Bruce Power Project-Description

Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension
and Continued Operations Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
December 2004

Bruce A Refurbishment
for Life Extension and Bruce Power
Continued Operations Project Project Description
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Bruce A and Bruce B nuclear generating stations are located on the eastern shore of Lake Huron
north of Kincardine, Ontario. These stations each consist of four CANDU
®
pressurized heavy water
nuclear reactors. The Bruce A reactors were brought into service in 1977 (Units 1 and 2), 1978 (Unit
3) and 1979 (Unit 4). The Bruce B reactors entered service between 1984 and 1987.
In the late 1990’s Ontario Hydro, the owners of the stations, made a business decision to temporarily
lay-up the Bruce A units in order to concentrate resources on other reactors in Ontario Hydro’s fleet.
Unit 2 was taken out of service in October 1995; Unit 1 was taken out of service in December 1997;
Unit 4 was taken out of service in January 1998; and Unit 3 was taken out of service in April 1998.
Bruce B continued in service.
In 2001, Bruce Power Limited (Bruce Power) took over operations of Bruce A and Bruce B from
Ontario Power Generation (OPG), which is Ontario Hydro’s successor, through a long-term lease. At
that time, all four units of Bruce A were laid-up. Bruce Power subsequently returned Bruce A Units
3&4 to service in January 2004 and October 2003, respectively.
Since its inception in 2001, Bruce Power has focused efforts on improving safety, environmental
performance and increasing reliable electricity output at the Bruce Power site (Bruce A and Bruce B).
For example, Bruce Power has continued to meet ISO 14001 certification requirements, has
continually applied a proactive and systematic approach to environmental management and has
progressed significantly in its loss control program, which is called following the International Safety
Rating System. In 2003, Bruce Power increased electricity output to 24.5 terawatt hours (TWh)
compared to 20.5 TWh in 2001. After investing $720 million in restarting Units 3&4, Bruce Power
plans to generate approximately 34 TWh in 2004.
Bruce Power is now proposing to return Bruce A Units 1&2 to service from their temporary lay-up.
This will require implementing a series of refurbishments, upgrades and enhancements at Bruce A,
improving safety while increasing electricity generation capacity and reliability for the extended life
of these units. The work to be undertaken prior to the return to service of Units 1&2 will include:
• Pressure tube and calandria tube replacement;
• Steam generator replacement;
• Electrical systems upgrades;
• Main condenser refurbishment;
• Feed water heater refurbishment;
• Shutdown System 2 (SDS2) enhancement; and
December 2004i

• Significant other maintenance on nuclear and balance of plant equipment.
Bruce Power’s proposal, which is known as the “Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension and
Continued Operations Project” for environmental assessment (EA) purposes, has three main goals:
1. Enhance the safety of the Bruce A station;
2. Increase Bruce A’s capacity to generate electricity; and
3. Ensure the station remains safe and fit-for-service through the end of a potential Bruce Power
lease extension, i.e., through 2043.
The Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension and Continued Operations Project comprises several
activities including:
• Required maintenance of Units 1&2 during lay-up;
• Fuel Channel Replacement in Units 1-4;
• Nuclear Systems Upgrade in Units 1-4 (including steam generators);
• Balance of Plant Upgrade in Units 1-4 (conventional systems);
• Refuelling Units 1&2 with initial load of fuel;
• Restarting Units 1&2 and operating through their extended lives including
maintenance; and
• Potentially loading Low Void Reactivity Fuel and subsequently operating at an uprated
maximum reactor power1
.
It is Bruce Power’s understanding that some of these project activities (highlighted in bold) will
require amendments to the licence by the CNSC, including an EA under the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act (CEAA). Bruce Power understands that the CNSC will determine the scope of the
EA which would at a minimum encompass all project activities including those that will require
licence amendments and those that are permitted or required by the existing licence. The EA will
assess the direct effects of all project activities on the environment over a time frame that extends
from 2004 to 2043. The EA will also assess the cumulative effect of this Project and other projects,
including OPG’s Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF).
The Project Description Report (this report) is a key document in the EA process as it helps the
CNSC, which is the responsible authority (RA), to determine the type and scope of the EA. It also
helps federal authorities (FAs) to determine the need for an EA under CEAA and facilitates the
coordination of any EA among FAs. This project description includes the following:
• Overview of Bruce A current status;
1
Currently expected to be 95.5 % of maximum continuous rating.
December 2004ii

• Overview of the Project and conceptual schedule;
• Proposed schedule for the EA;
• Description of each project activity;
• Characterization of the components of the environment, which could be affected by the
Project; and
• Draft Communications and Consultation Plan.
Anticipated maintenance, refurbishment and upgrade activities at Bruce A, such as fuel channel and
steam generator replacement, are expected to generate intermediate- and low-level radioactive wastes,
respectively. These wastes will be managed by the OPG WWMF (Waste Facility Operating Licence
WFOL-W4-314.00/2007). Wastes requiring management at the WWMF are similar to those
currently managed at the site. Bruce Power will handle and transport wastes to the WWMF. Once
accepted by OPG the wastes become their responsibility.
To accommodate future wastes from Bruce Power’s and OPG’s nuclear power stations in Ontario, it
is expected that OPG will apply for licence amendments or other approvals necessary to expand their
facility. It is also Bruce Power’s understanding that OPG will address all EA requirements related to
their facility.
In addition, at the end of Bruce Power’s lease, OPG, the station owner, may propose to decommission
Units 1 to 4. This would be a separate proposal with separate EA requirements.
December 2004iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ i
1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose of Document................................................................................ 2
1.3 Introduction to the Project ......................................................................... 3
1.3.1 Name of the Project....................................................................... 3
1.3.2 Nature of the Project...................................................................... 3
1.3.3 Location of the Project................................................................... 3
1.3.4 Project Description Distribution List............................................... 4
1.3.5 Consultation on the Project Description......................................... 4
1.3.6 Previous Assessments .................................................................. 4
1.4 Contacts .................................................................................................... 5
1.4.1 Proponent and Co-proponent Names............................................ 5
1.4.2 Contact Persons for Additional Information ................................... 5
1.5 Government Involvement .......................................................................... 6
1.5.1 Federal Funding............................................................................. 6
1.5.2 Ownership of Land......................................................................... 6
1.6 Authorizations Required ............................................................................ 6
1.6.1 Federal Authorizations................................................................... 6
1.6.2 Provincial Authorizations ............................................................... 6
1.6.3 Municipal Authorizations................................................................ 7
2.0 BRUCE A CURRENT STATUS.................................................................................8
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION......................................................................................10
3.1 Overview of the Project ........................................................................... 10
3.2 EA Schedule............................................................................................ 11
3.3 Description of Project Activities ............................................................... 11
3.3.1 Units 1&2 ..................................................................................... 12
3.3.2 Units 3&4 ..................................................................................... 18
4.0 WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT.......................................................20
5.0 TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS................................................................23
6.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS........................................................24
6.1 Bio-physical Environment........................................................................ 24
6.1.1 Geology ....................................................................................... 24
6.1.2 Hydrology..................................................................................... 25
6.1.3 Aquatic Biology............................................................................ 27
6.1.4 Atmospheric Environment............................................................ 30
6.1.5 Terrestrial Biology........................................................................ 31
December 2004iv

