JRP
November 2008
March 2009
– May 2009
Roxana Ionescu
Source of information: CNSC
12

June 2009
•Bruce Power to respond
to the JRP request of •JRP holds Public Hearings
February 2009 for (expected by JRP)
•Notice of Public Hearings
additional information posted (expected by
(Bruce Power) JRP)
Currently in September –
progress October 2009
Roxana Ionescu
Source of information: CNSC
13

March 2010
•JRP submits Report to •JRP issues Licence to
•Federal
Federal Government Prepare Site
Government‟s
(expected from JRP) (expected by JRP)
Response to Report
(expected by
Governor in Council)
January
May 2010
2010
Roxana Ionescu
Source of information: CNSC
14

2011
• Bruce Power applies
• CNSC holds Public
for Licence to
Hearings (expected
Construct (expected
by CNSC)
from Bruce Power)
May 2009
Roxana Ionescu
Source of information: CNSC
15

2015
• Bruce Power applies
• CNSC holds Public
for Licence to
Hearings (expected
Operate (expected
by CNSC)
from Bruce Power)
2013
Roxana Ionescu
Source of information: CNSC
16

2078
• Bruce Power applies
• CNSC holds Public
for Licence to
Hearings (expected
Decommission
by CNSC)
(expected from
Bruce Power)
2076
Roxana Ionescu
Source of information: CNSC
17

2090
• Bruce Power applies
• CNSC holds Public
for Licence to
Hearings (expected
Abandon (expected
by CNSC)
from Bruce Power)
2088
Roxana Ionescu
Source of information: CNSC
18

Canadian
Environmental
Assessment Act Other
Nuclear Safety Fisheries and Navigable The
and Control Act Oceans Act of Water Transportation relevant
1.Determine if EA is
required under Canada Protection Act Dangerous
•CNSC regulates legislation
CEAA;
Goods Act
the use of nuclear • The construction •Under Section 5
2.Identify authorities
energy and •Species at Risk
of the structures of the Navigable •Transportation of
involved in EA
materials to Act
to be located in Waters Protection new fuel bundles
process;
protect the Lake Huron area Act, Transport •Migratory Birds
/ assemblies to
3. Plan the EA -
health, safety and requires Canada must Convention Act
the site, as well as
Determine how it will
security of authorization authorise projects the eventual •Canadian
be conducted;
Canadians and under the Fisheries with works that transportation of Environmental
4. Conduct analysis
the environment; Act will be built or used fuel to a Protection Act
and prepare EA
and to respect placed national central •Provincial
Report;
Canada's in, on, over, under storage facility Regulatory
5. Review the EA
international , through or may require Requirements
Report;
commitments on across navigable authorization
the peaceful use 6. Make an EA waters. under the
of nuclear decision; and
Transportation of
energy. 7. Implement Dangerous Goods
mitigation measures Act.
and follow-up
program, as
appropriate.
Roxana Ionescu
19

Methodology used for selection of

preferred project
Compliance with the Terms of Reference

Quality and strengths and weaknesses

Justin Palmer
20

Justin Palmer
21

Justin Palmer
22

Compliance with Terms of Reference:
Terms of Reference /
Alternatives to the Project

An analysis of alternatives to the project must describe the
functionally different ways to meet the project’s need and achieve
the project’s purpose from the perspective of the proponent
Refurbishment of existing units at the Bruce 'B' may be one

alternative to the Bruce NNPP
The EIS should explain why possible alternatives to the project

should not be considered with reference to Ontario's formal
energy policy
*
For each identified alternative to the Bruce NNPP that are within the
control and/or interests of Bruce Power, this section of the EIS must
explain how the proponent developed the criteria to identify the
major environmental, economic and technical costs and benefits
of those alternatives, and how the proponent identified the
preferred project based on the relative consideration of the
environmental, economic and technical benefits and costs. This
must be done to a level of detail which is sufficient to allow the
joint review panel and the public to compare the Project with its
alternatives
Justin Palmer
23

Overall Quality of section well done

Omission regarding criteria 4 of the terms

of reference
Limitation regarding screening criteria

Justin Palmer
24

Compliance with Terms of Reference:
Terms of Reference /
Alternatives to the Project
An analysis of alternatives to the project must describe the

functionally different ways to meet the project’s need and
achieve the project’s purpose from the perspective of the
proponent
Refurbishment of existing units at the Bruce 'B' may be one

alternative to the Bruce NNPP
The EIS should explain why possible alternatives to the project

should not be considered with reference to Ontario's formal
energy policy
*
For each identified alternative to the Bruce NNPP that are within
the control and/or interests of Bruce Power, this section of the EIS
must explain how the proponent developed the criteria to
identify the major environmental, economic and technical costs
and benefits of those alternatives, and how the proponent
identified the preferred project based on the relative
consideration of the environmental, economic and technical
benefits and costs. This must be done to a level of detail which is
sufficient to allow the joint review panel and the public to
compare the Project with its alternatives
Justin Palmer
25

Identification of alternative means

Methodology used for selection of

appropriate alternative mean
Compliance with the Terms of Reference

Quality and strengths and weaknesses

Justin Palmer
26

Four state-of-the-art nuclear power reactors of

Canadian and international design
 Four alternative site locations on the Bruce Power
site (932 ha)
 Two cooling water strategies, involving air and
water cooling
 Two switchyard designs comprising alternative
technologies
 On-site and off-site radioactive waste
management strategies
Justin Palmer
27

