N-3Redacted NSPI (NSUARB) IR-1 to IR-20 7/16/2010
10 passages
2. Scope of Approval - a) This Approval (the "Approval") relates to' Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (the "Approval Holder") and their'application and supporting documentation, as listed in the reference documents above, to construct the Fa...
AI summary This section outlines the scope of approval for the construction of a facility at Tufts Cove Generating Station, including environmental controls and cooling water structures, while excluding architectural and structural components. The approval is valid until November 30, 2010, unless amended or renewed.
12. Complaint Response - a) The Approval Holder shall have standard procedures to address complaints associated with the Facility which shall include,; - (i) An immediate investigate of the cause of the complaint and the undertaking of imm...
AI summary The document outlines procedures for handling complaints related to a facility, including investigation, record-keeping, and availability of records to inspectors. It also discusses an authorization under the Fisheries Act for the expansion of the Tufts Cove 6 Generating Station, including conditions and requirements for the project.
Conditions of Authorization I. The conditions ofthis authorization notwithstanding, should the above works or undertaking, due to weather conditions, different soil or other natural conditions, or for any other reason, appear, in the opini...
AI summary The conditions of authorization include provisions allowing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to suspend, alter, or require additional works to mitigate adverse impacts on fisheries resources if unforeseen circumstances arise. DFO may also modify or rescind the authorization if greater impacts are anticipated.
2. Conditions that relate to the Proponent's plan: - 2.I.The Proponent confirms that all plans and specifications relating to this Authorization have been duly prepared and reviewed by appropriate professionals working on their behalf. The...
AI summary The Proponent confirms that all plans and specifications for the Authorization have been prepared and reviewed by professionals. They are responsible for design, safety, and workmanship. Construction must comply with criteria in the Authorization, and any harmful alteration of fish habitat is prohibited unless specifically allowed.
2.3 Obligations of Constructor
AI summary This section outlines the obligations of the constructor in the context of the Port Hawkesbury project, likely involving compliance with environmental and regulatory requirements.
2.4.2.5. Authority having Jurisdiction to Issue Permits The authority having jurisdiction shall issue a building permit or an occupancy permit to the owner when, to the best of authority having jurisdiction 's knowledge, the applicable con...
AI summary The document outlines the conditions under which the authority having jurisdiction must issue building or occupancy permits to owners, based on the fulfillment of applicable regulatory conditions.
2.5.1.2. Orders - (1) The authority having jurisdiction is empowered to order - (a) a person who contravenes these regulations to comply with them within the time period that may be specified, - (b) work to stop on the building or any part...
AI summary This section outlines the powers of the authority having jurisdiction to enforce compliance with regulations, including halting unsafe work, removing unauthorized structures, and ensuring corrective actions are taken by property owners.
2.5.1.6. Refuse to Issue Permit - (1) The authority having jurisdiction may refuse to issue any permit - (a) whenever information submitted is inadequate to determine compliance with the provisions of these regulations , - (b) whenever inc...
AI summary The authority having jurisdiction may refuse to issue a permit if submitted information is inadequate, incorrect, or if the permit would authorize work or occupancy not allowed by regulations, or if it is prohibited by other legislation.
Division B Part 1 - Acceptable Solutions
AI summary This section outlines acceptable solutions under Division B Part 1, likely related to regulatory compliance, technical standards, and environmental assessments. It may involve utility operations, infrastructure planning, and adherence to provincial and national building codes.
10.1.1.1. Scope (1) The scope of this Part shall be as described in Article 1.3.1.2. of Division A NBCC.
AI summary This section outlines the scope of Part 10.1.1.1, referencing Article 1.3.1.2 of Division A NBCC. It provides a formal definition of the section's boundaries and applicability.
05797Board Decision
4 passages
fort to manage this project, once approved, to the lowest reasonable cost to customers... The Company is confident that timely approval will help to ensure the current costs estimated can be achieved. NSPI should be keenly aware that shoul...
AI summary The Board reminds NSPI that any overspending on the Tufts Cove 6 Waste Heat Recovery Project must be justified and approved, citing section 35 of the Act. The Board also references a previous letter from NPB expressing concerns about the project's cost increase and its prudence.
- [9] The Board then set the following timetable for review of the application: • Information Requests (IRs) to NSPI Wednesday, June 30,2010 • Responses to IRs from NSPI Thursday, July 15, 2010 • Written Submissions from Participants Thurs...
AI summary The Board established a timetable for the review of the application, including deadlines for information requests, responses, and written submissions. NSPI provided responses as per the schedule but requested an extension for its final response.
which the Board approved. Written submissions were received from NPB, Avon and NSDOE on July 22, 2010. NSPl's reply submission was received on August 6, 2010. - [11] On August 20, 2010, NSPI requested an opportunity to make oral submission...
AI summary The document outlines the timeline and process for a regulatory proceeding involving a request for an Authority to Overspend (ATO) for the TUC6 Waste Heat Recovery Project. Written submissions were received from various parties, and an opportunity for oral submissions was granted. The Board requested additional information and accepted a brief written submission from MEUNSC instead of an oral appearance.
gulatory approval was obtained approximately three months later than originally anticipated in the Project schedule. It implies that this is a large factor in the delay of the Project in-service date. [65] The Board finds that NSPl's May 2...
AI summary The Board found that NSPI's timeline for regulatory approval was unreasonable, leading to delays in the project's in-service date. The Board emphasized the need for more timely and detailed capital expenditure submissions. While the project's delays were attributed to an initially unrealistic schedule, the Board concluded that NSPI acted with due diligence and that no avoidable costs were incurred.
05797Board Decision
3 passages
fort to manage this project, once approved, to the lowest reasonable cost to customers... The Company is confident that timely approval will help to ensure the current costs estimated can be achieved. NSPI should be keenly aware that shoul...
AI summary NSPI is requesting approval to proceed with a project at the lowest reasonable cost to customers. The Board emphasizes its authority under section 35 of the Act to scrutinize any overspending applications and ensure economic justification. NPB expressed concerns about the estimated cost increase and reserved the right to challenge the prudency of actual costs incurred.
- [9] The Board then set the following timetable for review of the application: • Information Requests (IRs) to NSPI Wednesday, June 30,2010 • Responses to IRs from NSPI Thursday, July 15, 2010 • Written Submissions from Participants Thurs...
AI summary The Board established a timetable for the review of the application, including deadlines for information requests, responses, and written submissions. NSPI requested an extension for its response to submissions, which was granted until August 6, 2010.
gulatory approval was obtained approximately three months later than originally anticipated in the Project schedule. It implies that this is a large factor in the delay of the Project in-service date. [65] The Board finds that NSPl's May 2...
AI summary The Board found that NSPI's timeline for obtaining regulatory approval was unreasonable, contributing to delays in the Project's in-service date. However, the Board concluded that NSPI acted with due diligence and that no capital costs were avoidable, despite the delays caused by design changes and increased costs.