6.1.6 Radiation and Radioactivity ......................................................... 32
6.1.7 Land Use ..................................................................................... 32
6.1.8 First Nations................................................................................. 33
6.1.9 Socio-economics ......................................................................... 34
7.0 POTENTIALLY AFFECTED COMPONENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT..............36
8.0 REFERENCES.........................................................................................................40
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.2-1 Proposed EA Schedule for Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension and Continued
Operations Project
Table 3.3-1 Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension and Continued Operations Project Activities
Table 4-1 Typical Wastes Expected from Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension and
Continued Operations Project
Table 7-1 Potentially Affected Components of the Environment
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Bruce Power Site Location
Figure 2-1 Aerial Photograph of Bruce A
Figure 2-2 Bruce A CANDU
®
Schematic
Figure 3-1 Conceptual Schedule for Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension and Continued
Operation Project
Figure 6.1.2-1 Estimated Maximum Areal Extent of All Thermal Plumes Resulting from Combined
Operations of Bruce A and Bruce B (Existing Conditions)
Figure 6.1.5-1 Terrestrial Environment Features, Bruce Power Site and Vicinity
Figure 6.1.5-2 Existing Wildlife Habitat, Bruce A and Vicinity
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A List of Acronyms
Appendix B Proposed Communications and Consultation Plan
December 2004v

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Bruce A and Bruce B nuclear generating stations are located on the eastern shore of Lake Huron
north of Kincardine, Ontario (see Figure 1-1). The Bruce A and Bruce B stations each consist of four
CANDU
®
pressurized heavy water nuclear reactors. The Bruce A reactors were brought into service
in 1977 (Units 1 and 2), 1978 (Unit 3) and 1979 (Unit 4). The Bruce B reactors entered service
between 1984 and 1987.
In the late 1990’s Ontario Hydro, the owners of the stations, made a business decision to temporarily
lay-up the Bruce A units in order to concentrate resources on other reactors in Ontario Hydro’s fleet.
Unit 2 was taken out of service in October 1995; Unit 1 was taken out of service in December 1997;
Unit 4 was taken out of service in January 1998; and Unit 3 was taken out of service in April 1998.
Bruce B continued in service.
In 2001, Bruce Power Limited (Bruce Power) took over operations of Bruce A and Bruce B from
Ontario Power Generation (OPG), which is Ontario Hydro’s successor, through a long-term lease. At
that time, all four units of Bruce A were laid-up. Bruce Power subsequently returned Bruce A Units
3&4 to service in January 2004 and October 2003, respectively.
Since its inception in 2001, Bruce Power's has focused efforts on improving safety and environmental
performance and increasing reliable electricity output at the Bruce Power site (Bruce A and Bruce B).
For example, Bruce Power has continued to meet ISO 14001 certification requirements, has
continually applied a proactive and systematic approach to environmental management and has
progressed significantly in its loss control program, which is called following the International Safety
Rating System. In 2003, Bruce Power increased electricity output to 24.5 terawatt hours (TWh)
compared to 20.5 TWh in 2001. After investing $720 million in restarting Units 3&4, Bruce Power
plans to generate approximately 34 TWh in 2004.
Bruce Power is now proposing to return Bruce A Units 1&2 to service from their temporary lay-up.
This will require implementing a series of refurbishments, upgrades and enhancements at Bruce A,
improving safety while increasing electricity generation capacity and reliability for the extended life
of these units. Bruce Power’s proposal has three main goals:
1. Enhance the safety of the Bruce A station;
2. Increase Bruce A’s capacity to generate electricity; and
3. Ensure the station remains safe and fit-for-service through the end of a potential Bruce Power
lease extension, i.e., through 2043.
December 20041

Date:
Project:
BRUCE POWER SITE LOCATION FIGURE 1-1
SEPTEMBER 2004
04-1112-043
REFERENCE:
THIS FIGURE WAS CREATED FROM RAND McNALLY
MAP TITLE “ONTARIO” DATED 1999, WITH THE
SCALE OF 1 : 800 000.
BRUCE POWER
SITE

Implementing this proposal will require licensing decisions and amendments to the Bruce A
Operating Licence (PROL 15.01/2009) by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). These
amendments will necessitate an environmental assessment (EA) under the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act (CEAA). For the purpose of the EA, Bruce Power’s proposal is referred to herein as
the “Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension and Continued Operations Project”. The
Project comprises several activities at Bruce A, some of which will require licence amendments and
some of which are permitted or required by the existing licence.
1.2 Purpose of Document
This document is the Project Description Report for the Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension
and Continued Operations Project. Under the CEAA, a project description has four main functions:
1. Allowing the CNSC, as the responsible authority (RA), to determine the need for, and its role
in, an EA of the Project under CEAA;
2. Permitting federal authorities (FAs) to determine their role in an EA of the Project under
CEAA;
3. Providing the basis for the CNSC to consult with provincial EA authorities to determine the
need for harmonization of the EA process with other jurisdictions; and
4. Assisting in the early identification of potential environmental issues that should be
considered in preparing the scope of the assessment document (i.e., EA Guidelines).
This Project Description Report provides:
• General introduction to the Project, contact information, government involvement and an
overview of the authorizations required by the Project (Section 1);
• Overview of Bruce A and its current status (Sections 2);
• Description of the Project including the context for the Project, a proposed schedule for the
EA and a detailed description of the activities that comprise the Project (Section 3);
• Wastes expected to be generated and their management (Section 4);
• Toxic and hazardous materials (Section 5);
• Overview of existing environmental conditions (Section 6);
• Identification of potential ways that the Project could affect the environment (Section7);
• A list of documents referenced in the report (Section 8);
• A glossary and list of acronyms used in the report (Appendix A); and
• Bruce Power’s proposed communications and consultation plan (Appendix B).
December 20042

1.3 Introduction to the Project
1.3.1 Name of the Project
As noted previously, the name of the Project for purposes of the EA is the “Bruce A Refurbishment
for Life Extension and Continued Operations Project”1
.
1.3.2 Nature of the Project
The Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension and Continued Operations Project comprises several
activities at Bruce A, some of which will require licence amendments and some of which are
permitted or required by the existing licence. Project activities include required maintenance,
refurbishment, upgrade and enhancement of existing nuclear generating units (1-4) to enable each
unit up to 30 additional years of safe, economical power generation, refuelling Units 1&2, restarting
Units 1&2, and the option of using low void reactivity fuel (LVRF) in Units 1-4 in the future and
their subsequent operation at an uprated maximum reactor power2
.
OPG’s Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF) (Waste Facility Operating Licence WFOL-
W4-314.00/2007) is currently accepting wastes from Bruce A. Handling and transportation of wastes
to the WWMF is the responsibility of Bruce Power. Once accepted at the WWMF by OPG, the
wastes become the responsibility of OPG.
Future project activities are expected to produce both non-radioactive and radioactive wastes, which
will be similar to the current operations at Bruce A. For example, it is anticipated that Bruce A will
produce wastes as a result of required maintenance activities during lay-up and during reactor
operations. It is also anticipated that refurbishing, upgrading and enhancing activities, such as fuel
channel and steam generator replacement, will generate intermediate- and low-level radioactive
wastes, respectively. It is expected that all Bruce A wastes will continue to be sent to OPG’s
WWMF. To ensure adequate capacity to accommodate future wastes from Bruce Power’s and OPG’s
nuclear facilities in Ontario, it is expected that OPG will apply for licence amendments or other
approvals necessary to expand their facility, including all EA requirements.
1.3.3 Location of the Project
The Project is located at the existing Bruce A station, which is within the Bruce Power site. The
Bruce Power site is located on the eastern shore of Lake Huron, at a longitude of 81°30’30” west and
latitude 44°20’00” north within the Municipality of Kincardine, Bruce County, Ontario.
1
For convenience, also referred to in this document as the “Project”.
2
Currently expected to be 95.5 % of maximum continuous rating.
December 20043