Justin Palmer
28

Justin Palmer
29

Justin Palmer
30

Justin Palmer
31

Terms of Reference Section
/
Alternatives Means of Carrying out the Project
The EIS must identify and describe alternative means to carry

out the project that are, from the perspective of the proponent, 4.0 (4.8-4.11)
technically and economically feasible

The EIS, must describe the environmental effects of each 6.0, 9.0, 10.0,
alternative means 12.0, 13.0, 14.0
In describing the preferred means, the EIS should identify the
 6.0, 9.0, 10.0,
relative consideration of environmental effects, and technical
12.0, 13.0, 14.0
and economic feasibility
The criteria used to identify alternative means as
* 6.0, 9.0, 10.0,
unacceptable, and how these criteria were applied, must be
12.0, 13.0, 14.0
described
This section also must describe the criteria used to examine
 6.0, 9.0, 10.0,
the environmental effects of each remaining alternative
12.0, 13.0, 14.0
means to identify the preferred alternative
Justin Palmer
32

Overall quality of section well done

Omission of project scenario 6 within

technical support documents
Omission of environmental effects for

certain alternative means
Justin Palmer
33

Overview
 What was the methodology used by the
proponent in terms of:
› EA boundaries and VECs
› Baseline Environmental Conditions
› Effects Prediction and Mitigation Measures
› Significance of Residual Effects
Key Findings

 Terms of Reference compliance
Lisa Gualtieri
34

BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
EA Boundaries and VECs
Methodology:
Spatial boundaries
Identification of three generic study areas by skilled
experts based on the VECs, and modified for each
VEC.
 Site Study Area
 Local Study Area
 Regional Study Area
Lisa Gualtieri
35

BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
Site Study Area
Lisa Gualtieri
36

BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
Regional Study
Areas 
Local Study Areas

Lisa Gualtieri
37

BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
EA Boundaries and VECs
Methodology (cont‟d):
VEC Selection
 The VECs were selected by the technical specialists
conducting the EA with input and comment from the
public, local First Nations, federal and provincial
government departments, Regulatory Agencies, and
other community stakeholders
Lisa Gualtieri
38

BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
EA Boundaries and VECs
Review
Several requests made by NGOs and Gov‟t for additions to be
made to VEC list.
 Bivalves - some species are „at risk‟
 Round Whitefish – eggs have high sensitivity to changes in
temperature
 Fish community as a whole - CEAA guide to biodiversity and
EA states that VEC selection should consider all levels of
biological organization including species, communities and
ecosystems
Lisa Gualtieri
39

BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
EA Boundaries and VECs
Terms of Reference Requirements /
Environmental Assessment Boundaries
Consideration of the physical extent of the proposed project, including any

offsite facilities or activities
Consideration of the extent of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems that can
*
reasonably be expected to be affected by the project

Contain a justification and rationale for all boundaries and scales chosen
The geographic study should define a site study area, a local study area

and a regional study area.
Valued Ecosystem Components
*
Criteria used to identify and exclude VECs
Method for prediction and assessment of impacts of the project on the

VECs

Rationale for selection

Criteria for determination of significance

Public input on VEC selection

List of VECs used
40
Lisa Gualtieri

BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
Baseline Analysis
Methodology:
› Compilation and review of existing information
› Identification of data gaps
› Development and implementation of field studies including
monitoring programs to obtain additional baseline data
› Detailed description of VECs
› Consultation and discussion with the community
stakeholders, regulatory agencies and local First Nations
Lisa Gualtieri
41

BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
Baseline Analysis
Review:
 Lack of explicit explanation of field methods used
 Major deficiency: analysis of baseline conditions based on
data from field studies conducted in 2007 alone.
 Historical data needed to accurately understand
implications to VECs and their habitats.
 Estimates of natural variability are needed to scope and
design a statistically-valid, follow-up monitoring program for
effects that require a statistical test.
Other Projects:
 Hydro Gentilly Nuclear Project: Most of the field studies took
place in a single year as well.
 Perhaps it is conventional practice for baseline studies to be
done insufficiently?
Lisa Gualtieri
42

BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
Baseline Analysis
Terms of Reference Requirements /
Existing Environment
Description of aquatic environment 
Include results from studies done prior to any physical disruption to the site 
Must compare baseline with applicable government legislation, guidelines or 
objectives
Proponent must consider resilience of species, communities, habitats 
Summarize all pertinent info on the size and geographic extent of animal *
populations, and density.
Description of aquatic and wetland species 
Must provide detailed habitat mapping 
Must identify species of natural conservation status 
Information on the on-going monitoring of entrainment and impingement of 
aquatic biota.
Lisa Gualtieri
43

Effects Prediction
Methodology
 Initial screening in order to determine the interactions
between the project and the environment.
Lisa Gualtieri
44

Summary of First Screening for plausible Project-Environment
Interactions
45

BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
Effects Prediction
Methodology
Initial screening in order to determine the interactions between the project

and the environment. Matrix method used.
Second screening in order to determine whether these interactions

produce adverse measurable change
Consideration of mitigation measures for project activities and works which

are likely to produce measurable adverse impacts
Identification of residual adverse effects remaining after consideration of

mitigation measures are assessed
Methods:
Quantitative and Qualitative Methods
Direct and Indirect Effects Considered for all Biophysical and Socio-
Economic Components
› Use of Aerial Maps and GIS
› Use of Ecological Models
› Detailed Quantitative Methods
› Use of Professional Expertise and Judgement
Lisa Gualtieri
46

Summary of Residual Adverse Effects
47

Effects Prediction
Identified likely measurable changes are mostly due to :
Reduction in habitat from the infilling of MacPherson

