Repurposing Pickering

1
Repurposing Pickering
Durham Nuclear Health Committee
Meeting #2
Friday, June 17, 2016
2
Agenda
1. Introduction
2. Public and Stakeholder Consultation Results
3. Preliminary Assessment Results
4. Conclusions and Next Steps
3
Approach
4
Planning Zones
5
Repurposing Potential
Over Time
6
Consultation Overview
Key Project Activities Since the Spring 2015
 Public consultation series
 Employee brainstorming
sessions
 Technical Advisory
Committee
 Community Advisory
Council
 Web site
 Email address
 Preliminary Assessment Report Completed
 Youth engagement
7
Key Questions Asked
 What is your vision for the future of the Pickering site?
 What ideas do you have for possible land uses?
 What are some complementary land uses that would
generate synergies during the decommissioning period?
Responses recorded in:
 Comment cards
 Emails and social media
 Meeting notes
Opportunities also identified through
review of international nuclear sites
and Ontario brownfield redevelopment.
8
Public Consultation Series
 Pop up booth sessions
April 18 – May 12, 2015:
 Community open house
April 23, 2015:
 Pickering Town Centre
 Pickering Recreation Complex
 Pickering Library
 Pickering Recreation Complex
 Ajax Community Centre
Around 600 visitors
320 conversations
9
Youth Engagement Series
College/University Workshops:
March 3 & 4, 2016
 Durham College & UOIT
Combined Session
 Centennial College & U of T
Scarborough Campus
High School Workshops:
March 23 & 24, 2016
 St. Mary’s Catholic High
School
 Pickering High School
 Dunbarton High School
10
Youth Engagement Results
 73 students took part in the two college and university
workshops.
 74 students took part in the three high school workshops.
 There were a wide variety of ideas expressed, many of
which closely mirrored what we heard from other
consultation activities for the project.
11
Preliminary Assessment
Results
 More than 600 opportunities identified
To facilitate assessment – grouped
by land use category:
Industrial
Recreational
Institutional
Residential
Office
Retail
Power
12
Public Input by Category
 Input from the public primarily related to four categories:
 Power – more than 30%
 Recreational – more than 30%
 Institutional – around 20%
 Industrial – around 15%
 Office, residential and retail received negligible support.
Several people explicitly expressed that they
do not want residential land uses.
(About the same number of people said that they
are against as those who said that they are for.)
13
Land Use Assessment
 Aspects considered in the assessment included:
 Regulatory and physical constraints.
 Current and projected market demand.
 Compatibility with on-site and off-site activities during
the assessment period.
 Based on the above, three categories not recommended
for further study: office, retail and residential.
 Four categories recommended:
Industrial
Institutional
Power
Recreational
14
Industrial Options
Options recommended for
further study include:
 Data centre
 District cooling
 Manufacturing
 Medical isotope production
 Outdoor storage
15
Institutional Options
Options recommended for
further study include:
 College or university campus
 Research and development
 Professional training
 Nuclear-themed museum
 Public tours
 Community centre
16
Power Options
Options recommended for
further study include:
 Combined heat and power
 Natural gas power generation
 Solar power generation
 Small modular reactor
 Energy storage
 Transformer station
17
Recreational Options
Options recommended for
further study include:
 Expanding existing
parklands and sports
fields
 Improving the
waterfront trail
18
Conclusions
 Residential, retail and commercial
office buildings not suitable during
the decommissioning period.
 Strong correlation between public
input and the project team’s
conclusions.
 Many options deemed to have
potential to leverage existing
resources during the
decommissioning period.
Next Steps
 Evaluation to assess commercial
viability and ease of implementation.
19