The Bruce Power site may be accessed by Provincial Highway 21, and two concession roads Nos. 2
and 4. The nearest towns are Kincardine, located approximately 16 km to the south, and Port Elgin,
located approximately 18 km to the north of the site (Figure 1-1).
1.3.4 Project Description Distribution List
The following list indicates government agencies that may want to receive copies of this document:
• Environment Canada (EC);
• Natural Resources Canada (NRCan);
• Health Canada (HC);
• Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO);
• Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND);
• Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE);
• Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR);
• Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General, specifically Emergency Management Ontario;
• Local, Regional and Municipal Governments; and
• Grey Bruce/Owen Sound Health Unit.
The Project also includes submission of pressure vessel registration to the Technical Standards and
Safety Authority (TSSA). Based on the EA conducted for the Bruce A Units 3&4 Restart, however,
TSSA interest in the project description is expected to be minimal.
1.3.5 Consultation on the Project Description
Bruce Power developed this project description with reference to the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency’s Operational Policy Statement OPS - EPO/5 – 2000, “Preparing Project
Descriptions under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act”. As the licensing authority for
Bruce A, CNSC input was solicited throughout the development of the document. This solicitation of
input included meetings and telephone discussions with CNSC staff between July and October 2004,
inclusive.
1.3.6 Previous Assessments
Bruce A has been the subject of over thirty years of pre-construction, construction, post-construction
and operational studies, including the Bruce Nuclear Power Development Ecological Effects Review
(2000). The CEAA came into effect on January 19, 1995. Bruce A, therefore, has not been assessed
as a complete facility under CEAA. An EA under CEAA was completed in 2002 for the restart of
December 20044

Units 3&4 after temporary lay-up (Federal Environmental Assessment Index (FEAI) number 29271).
This EA concluded that the restart of Units 3&4 would not likely result in significant residual adverse
effects on the environment.
An EA under CEAA is currently in progress for the use of “New Fuel”, (i.e., LVRF) at Bruce B
(Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry number 04-01-591), the sister plant to Bruce A, also
located on the Bruce Power site. The preliminary conclusions of this assessment indicate that the use
of New Fuel in a CANDU
®
plant such as Bruce B would not likely result in significant residual
adverse effects.
Previously Pickering A, another CANDU
®
facility, was subject to an EA completed in 2001, which
concluded that its restart would not likely result in significant residual adverse effects on the
environment (FEAI number 18822).
Environmental assessments of upgrading and enhancing activities, which generate radioactive wastes,
have also been conducted at a station in New Brunswick (Lepreau, FEAI number 27931). The EAs
concluded that the activities would not likely result in significant residual adverse effects on the
environment. An EA is currently in progress for a station in Quebec (Gentilly-2, FEAI number
35287).
1.4 Contacts
1.4.1 Proponent and Co-proponent Names
Bruce Power is the sole proponent for the Project. There are no co-proponents for this Project.
1.4.2 Contact Persons for Additional Information
The contact information for the EA Project Manager for the Bruce A Refurbishment for Life
Extension and Continued Operations Project is as follows:
Mr. Jim Hilbig, P. Eng.
Nuclear Safety and Licensing Manager
Bruce Power
P.O. Box 3000
Tiverton, Ontario
N0G 2T0
Telephone #: 519-361-3320
Facsimile #: 519-361-1834
Email: jim.hilbig@brucepower.com
December 20045

1.5 Government Involvement
1.5.1 Federal Funding
No federal funding is involved in the Project.
1.5.2 Ownership of Land
The Project does not take place on Crown lands. The Bruce Power site, including Bruce A and Bruce
B is owned by OPG. Bruce Power signed an initial lease agreement with OPG in 2001 to operate
Bruce A and Bruce B for 18 years, with an option to renew the lease for up to a further 25 years.
1.6 Authorizations Required
1.6.1 Federal Authorizations
The current facility licence (PROL 15.01/2009) requires Bruce Power to operate and maintain the
nuclear facility (Bruce A Units 1, 2, 3 & 4) according to methods, procedures and for the purposes
described in the Operating Policy and Procedures (OP&P). For example, Bruce Power must ensure
that the designed degree of system efficiency is maintained. Modifications to station systems and
procedures must be controlled to ensure that the changes do not invalidate the licensing basis.
The Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension and Continued Operations Project will involve several
activities that lead to refuelling, restarting and operating Units 1&2 to generate electricity (see Section
3.3 for a description of Project activities). Refuelling is the initial loading of the reactor fuel in Units
1&2 after removing the reactor from a defuelled, guaranteed shutdown state (DFGSS) to an
overpoisoned guaranteed shutdown state (OPGSS). This activity requires an amendment to the
licence. Restarting is removing the reactor from an OPGSS, achieving criticality and operating the
reactor to generate electricity. This activity is anticipated to require an amendment to the above-
mentioned licence.
As noted in Section 5(1) of the CEAA, an EA under CEAA is required when a federal authority
issues a permit or licence, amends a licence or grants an approval or takes any other action for the
purpose of enabling a project to be carried out in whole or in part.
1.6.2 Provincial Authorizations
Bruce Power is not aware of any provincial EA requirement under the Ontario Environmental
Assessment Act, which is applicable to the Project. However, the MOE and Emergency Management
Ontario may have an interest in participating in the technical review of any potential EA.
December 20046

Compliance with provincial acts regarding air and water discharges is regulated through the
requirements of Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act. The
MOE regulates the discharge of non-radioactive substances through Certificates of Approval under
these Acts and, in the case of liquid effluent releases, through regulations promulgated under the
Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA). Lake Huron water use is regulated through a
Permit to Take Water.
1.6.3 Municipal Authorizations
Bruce Power does not maintain municipal permits with respect to operation of Bruce A. Municipal
codes and standards are observed as they are applicable. The municipality levies taxes related to
Bruce A on OPG.
December 20047

2.0 BRUCE A CURRENT STATUS
The four Bruce A CANDU
®
pressurized heavy water nuclear reactors (see Figure 2-1) were brought
into service individually in 1977 (Units 1 and 2), 1978 (Unit 3) and 1979 (Unit 4). In the late 1990’s,
Bruce Power’s predecessor at the facility, Ontario Hydro, made business decisions to temporarily lay-
up the Bruce A Units in order to concentrate resources. Unit 2 was taken out of service in October
1995; Unit 1 was taken out of service in December 1997; Unit 4 was taken out of service in January
1998; and Unit 3 was taken out of service in April 1998. Bruce Power restarted Unit 4 in October
2003 and Unit 3 in January 2004 after conducting an EA of facility operations through 2016. Units
1&2 remain in a DFGSS.
Operations at Bruce A are governed by the Nuclear Power Reactor Operating Licence PROL
15.01/2009, granted by the CNSC to Bruce Power. The licence is valid from April 1, 2004, to March
31, 2009. The licence limits unit output to 92.5% of maximum reactor power and requires that Units
1&2 be maintained in a DFGSS.
Bruce A comprises several systems as listed below. Figure 2-2 shows these systems schematically.
1. Nuclear Steam Supply System, comprising the reactor units (Units 1-4);
• Each reactor unit is currently rated at a gross electrical maximum continuous rating of 825
megawatt electricity (MW(e)), and a net electrical maximum continuous rating of 769 MW(e);
• Each reactor unit is within a reinforced concrete reactor containment structure;
• Each reactor unit has a heat transport system, steam generators and heavy water moderator
system; and
• The reactors, which can be fuelled on-line, share fuelling machines which travel in a duct
traversing the entire station;
2. Turbine Generator System, including the turbine generator units (one per reactor unit) and
associated feedwater systems and condenser cooling water (CCW) (cooling water forebay,
pumphouses and discharge channel);
3. Special Safety Systems, including the containment systems, shutdown systems and the emergency
coolant injection system;
4. Electric Power Systems, including switching areas, standby generators and qualified power
supplies;
5. Ancillary Systems, including service water systems, water treatment plant, plastics, laundry,
amenities and fuel oil systems; and
6. Waste Management Systems, including used fuel storage, solid low- and intermediate-level
radioactive waste, liquid and solid non-radioactive waste and radioactive liquid waste.
December 20048