Bay, construction of shoreline protection, disruption of lake bed
sediments during construction of the coffer dam, dock and intake
and discharge structures during the Construction Phase
Impingement, entrainment and habitat alteration from water

removal, changes in water circulation and increased water
temperature during commissioning and operation of the Service
Water and Cooling Water System
Increased angling with a larger workforce during both Construction

and Operations Phase
Increases in contaminant concentrations in the instance of a

malfunction or accident
Removal of habitat through surface hardening and dewatering

Increased contaminant concentrations through the release of

Cooling Tower Blowdown
Lisa Gualtieri
48

Reactor Power Block Site is
partially located in
MacPhearson Bay
• construction of coffer
dam
• dewatering
• Infilling of 83 000m2
Lisa Gualtieri
49

Effects Prediction
Terms of Reference Requirements /
Effects Prediction
Description of changes in the environment caused by the project with 
specific attention given to interactions between the project and identified
VECs
Changes to the project caused by the environment 
Each environmental change must be described in terms of whether it is 
direct or indirect and positive or adverse
Describe comprehensive analysis of both short and long term effects of 
the project on the environment
Indicate the degree of uncertainty in predicting the environmental effects *
identified
Mitigation Measures
Recommended mitigation measures 
Compliance monitoring as part of follow-up *
Lisa Gualtieri
50

BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
Evaluation of Significance
The significance level of each residual adverse effect is

determined based on a framework of criteria and levels of effect.
The criteria used are:
› Magnitude › Timing and Duration
› Geographic Extent › Degree of Irreversibility
› Probability of Occurrence › Ecological Context
and Frequency
› Social Context
Lisa Gualtieri
51

BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
Evaluation of Significance
Lisa Gualtieri
52

BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
Evaluation of Significance
Review
At times, the way the criteria are defined or applied, does
not consider important factors.
 Example: “Timing and Duration”
The timing and duration is described according to what

phase the project is in (site preparation, construction)
For most VECs, more important in terms of timing is the timing

and duration of the impact in relation to life-stages such as
reproduction, hatching
Lisa Gualtieri
53

BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
Evaluation of Significance
Review (Cont‟d)
The criteria cannot be universally applied across all VECs as
the methodology implies. The definition of what „low‟,
„moderate‟, or „high‟ effect levels are, varies with
different VECs.
 Example: “Probability of occurrence and frequency”
Several times per month may be moderate for

some VECs, but „high‟ for others. Lisa Gualtieri
54

BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
Evaluation of Significance
Lisa Gualtieri
55

BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
Evaluation of Significance
Review (Cont‟d)
The EIS states that the methodology for classifying
the effects as „low‟, „moderate‟ or „high‟ for
each of the criteria is based on expert
judgement and opinion, it is not clear whether
this judgement is credible in some cases.
 Example: “Probability of Occurrence and
Frequency”
 On several occasions a “permanent” removal of
habitat was given a „low‟ rating. Permanent
would mean 100% probability, which would
arguably mean a „high‟ classification.
56
Lisa Gualtieri

BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
Evaluation of Significance
Review (Cont‟d)
In some instances, for the “Degree of Irreversibility” criteria, significance
levels are based the hypothetical situation where mitigation
measures, which the proponent has not committed to, are
implemented
 Example: “The effect of accidental spills on aquatic habitat
suitability in Stream „C‟ because of decreased water quality”
Proper clean-up and

habitat restoration to
reduce contaminant
levels has not been
committed to by the
proponent.
57
Lisa Gualtieri

Strengths Weaknesses
of Reference are adhered Definitions of Criteria used for
Terms 
to very closely determining significance question
integrity of entire assessment
TSD Document very clear and
easy to navigate through Field Surveys done in on
year only
Quality and Relevance of Maps,
Charts, Matrices Some VECs omitted
Methodology for identifying,
predicting and assessing impacts
is relevant and recommended
Variety of quantitative and
qualitative methods used for
prediction
Lisa Gualtieri
58

3 Study Areas

 Identified VEC‟s
 5 recognized adverse changes
 Radiation doses to humans and Health
Canada findings
Justin Palmer
59

Radioactivity Study Area:
Site Extent
60

Radioactivity Study Area:
Local Extent
61

Radioactivity Study Area:
Regional Extent
Justin Palmer
62

Airshed

Nearshore Lake Huron

Local Groundwater

Local soil

Worker‟ health

Public health

First Nations health

Lake Whitefish

Benthic Invertebrates

Sago pondweed

Coyote

Wild Turkey

Eastern white cedar, and

Mushroom

Justin Palmer
63

Increase in collective dose to nuclear energy

workers during the Operations and Maintenance
Phase
Increase in collective does to nuclear energy

workers during the refurbishment of pressure tube
reactors
Radiation exposure of the population following a

small release nuclear accident
Radiation exposure of the population following a

larger release nuclear accident
Radiation exposure of terrestrial biota following a

large release nuclear accident
Justin Palmer
64

Evaluation of Significance of Residual Adverse Effect
65

Methodology:
The method used to determine the effects of the

Project on the selected VSECs is called Source-
Pathway-Receptor Method.
The Project works and activities represent the

source of a change
The likely change in the Socio-Economic Conditions

represents the pathway for change
The VSECs represent the receptors.