Date:
Project:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF BRUCE A FIGURE 2-1
SEPTEMBER 2004
04-1112-043

Vacuum
Building
Reactor Building and Negative
Pressure Containment (NPC)
Pressure
Relief
Nuclear Steam Supply
System (NSSS) Balance of Plant (BOP)
Steam Supply
(LP)
(SG'S)
(HT)
SDS #1, #2
Shutdown
Systems
Light
Water
(H O)2
(HP)
(CD)
Condenser
Cooling
Water
(CCW)
(CEP)
Pump House
Pumps
CCW
Boiler
Feed
Pump
(BFP)
Pressure Tube - Contains Uranium Fuel Bundles
(FM)
Fuelling
Machines
(PRV)
Feed Heaters
(Recovery)
2(D O)
Heavy Water
(N )2
(H O)2
Headers
High Pressure Emergency
Core Injection (HPECI)
Duct
®
BRUCE A CANDU SCHEMATIC 2-2

The above-mentioned facilities and systems are housed in several buildings and structures: reactor
buildings, reactor auxiliary bays, a powerhouse which includes the turbine hall and turbine auxiliary
bay running the entire length of the station, a central service area (Unit 0), a vacuum building, an
ancillary services building, pumphouses, water treatment building, a steam transformer plant, standby
generator enclosures, emergency filtered air discharge system building, and emergency coolant
injection structures which include an accumulator building, recovery pump room, and a storage tank.
In addition, a number of new structures have been added since the original construction of the station,
including an amenities building, access tunnel, technical building, construction retube building and a
new water treatment building.
December 20049

3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Overview of the Project
The conceptual schedule for key Project activities is illustrated in Figure 3-1. As described
previously, the Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension and Continued Operations Project
comprises several activities at Bruce A, some of which will require licence amendments and some of
which are permitted or required by the existing licence (see Section 3.3).
Prior to returning Units 1&2 to service, required maintenance, refurbishment, upgrades and
enhancements of existing nuclear generating units (1 to 4) and balance of plant will be undertaken to
enable up to 30 additional years per unit of safe, economical power generation. The work will
include:
• Pressure tube and calandria tube replacement;
• Steam generator replacement;
• Electrical systems upgrades;
• Main condenser refurbishment;
• Feed water heater refurbishment;
• Shutdown System 2 (SDS2) enhancement; and
• Significant other maintenance on nuclear and balance of plant equipment.
The removal of the DFGSS to an OPGSS and the subsequent removal of the OPGSS and operation of
the Unit 1&2 reactors to generate electricity require amendments to the licence and consequently
require EA studies and an EA decision by the CNSC. Similarly, the potential use of LVRF and
subsequent operation of Units 1 to 4 at maximum reactor capacity would require a licence
amendment.
Maintenance, refurbishments, upgrades and enhancement work will also be undertaken for Units 3&4
after Units 1&2 are returned to service.
The EA would be conducted pursuant to the requirements of CEAA. The scope of the EA, which
would be determined by the CNSC, would at a minimum:
• Encompass all project activities including those which will require licence amendments and
those which are permitted or required by the existing licence;
• Assess the direct effects of all project activities on the environment over a time frame that
extends from 2004 to 2043; and
• Assess the cumulative effects of the Project and other projects, including the WWMF.
December 200410

CONCEPTUAL SCHEDULE FOR BRUCE A REFURBISHMENT FOR LIFE EXTENSION
AND CONTINUED OPERATIONS PROJECT
FIGURE 3-1
Date: ……………………….
Project: …………………….04-1112-043
NOVEMBER 2004
Units 1&2
Activities Within
Current Licence
2005 20062004 2007
Units 3&4
Activities
Environmental
Assessment
Studies
EA Decision
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Units 1&2 Activities
Requiring Licence
Amendment
Required maintenance during layup
Refurbishments, upgrades and enhancements
Required maintenance during operations
Removal of DFGSS and Refuelling
Removal of OPGSS
Decision to use LVRF
Decision to use LVRF*
Refurbishments, upgrades and enhancements
* Requires Licence Amendment
Required maintenance during operations
2043
2043

3.2 EA Schedule
Table 3.2-1 provides a proposed timeline for the EA of the Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension
and Continued Operations Project. Bruce Power recognizes that the CNSC is responsible for
determining the type, scope and schedule for the EA.
Table 3.2-1: Proposed EA Schedule for Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension and
Milestones Date
Letter of Intent and Project Description Submitted October 2004
Draft EA Guidelines Issued for Public Review January 2005
Hearing on Guidelines for CNSC April 2005
Final EA Guidelines Issued by CNSC May 2005
Draft EA Study Report Submitted to CNSC August 2005
Final EA Study Report Submitted CNSC October 2005
Draft Screening Report Issued for Public Review October 2005
Hearing on Screening Report January 2006
CNSC Decision by Commission February 2006
Licence Amendment to Remove DFGSS (Unit 2) ~ March 2008
Licence Amendment to Remove OPGSS (Unit 2) ~ May 2008
Decision to Use LVRF and subsequent Operation of Units 1-4 at Maximum Reactor
Power
~ 2010-2012
Continued Operation of Bruce A Until Expiration of Lease 2043
3.3 Description of Project Activities
As shown in Table 3.3-1, the Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension and Continued Operations
Project comprises seven principal activities at Units 1&2, which culminate in the operation of the
reactors to generate electricity. Five principal activities are associated with Units 3&4. Activities
highlighted in bold are expected to require amendments to the licence. The remaining activities are
permitted or required by the existing licence.
December 200411

Table 3.3-1: Activities for Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension and Continued
Operations Project
Units 1 & 2 Units 3 & 4
• Required maintenance during lay-up
• Fuel channel replacement
• Nuclear systems upgrade (including steam
generators)
• Balance-of-plant upgrade (conventional systems)
• Refuelling with initial load of fuel
• Restarting the reactors and operating through
their extended life including required
maintenance
• Potentially loading LVRF and subsequently
operating at maximum reactor power
• Required maintenance during operations
• Fuel channel replacement
• Nuclear systems upgrade (including steam
generators)
• Balance-of-plant (conventional systems)
• Potentially loading LVRF and subsequently
operating at maximum reactor power
Note: All Project Activities are included in the EA. Project Activities in bold require a licence amendment
Each of the project activities are described in the following sections.
3.3.1 Units 1&2
Required Maintenance During Lay-up
Units 1&2 are currently maintained in a safely laid-up state (i.e., DFGSS) with the objective of
preventing equipment degradation, facilitating return to service. The steam generator
feedwater/condensate/turbine flow paths are drained and maintained dry through the use of fans,
dryers or dry instrument air. The generator and auxiliaries are drained and maintained dry using
desiccant dryers. Vault dryers are in normal operation. Negative pressure containment is maintained.
The heat transport system remains filled in Unit 1. The heat transport system in Unit 2 was drained
and vacuum dried. The auxiliary moderator pump systems are in service to maintain chemistry
control. Both units are subject to a regular safety system testing, as detailed in “Bruce A Lay-up
Safety System Testing Plan”.
Required maintenance activities during lay-up are expected to generate low- and intermediate-level
wastes (see Table 4-1). The DFGSS will continue until CNSC amends the licence permitting removal
of the DFGSS to OPGSS, which is expected in approximately March 2008.
December 200412