Claudia Kis-Madrid
66

VSECs identified:
Feelings of Safety and
Employment 

Security
 Population and
 Municipal Finances
demographics
 Municipal
 Labour Supply
Infrastructure
 Economic activity
 Community Services
 Tourism
 Housing
 Agriculture
 Bruce Power Site
 Community Character
Infrastructure
 Use and Employment
 Bruce Power Site
of Property
Services
Claudia Kis-Madrid
67

The assessment of the effects of the Project on
the environment consists of:
Description on the Project and alternative
means
Description of the existing environmental
conditions
Prediction and assessment of future
conditions as a result of the Project
Proposal of follow-up monitoring programs
to ensure that effects are as predicted.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
68

Significance of the residual effects
Magnitude
Geographic extent
Timing and duration
Probability of Occurrence and Frequency
Degree of Irreversibility
Ecological Context (how common and/or abundant
a VSEC is within the study area)
Social Context (the value level that society places on
a particular VSEC)
Claudia Kis-Madrid
69

The levels of significance for this criteria
are identified as:
Low •a small change, typically less than 25%
(compared with existing conditions)
Moderate •a medium-level change,
approximately 25-50%
High •a large change, typically greater than
50%.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
70

Each residual adverse effect is categorized as:
 Minor Adverse Effect (not significant): effectively
mitigated through the identified mitigation
measures.
 Significant Adverse Effect: effective mitigation is
not considered feasible.
A significant Adverse Effect is assessed as having:
 High magnitude
 High degree of irreversibility
 High ecological or social context.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
71

Review of Methodology
 Follows a logical sequence (supported by tables
and diagrams) helping to understand all the steps
followed through the process.
 The Source-Pathway-Receptor Method used to
determine the effects of the Project on the
selected VSECs is a reliable method.
 Through its stages it is possible to understand the
links between the project and the likely effects in
the Socio-Economic Conditions represented on
each of the VSECs.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
72

Terms of Reference are addressed on the EIS
1. Must describe the general socio-economic conditions at the local

and regional study areas.
2. Must describe population and community distribution and density

in the regional study area.
3. Must include the proximity of the project to affected communities,

fluctuations in population and population attributes.
4. Must provide a description of the local and regional economies,

including workforce and employment.
5. Must provide information on the available labour supply and rates

of employment in the surrounding communities and region.
6. Must describe the expected effects on the regional study area’s

economy, including effects on employment and economic sectors
such as commercial, retail and recreational sectors.
7. Must describe what measures are within the proponent‟s control

to avoid or mitigate adverse economic effects.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
73

1. General Socio-Economic
Conditions at the local and regional
study areas are described.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
74

All sections include the components of the existing

socio-economic conditions and the projections of
these components over time scales.
The description of previous effects of the project on

the community were not described in sufficient
detail to permit the identification, assessment and
determination of the significance of potentially
adverse effects that may be caused by the project
in the future.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
75

Observations:
The TSD mentions that “economics and demographics of the

Local Study Area were Significantly altered form 1977 through
1987 when eight nuclear reactors units were built and began
operating at the Bruce Power site”; and that “uncertainties
related to the long term operations of the site and the lay up
of four reactor units during the mid-to-late 1990s also had a
significant effects on the community (p. 60)”. However, it
does not explain how economics and demographics were
altered and which kind of effects on the community took
place.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
76

2. Population and density in the
Regional Study Area are described as
stated in the ToR.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
77

The community distribution is not explicit

under population and demographic
characteristics.
Observations:
 The population on the Local Study Area
(22,893) is almost the double of the
Reference Community (11,320). (Not
explained)
Claudia Kis-Madrid
78

3. A description of the proximity of the project
to affected communities, fluctuations in
population and population attributes is
provided as indicated in the ToR.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
79

Observations:
Under Community Character, Use and Enjoyment

of Property, and Feelings of Safety and Security
VSECs, the Public Attitude Research (PAR) for the
Local study Area showed that:
› There are very few people from the community
that mentions Bruce Power as being an
important issue for the community.
› Most people do not feel a threat by living near
to the nuclear power plant.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
80

There is not an explanation of the characteristics of the

community participants for the PAR (e.g. their level of
education, age, gender, number of years living in the
area, etc.)
› There is a possibility that the feeling of safety and
security has to do with the people‟s lack of
information or their low level of education.
Recommendation:
 To include the level of studies of the surveyed
people (or any other element that demonstrates
peoples understanding of the effects of a nuclear
power plant), which could be accurate to support
their answers.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
81

4. A detailed description of the local and
regional economies, including workforce
and employment, is provided taking in to
consideration the Province of Ontario.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
82

Observations:
While population is expected to grow in the next years,

school enrolment is going to decrease drastically over the
next 15 years. (Not a clearly explained)
The Ontario Park User Survey (2005) does not help to predict

the future rates of tourism on the Local Area. The main
responses have to do with the activities the visitors practice
while camping, but not about the issue that represents to be
close to a nuclear power plant.
Fishing along Bruce A and B outfalls has been halted. The

effects of this measure on tourists or local residents are not
mentioned.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
83

5. Information on the available labour supply
and rates of employment in the surrounding
communities and region is provided as stated
on the ToR.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
84

A brief discussion on national and provincial labour

supply provides a context for the description of
labour supply in the surrounding communities and
region.
Rates of employment in the surrounding

communities and region are covered under Study
Area Labour Force Indicators (2006).
Claudia Kis-Madrid
85

6. The expected effects on the regional
study area‟s economy, including effects on
employment and economic sectors such as
commercial, retail and recreational sectors,
are described for the Construction and
Operation Phases
Claudia Kis-Madrid
86

Specific attention is given to the

interactions between the Project and the
identified VSECs.
Each environmental effect is described in

terms of whether it is direct or indirect and
positive or adverse.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
87

Observations:
Existing Socio-Economic conditions and

potential adverse effects of the project are
analyzed following the described
methodology and ToR.
› The assessment does not disaggregate the
affected population of the community (except
by their ethnic affiliation since there is an
aboriginal people‟s TSD). It refers to residents
and communities as a whole.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
88

Different social groups may be affected by the
o
project in different ways and to different degrees
depending on their living location, occupation,
socio-economic status, age, gender, etc.
› People‟s perceptions of project (local / regional study
area).
Farmers (land and water) / aboriginal groups (fisheries),
›
and retailers (tourism).
Economic status in terms of capital and land distribution.
›
Old / young people (future generations - nuclear
›
accident).
Men, women and children play different economic roles
›
and have different access to resources
Claudia Kis-Madrid
89

Social problems such as: gender issues,

family structures, community stress and
conflict, integration, cohesion and
alienation, or other social problems
generated as a result of the project, are not
taken into consideration.
Projections about possible development of

other economical activities in the local
area are not vastly considered (mainly -
high wages at the Bruce Power Plant)
Claudia Kis-Madrid
90

Immigrant workers that will migrate into the area

might bring their families with them (Not considered
in the population growth of the study areas).
› Increase in economic activities.
› The net effect might be larger than the original direct
injection of jobs and income into the local area.
Recommendation:

› To clarify what will be the magnitude of secondary
employment.
› Which sectors of the population are going to
beneficiated?
› What will be the proportion of these jobs filled out by local
and immigrant workers?
Claudia Kis-Madrid
91

The percentage of immigrant workers, as well as their origins

and gender are not specified. (This makes difficult to predict
changes in the community).
Immigrants represent:

› Increase in the population
› Changes to the age and sex structure
› Accommodation
› Financial implications
› Additional costs of service provisions (police, fire
department, recreation, etc)
› Change of the social mix of the area‟s population.
Recommendation:

› To considerer the clash of lifestyles and expectations
between immigrants and the existing community.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
92

The TSD mentions that on the Construction Phase, the project-

related employment could create the need for up to 37% of
the additional housing predicted in the Regional Study Area
and 72% of the Local Study Area.
› The TSD does not consider important to further assess:
 Municipal infrastructure
 Potable water supply
 Sanitary Sewage Management
 Conventional Solid Waste Management
Since the municipalities have sufficient capacity to ensure
that access and availability of municipal infrastructure will
not be affected by the Project. (Not sufficient information
provided to be sure of this statement).
Claudia Kis-Madrid
93

The view from the public was taken into account in

this section through the Public Attitude Review. This
survey was conducted on a “random” sample of
504 residents from the Local Study Area.
› If we take into account that the population of the Local
Study Area for 2006 was 22,893, a sample of 504 people
only represents 2.2 % of the population.
› This group might not be representative to determine:
People‟s attitudes toward their community

Levels of satisfaction as a place to live

Major community issues,

Main issues that affect their sense of health and safety or

personal security
 The awareness of Bruce Power‟s plans to construct and
operate new nuclear reactor units on the present Bruce Power
Site.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
94

In order to help ascertain whether or not the project might

have an effect on accommodations for tourists, visitor
numbers and types of visitors:
› Forty in-person interviews with park users took place at
Inverhuron and MacGregor Point Provincial Parks (the
reason for choosing this number of people, their
age, gender or frequency of visiting parks is not indicated)
› Twelve phone interviews with tourism accommodation
operators.
› Phone or in-person interviews with eighteen municipal
officials, school board and principals, state agents and
board members, and community protection, emergency
and social service providers
(It is not mentioned which officials, estate agents, or board
members were interviewed).
Claudia Kis-Madrid
95

In order to assess the effects on property values in

the case of a nuclear accident:
› the TSD refers to Studies of the 1979 Three Mile Island
nuclear accident since:
 It did not revealed any effects on residential property
values or sales following the accident
 The rate at which people moved from the area
remained the same the year after the accident as
before.
› It is not clear:
 Why the TSD compares potential Bruce Power Project‟
accidents with that specific project.
 How is it possible to compare effects on property values
for 1979 and for after 2009, in different regions and for
different sizes of projects.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
96

7. The measures intended to mitigate the
potentially adverse effects of the Project are
described by project phase, timing and
duration.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
97

› The actors responsible for the implementation of
these measures are identified.
› The significance of the residual adverse effects
persisting despite proposed mitigation measures
is assessed through the criteria previously
described.
› Definitions of the terms used to describe the level
of significance are provided.
Observations:
 In general, there is not sufficient information
provided on methods, equipment, procedures and
policies associated with each of the proposed
mitigation measures for each VSEC.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
98

The TSD does not discuss and evaluate on a broth

extent the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation
measures.
› It does not assess the risk of mitigation measures failure
and the potential severity of the consequences of such
failures.
› There is not information provided on similar mitigation
methods used with similar projects and the degree of
success achieved.
› It is not indicated what other mitigation measures were
considered and it is not explained why they were
rejected.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
99

Even that the TSD explains the methodology for

reviewing the significance of Residual Adverse
Effects (through the magnitude, degree of
irreversibility and ecological or social context), the
overall assessment of some of these effects is not
vastly justified.
› The criterion for using only these variables on the
determination of significance is not back up with other
case studies.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
100

There is an explanation of the method and

definitions used to describe the level of the
adverse effects (low, medium, high) and how
these levels were combined to produce an overall
conclusion on the significance of adverse effects
for each VSEC.
› There are not any support documents to back-up the
criteria utilized to determine significance.
None of the residual adverse effects are judged to

be significant.
It is not clear why the Probability of Occurrence

and Frequency of a nuclear accident during the
Operations Phase is classified as extremely low.
101