Fuel Channel Replacement
Within a CANDU
®
reactor, a tank of moderator (the calandria) is pierced by an array of horizontal
tubes called “calandria tubes”. Each calandria tube, in turn, contains an inner “pressure tube”, in
which fuel bundles are positioned. Collectively, the pressure tube/calandria tube systems are referred
to as “fuel channels”.
Bruce Power has evaluated the condition of pressure tubes and calandria tubes at Units 1&2.
Although both units could be restarted in their current state, Bruce Power believes that it is
economically advantageous to replace all pressure tubes and some or all calandria tubes and intends
to replace fuel channels and associated feeders to the extent necessary before any return to service,
eliminating the need for a retubing outage shortly after restart.
Each unit contains 480 pressure tubes and 480 calandria tubes, along with associated feeders, end
fittings, shield plugs, inserts and closure plugs. The removed fuel channel components will be subject
to processing and interim storage within the existing exclusion zone around Bruce A protected area,
as allowed under the facility licence. Bruce Power intends to replace most fuel channel components
as necessary using, cutting, crushing, chopping and packaging as appropriate before transporting them
to the WWMF for management.
Fuel channel replacement is expected to generate intermediate and low level wastes including
pressure tubes and calandria tubes, as well as replaced equipment and small quantities of other low-
level wastes. Fuel channel replacement in Units 1&2 may begin as early as 2006 and will be
complete by March 2008.
Nuclear Systems Upgrade (Including Steam Generators)
Nuclear systems comprise both nuclear steam supply systems (e.g., heat transport, moderator, steam
supply and fuelling systems) and nuclear safety systems (e.g., containment and shutdown systems).
A formal lay-up of the nuclear systems was completed in December 1999. Prior to the restart of
Units 1&2, a number of refurbishments, upgrades and enhancements will be undertaken, including
repair and replacement of valves, motors and instrumentation.
Although Units 1&2 are technically capable of restart and limited operation in their current condition,
Bruce Power has evaluated the condition of the steam generators and concluded that it is
economically advantageous to replace the steam generators prior to refuelling, avoiding the need for a
steam generator replacement outage closely following restart. Each unit has eight steam generators,
which are approximately 12 m tall and weigh over 100 tonnes each. The generators, which penetrate
the reactor vault, will be removed intact and replaced. The removed steam generators will be subject
December 200413

to processing and interim storage within the Bruce A protected area, as allowed under the facility
licence.
Nuclear systems upgrading is expected to generate wastes including steam generators, miscellaneous
used equipment and small quantities of other low level wastes. The steam generators will be
processed and prepared to meet OPG’s requirements for acceptance at the WWMF. Nuclear systems
upgrading and enhancement in Units 1&2 may begin as early as 2005 and is expected to be complete
by March 2008.
Balance-of-Plant Upgrade (Conventional Systems)
Bruce A Units 1&2 have been laid up since 1997 and 1995, respectively. Throughout the non-nuclear
side of Bruce A – the balance of the plant – opportunities exist to upgrade and enhance non-nuclear
systems. For example, 30 Unit 1&2 transformers which contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
will be removed and replaced with non-PCB transformers by 2008.
Bruce Power may modify or replace the turbines to allow additional power generation. Bruce A was
designed to utilize a portion of its steam supply for heating and turbines were deliberately undersized
relative to the maximum steam output of Bruce A reactors.
Upgrading conventional systems in the plant, which take place between 2006 and 2008, is expected to
generate various non-radioactive wastes.
Refuelling With Initial Load of Fuel
With both nuclear and non-nuclear systems refurbished, upgraded and enhanced to help ensure safe
and economic operation, Bruce Power will request CNSC permission to refuel Units 1&2 (requiring
an amendment to their licence). After CNSC permission is received, Bruce Power will take Units
1&2 from a DFGSS to an OPGSS, loading the reactors with an initial load of fuel.
Bruce A Units 1&2 have been maintained throughout their lay-up to allow for a return to operation.
Both units could be refuelled and restarted with approximately the same level of effort as Units 3&4.
However, because of constraints on operating life after restart, Bruce Power intends to thoroughly
refurbish, upgrade and replace major equipment in Units 1&2 before refuelling. Once the units are
prepared for long-term operations, they will be refuelled after CNSC approval is received.
Fuel for Bruce A, in the form of compressed and sintered natural uranium dioxide pellets, is sheathed
and sealed in Zircaloy-4 tubes. Thirty-seven tubes (elements) are assembled between two end plates
to form one fuel bundle. Each of the 480 fuel channels contains 13 bundles (12-bundle fuel channels
are also under consideration). Each bundle weighs 22.5 kg.
December 200414

Fresh fuel bundles are received at a fuel receiving area. The fuel bundles are enclosed in protective
palletized crates containing 36 bundles. The fuel storage areas have a capacity of approximately
23,000 bundles. Facilities are provided to store the fuel in its protective crates and to move it to
loading facilities and inspection stations.
For the refuelling of Units 1&2, the reactor would be loaded with natural uranium fuel, except for a
small number of depleted uranium fuel bundles at specific locations (depleted uranium is used to fine-
tune reactivity in the fresh core). Each reactor will require 6,240 22.5 kg fuel bundles or
approximately 280 tonnes of fuel for the initial refuelling of Units 1&2. No new construction or
engineering works requiring large quantities of materials or non-renewable resources are expected.
Refuelling will require a licence amendment enabling Bruce Power to move the reactors from DFGSS
to OPGSS. Refuelling could conceivable occur as early as the last quarter of 2007 (Unit 2) and early
in 2008 (Unit 1). Refuelling and associated operations (refill primary heat transport system, final
system integration and commissioning) will precede synchronization to the power grid by
approximately five months. Refuelling is expected to produce low- and intermediate-level wastes
typical of maintenance outages.
Restarting the Reactors and Operating Through Their Extended Life Including Required
Maintenance
With CNSC permission, Bruce Power will remove the reactors from the OPGSS to achieve criticality
and begin producing power. Given the anticipated refurbishments, upgrades and enhancements and
Bruce Power’s positive experiences with a focused approach to maintenance at Bruce A Units 3&4
and Bruce B Units 5 to 8, Bruce Power anticipates that Units 1&2 will remain fit for service beyond
their forty-year service anniversary (2017). Bruce Power expects that the Power Reactor Operating
Licence renewals (continued operation) will continue throughout extended facility life.
Operation of Units 1&2 uses a self-sustaining fission reaction in uranium fuel to indirectly generate
steam, which is harnessed by turbines to produce electrical power. Operation of Units 1&2 would be
essentially identical to the existing operation of Units 3&4. The initial refuelling of the reactor will
take place with the reactor shutdown and in an OPGSS. After CNSC approval is received, operators
will adjust reactor systems, including poison concentrations in the moderator, to achieve criticality.
After approximately six months, the core will approach equilibrium conditions and routine on-power
refuelling would begin.
The inputs to the electricity production process include:
• Fuel;
• Heavy-water;
December 200415