In the cases of the VSEC affected by a possible nuclear

accident during the Operations Phase such as:
› Tourism
› Agriculture
› Community Character
› Use and Enjoyment of Property
› Feelings of Safety and Security
The Degree of Irreversibility is classified as moderate,

stating that the effect could be reversible during
operational period (2015 through 2080).
› It is not clear:
 How reversibility is possible in that period of time.
 What actions will take place in such an event.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
102

The mitigation measures for these VSECs against

likely stigma-related effects due to a nuclear
accident are not supported by other documents or
previous experiences, which could help determine
their effectiveness.
› Communicating with the public and the way Bruce Power
reacts to such an event, do not seem as effective
measures to alleviate people fears.
› The participation of Bruce Power in strictly regulated
nuclear emergency management planning could help in
the event of a nuclear accident, but is not a mitigation
measure to address the changes in public attitudes and
behaviors following such an event.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
103

The attitudes and preoccupations of the people

are taken into account on different surveys applied
at the regional and local level at different years.
There is a sectoral survey on risk perception.

The EIS contains a socio-economic history

describing what contributes to define people‟s
attitudes and preoccupations.
There is a differentiation of groups within the

community, since they do not live the same socio
economic realities.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
104

The Gentilly-2 EIS identified similar VSECs and
effects of the Project during the construction and
operation phases. However, risks perceptions of the
population as well as the socio-psychological
effects are broadly taken into account on
Gentelly-2 EIS:
The socio-economical impacts associated to risk

perceptions are differentiated by circumstances,
persons, groups and communities.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
105

There is a socio-political analysis identifying

stakeholders and their general preoccupations
related to the project.
The EIS present several studies and surveys in

different years to determine the socio-
psychological effects of the project. Each of the
survey specifies:
› Characteristics of the group of persons surveyed (e.g. the
number of people surveyed at a certain distance of the project
compared with other groups living further from it).
› Answers are presented differentiating groups and their
demographical density in the study zone.
› Evolution of the perception of the last 17 years is provided.
› Differentiation of the survey results by geographical zone is
provided with its interpretation.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
106

There is an explanation of the people‟s negative

perception on the Project (people seem to be very well
informed and aware of the potential risks of an
accident).
 Socio-psychological impacts on the population through
different scenarios on the local and regional zones are
described.
› The probable scenarios were developed taking into account:
 Risk perception
 Population‟s reaction to the Project.
› The risk perception cause effects on three levels:
Individual, family and community levels.
› The risks associated to the project are assessed on these tree
dimensions and according to the level of risk‟s awareness.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
107

An explanation of the risks on humans of a nuclear

accident on the Plant is provided. The EIS provides:
› The protection measures in case of a nuclear
accident
› The compromises of Hydro-Quebec in case of a
nuclear accident are set in a list of steps.
Claudia Kis-Madrid
108

World Health Organization (WHO) definition of health:

› “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not
merely the absence of disease or infirmity”.
Human health is an overarching goal of sustainability, lying at the intersect of its

environmental, economic and social pillars. Economic development, a key concern for
industrial and developing countries, is a central focus for analyzing health benefits and
costs. Economic development can benefit health by improving standards of living,
providing jobs, and yielding tax revenues to help pay for health, educational and social
services. (Sadler, 1992)
Environment
Validity Sustainability
Health
Equity
Economy Community
Source of information: Sadler and Jacobs (1992)
Roxana Ionescu
modified from Hancock (1990)
109

Step 1 • Comparison with the
EIS Guidelines
• Use the Canadian
Step 2 Handbook on Health
Impact Assessment as
a basis for comparison
• Determine the
Step 3 strengths and
weaknesses of the
methodology
Roxana Ionescu
110

Given the inter-relations described before some issues

related to health are addressed in other TSDs as well,
mainly the socio-economic one.
The Human Health and Safety Considerations TSD

covers the terms of reference providing information
on the issues identified as relevant to the project
Roxana Ionescu
111

The Canadian Handbook on Health Impact

Assessment aims at encouraging and
promoting an integrated health assessment
approach within the framework of
Environmental Assessment.
According to the aforementioned

handbook, there are nine determinants of
health which should be taken into
consideration in developing the impacts of a
given project on the human health.
Roxana Ionescu
112

Determinants of health
Income
and social
status
Social
Health
support
services
networks
Physical
environme Education
nts
Determinants of
Health
Biology
Employme
and
nt and
genetic
working
endowme
conditions
nt
Personal
health Healthy
practices child
and developm
coping ent
Source of information: Sadler,1992
Roxana Ionescu
skills
113

• Well-being
• Health conditions
Health Status
Stage 1. Identify and describe the existing • Human function
environment • Death
A. For the health of the members of the public
which include consideration of the following:
• health protection regulations; • Environmental factors
Non-medical • Health behaviours
• current health status of the community and determinants • Living and working
members of the public of health conditions
• Personal resources
• non-medical determinants of health
• community and health systems characteristics
including public health infrastructure
• Community
Community
• exposure to environmental agents or stressors
and Health • Health system
including the known health effects of
System • Resources
overexposures and the current exposures.
Roxana Ionescu
114

Income
and social
status
•Well-being Social
Health
•Health conditions support
services
Health Status networks
•Human function
•Death
Physical
Education
environm
•Environmental factors ents
Non-medical Determinants
•Health behaviours of Health
determinants
•Living and working conditions
of health
•Personal resources
Biology
Employme
and
nt and
genetic
working
endowme
conditions
nt
Community •Community Personal
and Health •Health system health Healthy
practices child
System •Resources and developm
coping ent
skills
Roxana Ionescu
115

The assessment is done taking into account:
• the aforementioned indicator framework;
• temporal boundaries:
• 1st phase: Site preparation and construction (2010-
2019)
• 2nd phase: Operation and maintenance (2015-2080)
• 3rd phase: Decommissioning and abandonment
(2075+)
• spatial boundaries One of the problems could be
• District Health Councils (DHCs) replaced in 2005 by data inconsistencies due to the
fact that 16 DHCs were replaced
Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs)
by 14 LHINs in Ontario
• Public Health Units
Roxana Ionescu
116

Stage 1. Identify and describe the
existing environment
Stage 2. Identify the potential stressors
B. For Bruce Power Workers that
A. To communities and members of the
could potentially be affected by the
public
project considering:
- ionising radiation
- applicable health protection regulations;
- particulate matter
- Bruce Power safety management and
- contaminants in air and water
organisation;
- noise
- characteristics of the Bruce Power
workforce including demographics and - traffic
personal health practices;
- presence of additional nuclear facilities at the
- exposure to occupational environmental Bruce Power site
agents or stressors including the current
B. To Bruce Power workers
exposures; and
- ionising radiation
- Bruce Power workers safety
performance. - contaminants in air and water
The assessment for Bruce Power - lifting injuries, falls, slips, incidents with
workers considers the same temporal machinery, road accidents, noise, dust and
boundaries as for the public, however the vibration
spatial boundary comprises the Bruce
Roxana Ionescu
Power site
117

Stage 3. The effects of the Stage 4. A follow-up
project are predicted and programme is recommended to
assessed taken into account include mitigation measures.
the stressors that may result The Responsible Authorities
from the project are required to consult with all
(radioactivity, air emissions interested stakeholders before
including dust, noise finalising the follow-up plan.
emissions, water emissions). (after the EA process is
The stressors were compared completed in order to
with the existing environment incorporate
and health protecting technical, regulatory and peer
regulations. review.)
Roxana Ionescu
118

Residual effects (9)
Project Phase Stakeholders Residual effects
•degraded air quality as a result of NOx emissions
Site Preparation Community and
•degraded surface water quality from excessive suspended
and Construction members of the
Phase public solids in near shore Lake Huron due to construction
activities
•degraded surface water quality in nearshore lake Huron
because of a conventional spill.
Bruce Power None
workers
•radiation exposures as a result of a “Small Release”
Operations and Community and
Maintenance Phase members of the nuclear accident
•radiation exposure as a result of a “Large Release” nuclear
public
accident;
•degraded surface water quality as a result of a conventional
spill
•noise as a result of the operation of the mechanical draft
cooling towers for the Alternative Project Scenario at Site C
(Alternative 5)
Roxana Ionescu
119
•radiation exposure to NEWs as a result of normal
Bruce Power

Residual effects – determining the significance
Magnitude
Geographic extent
Timing and duration
Probability of Occurrence and Frequency
Degree of Irreversibility
Ecological Context
Social Context
Roxana Ionescu
120

Strengths Weaknesses
The report follows the EIS There could be data
Guidelines. All issues identified as inconsistencies due to the fact that
relevant for this section in the terms 16 DHCs were replaced by 14 LHINs
of reference are addressed in the in Ontario
TSD
The follow-up plan is left after the
The method used follows the steps EA process is complete
set in the Handbook for Health
Impact Assessment Does not address the concerns
previously raised by US
Roxana Ionescu
121

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND
ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT
EIS Compliance with Terms of Reference

› Partial compliance with Section 2.3
Traditional Knowledge
 Incorporate into the EIS the local knowledge
to which it has access or that it may be
expected to acquire through appropriate
means.
› Section 9.3 Valued Ecosystem Components
 Public input on VEC selection: Round Whitefish
Annetta Markussen-Brown
122

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND
ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT
EIS Compliance with other relevant

documents
› Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
› Early Aboriginal Engagement: A Guide for
Proponents of Major Resource Projects
› UNEP EIA Training Manual – Review of EIA
Quality
Annetta Markussen-Brown
123

Methodology for Public Participation

 Methodology for Aboriginal Engagement:
Chippewas Grey-
Chippewas The
of Nawash Owen
of Saugeen Saguingue
Unceded Sound
First Nation Metis
First Nation Metis
Reserve Council
Reserve Council
Annetta Markussen-Brown
124

SON Protocol Agreement

› Major Milestone: First of its kind
Metis Guiding Principles

› Established an outline for consulting Metis
People.
Annetta Markussen-Brown
125

Methodology for Engagement with
NGOs
Methodology for Engagement with
Government Ministries,
Departments or Agencies
Methodology for Engagement with
Bruce Power Employees
Annetta Markussen-Brown
126

RESULTS FROM PUBLIC
CONSULTATION
Top 10 questions
Valued Ecosystem Components
Round Whitefish – endangered
species
DFO – reduction of the amount of
infilling of MacPherson Bay
Annetta Markussen-Brown
127

RESULTS FROM ABORIGINAL
ENGAGEMENT
Identified Issues

Health of Members of the Community
Long-term Use of Lands and Waters
Community Sustainability
Economic Viability
Maintenance of Culture
Annetta Markussen-Brown
128

Assessment of Aboriginal issues

› Methodology
› Results
 Only two issues advanced for assessment
 Land claims?
Annetta Markussen-Brown
129

Mitigation

› Only one issue determined to have
measurable change; however, effect is
beneficial therefore no residual adverse
effects.
› No mitigation measures recommended.
› HOWEVER...Lake Whitefish??
Annetta Markussen-Brown
130