• Lake water for cooling and services;
• Chemicals;
• Lubricants and oils; and
• Other supplies, typical of any industrial or manufacturing facility.
Cooling water is taken via an existing submerged intake from Lake Huron. This CCW is used to cool
and condense steam after the steam has passed through the turbines. The cooling system is a once-
through design, in which slightly heated cooling water is returned to Lake Huron after flowing
through the main condensers. It is anticipated that operation of Bruce A Units 1&2 will return the
flow and thermal load in the Bruce A discharge to the conditions that existed prior to lay-up. The
Bruce A discharge channel is a navigable waterway containing some fish habitat.
Units 1&2 will be returned to service and operate for up to 30 years. These units will require on-
going maintenance. Operations are conditional upon on-going fitness for service, which is assured
through aging management programs. During operations it is expected that three general areas of
maintenance will be performed at Bruce Units 1&2, namely, preventative maintenance, corrective
maintenance and improvement or upgrade activities. Each plays an important role to ensure that
Bruce A operates safely and in accordance with its licensing requirements.
As mentioned previously, restarting the reactors requires a licence amendment enabling Bruce Power
to remove the reactors from OPGSS and begin to generate electricity. Units 1&2 will operate from as
early as 2008 for up to 30 years, including planned and unplanned outages. Restarting is expected to
produce used fuel, purification wastes and bituminized wastes (see Table 4-1).
Potentially Loading LVRF and Subsequently Operating at Maximum Reactor Power
Low Void Reactivity Fuel (LVRF) comprises a new fuel formulation in an improved bundle design.
It has a number of advantages over natural uranium fuel, including increased safety margins with
regard to certain low-probability accident scenarios. A project to use LVRF at Bruce B Units 5 to 8 is
currently underway. The use of LVRF at Bruce A is being considered. Its use will depend on several
factors, including: successful demonstration at Bruce B, availability of an adequate supply of new
fuel and CNSC permission to use it.
Bruce Power intends to ask the CNSC for permission to load LVRF in Bruce A Units 1&2. After
permission is received (amendment to licence), Bruce Power will make small changes to fresh and
used fuel storage to eliminate the risk of uncontrolled criticality. Bruce Power will then consume its
on-hand supply of natural uranium fuel, build up a six-month stock of LVRF and begin loading
LVRF, instead of natural uranium fuel, using the existing fuelling system. Bruce A reactors are
currently limited to 92.5% of maximum continuous rating. Bruce Power may request permission
December 200416

from the CNSC to operate Bruce A reactors at an upgraded maximum reactor power, which is
currently expected to be 95.5% of maximum continuous rating, when it can demonstrate that it is safe
and economically advantageous to do so, for instance, after retubing, steam generator replacement,
turbine modification/replacement and the loading of LVRF. After permission is received, Bruce
Power will uprate the reactors.
LVRF contains a neutron absorber and slightly enriched uranium dioxide containing approximately
one percent uranium-235. The slightly enriched uranium dioxide pellets are contained within a 43-
element CANFLEX fuel bundle, as opposed to the existing 37-element bundle design. The
CANFLEX bundle design used for LVRF also has a more even power distribution and cools more
effectively than the existing bundle design. This helps ensure that hot-spots do not develop during
use.
LVRF reduces the probability of damage to the fuel bundles and fuel channel in the event of a large
break loss of coolant accident, known as a “LOCA”. In a large break LOCA, a very rare type of
accident that has not been observed in practice at a CANDU
®
reactor, a break in the large diameter
piping in the reactor cooling circuit leads to a rapid depressurization and voiding of the coolant in the
reactor core. Existing safety systems are sufficient to shut the reactor down. LVRF would reduce the
power pulse predicted for a LOCA, giving greater assurance that the reactor could be shut down
without fuel damage.
Together, the increased safety margins and improved cooling provided by LVRF are expected to
prevent reactor power de-ratings as reactor components age. In combination with other
refurbishments and upgrades, such as turbine modification/replacement, LVRF may also permit
operation of Bruce A Units 1 to 4 at greater reactor power (i.e., greater than the present 92.5% of
maximum continuous rating limitation).
Bruce Power is currently conducting an EA for the use of LVRF at Bruce B. Provided CNSC
approval for the use of LVRF at Bruce B is received, Bruce Power will begin to load Bruce B reactors
with the new fuel type. Based on the anticipated schedule for the Bruce B project, Bruce Power may
propose to begin loading LVRF at Bruce A sometime after 2008. Operation at an uprated maximum
reactor power may follow loading of LVRF.
Operation of Bruce A Units 1 to 4 at an uprated maximum reactor power will slightly increase the
thermal load in the Bruce A discharge channel. The Bruce A discharge channel is a navigable
waterway containing fish habitat.
This activity is expected to generate waste types similar to operations with natural uranium fuel with
slight difference in the characteristics of the used fuel bundles and small (10%) increase in waste
generation rate.
December 200417

3.3.2 Units 3&4
Required Maintenance During Operations
Required maintenance for Units 3&4 is similar to that previously described for Units 1&2 in Section
3.3.1. Units 3&4 are currently operating and are expected to continue in operations until the
expiration of Bruce Power’s lease in 2043.
Fuel Channel Replacement
Bruce Power may replace all pressure tubes and some or all calandria tubes and associated feeders in
Units 3&4 after Units 1&2 are restarted. Each unit contains 480 pressure tubes and 480 calandria
tubes, along with associated feeders, end fittings, shield plugs, inserts and closure plugs. The
removed fuel channel components will be subject to processing and interim storage within the
existing exclusion zone around Bruce A, as allowed under the facility licence. Bruce Power
anticipates that it will replace most fuel channel components. These will be cut, crushed, chopped
and/or packaged before transporting them to the WWMF for management.
Fuel channel replacement in Units 3&4 may occur (approximately) in 2010 and 2020, respectively.
Nuclear Systems Upgrade (Including Steam Generators)
Upgrading the nuclear systems is similar to that described for Units 1&2 (Section 3.3.1). After the
restart of Units 1&2, a number of refurbishments and upgrades to Units 3&4 may be undertaken,
including repair and replacement of valves, motors and instrumentation. Nuclear systems upgrading
and enhancement in Units 3&4 may occur in (approximately) 2010 and 2020, respectively.
The anticipated date for replacement of the steam generator in Unit 3 is 2010 as part of the overall
refurbishment for Unit 3. The replacement of steam generators in Unit 4 is planned for 2007-2008.
Balance-of-Plant Upgrade (Conventional Systems)
As mentioned previously for Units 1&2 (Section 3.3.1), opportunities exist to upgrade or refurbish
non-nuclear systems throughout Bruce A. The timing of the various refurbishment and upgrade
activities (further described below) is yet to be determined; however, they would likely occur after the
restart of Units 1&2 anticipated to occur in 2008. Approximate dates for Units 3&4 are 2010 and
2020, respectively. In addition, transformers containing PCBs will be removed and replaced with
non-PCB transformers by 2007.
December 200418

As was also the case for Units 1&2, described previously, Bruce Power intends to modify/replace the
turbines for Units 3&4 to allow additional power generation.
Potentially Loading LVRF and Subsequently Operating at an Uprated Maximum Reactor
Power
This activity is similar to that previously described for Units 1&2 in Section 3.3.1. Operation of
Bruce A Units 3&4 at an uprated maximum reactor power will slightly increase the thermal load in
the Bruce A discharge channel. The Bruce A discharge channel is a navigable waterway containing
fish habitat. This activity is expected to produce waste types similar to operations with natural
uranium fuel with slight difference in the characteristics of the used fuel bundles and small (10%)
increase in waste generation rate.
December 200419

4.0 WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT
As described in Section 3, the Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension and Continued Operations
Project activities will generate both operations and maintenance wastes. Operations will generate
routine levels of low-, intermediate- and high-level radioactive wastes. Maintenance activities such
as retubing and steam generator replacement will generate low and intermediate level radioactive
wastes. Further descriptions of the expected wastes, which are similar to those produced by the
current operations, are provided in Table 4-1, below.
Radioactive wastes will be managed at OPG’s WWMF (Waste Facility Operating Licence WFOL-
W4-314.00/2007). To accommodate future wastes from various nuclear facilities, including Bruce A,
it is anticipated that OPG will apply for a licence amendment to expand their facility. It is anticipated
that OPG will conduct a separate EA for their expansion activities and that the necessary capacity will
exist for Bruce A wastes at the WWMF when required.
Table 4-1: Typical Wastes Expected from Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension and
Class Waste Description
Used Fuel (Natural
Uranium)
• About 16 bundles discharged per unit per day
• Each bundle is approximately 0.5 m long and 23 kg
• Fuel pellets remain sealed in the individual elements of each
fuel bundle
• Used bundles are highly radioactive because of fission
products and activation products
• Activity decays to approximately 0.05% of initial activity
within 10 years
High-Level Waste
Used Fuel (LVRF) • Slight changes to the physical configuration of the bundle and
small differences in the radionuclide inventory compared with
current fuel
• Approximately 16 bundles discharged per unit per day
• Possibility of criticality eliminated by engineered and
administrative controls (e.g., storing new fuel in trays with
lids)
• Has been analyzed for Bruce B New Fuel Project
• Expected to be as safe or slightly safer than used natural
uranium fuel (for example, total fission product inventory
approximately 7% lower)
December 200420

Purification Wastes • Ion exchange (IX) resins and filters
• Periodically generated
• Annual volume fluctuates, is typically small3
, and is
dependent upon extent and number of unit outages
• Intermediate-level waste
Maintenance
Wastes
• Compactable wastes, including respirator filters, light gauge
metals, welding rods, metal cans, insulation, metallic air
filters, air hose and small cables
• Non-processible wastes including lathe turnings and metal
filings, heavy gauge metal and components, floor sweepings,
glass, metallic air filters, and larger electrical cables
• Combustible wastes including paper, plastic booties and
bottles, wood, plastic suits, cardboard, mop heads, cloth,
ventilation filters (non-metallic), and safety shoes
• Moderate annual volumes4
(hundreds of cubic metres before
volume reduction)
• Low-level waste
Bituminized
Wastes
• Effluent from the reverse osmosis system, concentrated in an
evaporator and solidified in bitumen
• Small volumes (tens of cubic metres)
• Intermediate-level waste
Low- and
Intermediate-Level
Wastes
Pressure Tube and
Calandria Tube
Replacement
Wastes
• 480 separate 0.1m by 6 m, 60 kg pressure tubes per reactor
unit (intermediate-level waste)
• Up to 960 separate 0.2 m by 2.5 m, 300 kg end fittings per
reactor unit (intermediate-level waste)
• Up to 960 separate 0.1 m by 1.2 m, 80 kg shield plugs per
• Up to 960 separate 0.1 m by 0.1 m, 13 kg closure plugs per
reactor unit (low-level waste)
• Up to 480 separate 0.1 m by 6 m, 22 kg calandria tubes per
• Up to 960 separate 0.1m by 0.05 m, 1 kg calandria tube inserts
per reactor unit (intermediate-level waste)
• Up to 960 typically 0.08 m by 15 m, 92 kg feeder pipes per
reactor unit (low-level waste)
• Approximately 500 m3
/unit/year additional “routine low-level
waste” for the duration of refurbishment
• Miscellaneous decontamination wastes (intermediate-level
waste)
3
E.g., approximately 6 m3
in 2003 (i.e., pre-restart of Bruce A Units 3&4), and estimated to be about 30 m3
in 2004 (i.e., post-restart of
Bruce A Units 3&4)
4
E.g., approximately 1030 m3
in 2003 (i.e., pre-restart of Bruce A Units 3&4), and estimated to be about 610 m3
in 2004 (i.e., post restart of
Bruce A Units 3&4)
December 200421

Steam Generator
Replacement
Wastes
• Eight 2.5 m by 12 m, 100 tonne generators per reactor unit
(low-level waste)
• Potentially four 2.2 m by 5.5 m 45 tonne pre-heaters per unit
(low-level waste)
• Several cubic metres of insulation per unit (low-level waste)
Radioactive gaseous and liquid emissions will be controlled, minimized, treated and released
according to licence requirements. Non-radioactive wastes will be re-used or recycled to the degree
possible. Hazardous wastes will be handled in accordance with regulations and are shipped off-site to
licensed disposal facilities. Non-hazardous solid wastes meeting landfill requirements are disposed of
in the existing on-site landfill. Non-radioactive gaseous and liquid emissions are controlled in
accordance with Certificate of Approval requirements.
December 200422

5.0 TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Toxic and hazardous materials, which are present at the station, include liquid petroleum fuels, oils,
lubricants and various chemical reagents. These materials are stored and handled in accordance with
applicable regulations and Bruce Power’s own policies and practices. Bruce Power has programs in
place to support the corporate objective of eliminating worker injuries and/or reportable releases.
These programs include an ISO 14001 Environmental Management System. Hazardous wastes are
disposed in compliance with both federal and provincial requirements, frequently using the services
of a licensed contractor. These include expired chemicals, cleaners, paint waste, aerosol cans and
electrical components.
There are PCB containing transformers at Bruce A. To ensure the continued safe management of all
PCB containing equipment, Bruce Power has a PCB management program that relates to all in-
service equipment, de-energized equipment containing PCBs, and waste PCB materials. The PCB
management program consists of a comprehensive series of procedural documents outlining roles and
responsibilities, and procedures for handling and storing PCB-containing equipment and waste.
Bruce Power will replace the PCB containing transformers associated with Bruce A Units 1&2 prior
to restart and those at Units 3&4 by 2007.
An asbestos control program has also been implemented at the Bruce Power site. This involves a
number of activities, controls and monitoring. A current database of locations in Bruce A where
asbestos is used is maintained, and routine inspection is made of all locations to ensure the asbestos is
appropriately sealed and labelled. Any work that is required to be done at Bruce A that is likely to
disturb this asbestos is controlled using established procedures. These procedures ensure that the
proper procedures, equipment and training are employed to safely control and manage the asbestos
hazard.
Ozone depleting substances (ODS) such as Freon-11, -12 and -22, are used during routine operations
at Bruce A. Freon use at Bruce A is monitored to ensure it complies with the federal and provincial
ODS regulations. Bruce Power has undertaken a program to replace chillers and A/C units that
contain Freon. For example, small A/C units using Freon-12 will be replaced, as needed, by January
1, 2005 and/or the Freon-12 in the units will be replaced by a non-ODS coolant. Large chillers using
Freon-11 will be replaced to meet the 2007 compliance deadline.
December 200423