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND
ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT
Strengths Weaknesses
• Good community relations • Traditional Knowledge
• Protocol Agreements • Lake Whitefish – Aboriginal
Fishery
• Capacity and research funding
• Round Lakefish – VEC
• Public review funding
• American stakeholder
engagement
• Weaknesses in methodology
compared to Gentilly-2 (Hydro
Quebec)
Annetta Markussen-Brown
131

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND
ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT
Lessons Learned
Nuclear power plants require community support –
many life/death concerns
Public consultation is not just a means to gain support
but can be very effective in providing the proponent
with useful information (i.e. VECs, alternative to infilling)
Traditional Knowledge
Annetta Markussen-Brown
132

Definition:

“Incremental environmental effects
associated with the Project added to, or
combined with, effects associated with
other operations at the Bruce Power site
and other projects or activities beyond
the Bruce Power site”
Lisa Gualtieri
133

Methodology:
Determine VECs that could act cumulatively to

produce adverse effects
Screening of project activities to determine if

impacts overlap in terms of…
› types of effects
› time
› geographic location
Determine if the residual adverse effect, in

combination with the other effects, may cause a
significant change now or in the future, after
applying mitigation measures
Lisa Gualtieri
134

Methodology
follows the CEAA‟s
“Cumulative Effects
Assessment
Practitioner’s
Guide”
Lisa Gualtieri
Source: Volume 1, 135

136

137

Lisa Gualtieri
138

Review:
Methodology addresses all aspects of guidelines

and it follows the CEAA‟s “Cumulative Effects
Assessment Practitioner’s Guide”, which has been
highly recommended (Noble, Mitchell)
The Hydro Quebec Gentilly-2 Project followed the

same methodology, using the CEAA guide.
Lisa Gualtieri
139

Review:
Panel Review found some deficiencies/omissions:
It is not clear whether projects which are not

subject to Environmental Assessment are
incorporated into the list of future and present
projects.
The cumulative assessment does not include an

assessment of the eutrophication potential to Lake
Huron from the combined operations of the various
projects, combined with higher water
temperatures which are associated with thermal
plumes and accelerated eutrophication.
Lisa Gualtieri
140

Terms of Reference Requirements /
Cumulative Effects
Methods used to identify and assess cumulative effects must be

explained
Identify the VECs/indicators assessed, including rationale for VEC

selection
Present spatial and temporal boundaries for the cumulative effect
*
assessment for each VEC.
Identify sources of potential cumulative effects. Identify other projects
or activities that have been or will be carried out that could produce

effects on each VEC within the boundaries defined, and whose effects
would act in combination with the residual effects of the Project

Assess cumulative effects on VEC over the life of the project
Effect assessment must consider how a project-specific effect or effects

would interact with external factors, and must make clear the
contribution of the project

Consideration of the significance of the identified effects
Historical timeline at Bruce Nuclear site beginning with first

construction in 1960
Lisa Gualtieri
141

Given that the project has not yet been

approved it was extremely difficult to
obtain “inside” information, either from
the federal agencies or from the
proponent.
 Each team member chose to address EIA
issues which were not her/his area of
expertise.
 Political support (Ontario prime-minister
visit)
team
142

Bruce Power. 2008a. Bruce New Nuclear Power Plant Project Environmental Statement Volume 1. Prepared by

Golder Associates Ltd. September 2008.
Bruce Power. 2008b. Bruce New Nuclear Power Plant Project Environmental Statement Volume 2. Prepared by

Golder Associates Ltd. September 2008.
Bruce Power. 2008c. Bruce New Nuclear Power Plant Project Environmental Statement Volume 3. Prepared by

Golder Associates Ltd. September 2008.
Bruce Power. 2008d. EIS Studies: Aquatic Environment Technical Support Document for the Bruce New Nuclear

Power Plant Project Environmental Assessment. Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. May 2008.
Bruce Power. 2008d. EIS Studies: Human Health and Safety Considerations Technical Support Document for the

Bruce New Nuclear Power Plant Project Environmental Assessment. Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. May
2008.
Bruce Power (2008). Bruce New Nuclear Power Plant Project Environmental Assessment. EIS Studies, Socio

Economic Conditions Technical Support Document.
CEAA Operational Policy Statement OPS-EPO/3-2007. “Addressing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act”. Ottawa, November 2007.
Hanna, Kevin S. (2005). Environmental Impact Assessment. Practice and participation, Oxford University Press,

Canada.
Draper, Dianne Louise. 2004. \"Marine and Freshwater Fisheries”. In Resource and Environmental Management in

Canada, 3rd ed., edited by Bruce Mitchell. Oxford University Press. 200-232
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2007. “The Fisheries Act”, Oceans and Fish Habitat. [Online] http://www.dfo-

mpo.gc.ca (Accessed March 22, 2009).
Health Canada, 2004, Canadian Handbook on Health Impact Assessment

Hydro-Quebec Production (2006). Modification des installations de stockage des déchets radioactifs et

réfection de la centrale nucléaire de Gentilly-2. Étude d'impact sur l'environnement. Available at:
http://www.hydroquebec.com/gentilly2/pdf/et_impact/r_et_impact3.pdf
Katherine Davies & Barry Sadler,1997, Environmental Assessment and Human Health: Perspectives, Approaches

and Future Directions, Health Canada,
Morris, Peter and Therivel, Riki (2001) Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment, Taylor and Francis, Inc.

team
Noble, Bram F. 2006. Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. Canada: Oxford University Press.

143
UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual, Second edition, 2002


http://www.vazta.com/bruce
team
144

145