6.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
6.1 Bio-physical Environment
6.1.1 Geology
Bruce A is situated on the shores of Lake Huron at the northern end of the Douglas Point Promontory,
a feature of comparatively low relief rising approximately 13 m to 15 m above lake level. This
promontory juts out into the lake 2.5 km to 3.0 km over a length of 5 km extending from Baie du
Doré southward to Inverhuron Bay.
Inland, the dominant physiographic feature is the Algonquin Bluff, a ridge formed from shoreline
erosion by post-glacial Lake Algonquin. The terrain above and inland from the Algonquin Bluff
consists of comparatively flat clay plains with a network of streams that drain westward to Lake
Huron.
There are no major rivers or lakes in the vicinity of the site other than Lake Huron. A former
tributary of the Little Sauble River, named Stream C, drains into the southwest corner of the Baie du
Doré to the north and the Little Sauble River empties into Inverhuron Bay to the south.
The region is underlain by limestone and dolostone formations of Lower Silurian age to the north and
Middle Devonian age to the south. These formations are flat lying with a very gentle dip of
approximately one-half percent towards the southwest. Bedrock locally crops out along the Lake
Huron shoreline between Inverhuron Bay and Baie du Doré where it has been exposed by shoreline
erosion. Overall, the regional bedrock geological setting is a very stable environment where
structural features associated with faulting or folding of the rock sequence are rare.
The western Ontario region lies within the tectonically stable interior of the North American
continent and is characterized by low rates of seismicity. The seismic zoning map in the National
Building Code, places the site in Zone 0, with Zone 6 corresponding to the most seismically active
regions of the country.
The surficial deposits below the Algonquin Bluff and underlying the Bruce Power site include silty to
clayey till of the Elma (Catfish Creek) sequence overlying the bedrock surface. This till sequence
varies in thickness up to approximately 15 m and locally contains interbedded sequences of sand.
Overall, the soil beneath the site consists of natural soil derived from glacial deposits as well as
construction fill materials that are also derived from glacial deposits.
Groundwater flow within the surficial deposits and bedrock of the local area is directed north-
westward toward Lake Huron, generally sub-parallel to the well-established surface drainage pattern.
December 200424

Groundwater discharges into the streams and within the swampy areas below the Algonquin Bluff.
Above the Algonquin Bluff, groundwater gradients are downward from surface toward the bedrock.
Below the bluff, adjacent to Lake Huron, the gradients are upward where groundwater in the bedrock,
recharged over time from locations above the bluff, discharges into the lake.
Although there are local variations, groundwater movement within in the vicinity of Bruce A is
generally towards Lake Huron. The principal hydrostratigraphic units descending from ground
surface are as follows:
• A laterally discontinuous foreshore sand deposit;
• A coarse grained matrix supported sand and gravel;
• A dense fine-grained, glacial till aquitard; and
• A semi-confined carbonate bedrock aquifer.
However, direction of groundwater flow beneath the Bruce A Powerhouse is directly controlled by a
system of foundation drains. The foundation drain sumps collectively discharge into the CCW
discharge duct. The discharge rates are not affected by either the operational or lay-up status of the
power plant. The sumps are gravity drains affected only by variations in the lake level and
surrounding groundwater levels.
6.1.2 Hydrology
The Bruce Power site is located within the Stream C watershed, which is bounded by the Underwood
Creek watershed at the north and the Little Sauble River watershed at the south. There is an extensive
storm water infrastructure, including a network of sewer lines, catchbasins, manholes, open ditches,
culverts and outfalls to Lake Huron. There are a total of 16 outfalls, which discharge directly to the
lake.
The near-shore currents in the local area are predominantly bi-directional and parallel to shore. The
ratio of northeast current movement to southwest current movement is about two to one throughout
the entire year. Lake currents agree reasonably well with the prevailing wind, particularly during fall
and winter.
The average current speed is about 10 cm/s, with maximum recorded current speed of 50 cm/s. Mean
current speed varies from month to month, with relatively stable and slow speeds in spring, highly
variable speeds in summer (due to stratified conditions), increasingly high speeds in the fall, and
significantly lower speeds during winter (due to sheltering effect of ice cover).
Under most prevailing current conditions, there is little circulation in Baie du Doré. The Baie appears
to be more heavily influenced by wind and wave action than by broad circulation patterns in the lake.
December 200425

Sediment transport is bi-directional along the shoreline, principally driven by wave-generated
currents alongshore. However, imbalances between the bi-directional transport results in net
transport to the south. The existence of only limited depositional zones suggests very little deposition
of sand-sized and smaller materials occurs in the vicinity of Bruce A, with the possible exception of a
localized area at the head of Baie du Doré.
Lake Huron is a typical cold, deep oligotrophic lake, with low nutrient levels (relative to Lake
Ontario and Lake Erie). Typical concentrations for nitrogen, phosphorus, dissolved solids,
chlorophyll, calcium and silica, show little variation spatially and temporally. Results from sample
collection and analysis conducted for the EA of the Restart of Units 3&4 results were consistent with
those previously reported for Lake Huron, falling within the provincial water quality guidelines.
All Bruce A effluent is directed to the CCW intake or discharge channel, with the exception of the
domestic sewage (which goes to the Sewage Processing Plant) and portions of the yard drainage,
which flow directly to Lake Huron. The various effluent streams at Bruce A are monitored for
chemical and radiological discharges to the environment. This monitoring is undertaken to ensure
compliance with the MISA limits in accordance with the requirements of Ontario Regulation 215/95
and specific Certificates of Approval from the MOE.
The towns of Port Elgin, Kincardine and Southampton are located on the shores of Lake Huron In the
region of Bruce A. These towns have municipal water supply plants (WSPs) which obtain water from
Lake Huron, and water pollution control plants (WPCPs) which discharge treated wastewater to Lake
Huron. MacGregor Point Provincial Park (13.5 km NE of Bruce A) is supplied from a water intake
located 20 m into the lake at a depth of about 0.6 m. The Brucedale Conservation area campsites
(6 km NE of Bruce A) is supplied by a well (48 m deep and 30 m from the lakeshore). Inverhuron
Park has a community well 40 m deep and 180 m from the lake. The drinking water for these parks
typically is treated using ultraviolet light and disinfection.
Most of the rural population in the area obtains their water from private or communal wells.
Communities within the vicinity of Bruce A, such as the Village of Tiverton, the hamlet of
Underwood, some residences of Scott Point, Woodland Court Trailer Park, and Lime Kiln Cottages
are supplied by communal wells. Many inland cottages have water wells and septic tanks, but some
lake front properties have direct intakes from the lake. One business at the Bruce Energy Centre
obtains its drinking water (which is treated) from the lake taken at the shore of the Bruce Power site.
Bruce A obtains its treated domestic water through withdrawals from the intake channel and
treatment in the water treatment plant.
The near-shore ambient water temperature typically ranges from 0.2°C to 4.4°C in winter (December
to April) with lows typically occurring in February. Water temperature ranges from 7°C to 20°C in
spring, summer and fall (May to October) with peaks typically occurring in August. Ambient water
December 200426

temperature in the area is affected by upwelling and downwelling events primarily in summer.
During these events, daily changes of about 10°C in ambient water temperature are common, with
recorded extreme increases or decreases of more than 15°C over a few days.
Figure 6.1.2-1 presents the estimated areal extents of thermal plumes for existing conditions (Bruce A
with two units in operation, Bruce B with four units in operation) for both warm water conditions and
coldwater conditions. The estimated areal extents refer to the envelope curves covering all likely
plume configurations. The shape of a thermal plume at any given time is highly variable and affected
by a number of factors, including the prevailing currents and ambient water temperature. The
maximum areal extent of the thermal plumes for existing conditions is approximately 4,400 hectares
(ha) based on the criterion of 2°C above the ambient, in consideration of both warm and cold water
conditions. The area affected by the combined Bruce A and Bruce B plume at any given time is
conservatively estimated to be in the range of 70 ha to 3,600 ha with an average plume size of
1,250 ha for eight units in operation.
6.1.3 Aquatic Biology
The CCW discharge channel carries used CCW from Bruce A, which, in turn, is conveyed through an
excavated channel that runs north from the site. An excavated channel in the near-shore lakebed
continues to direct discharge water for approximately 300 m into Lake Huron.
The near-shore zone of Lake Huron is characterized by rocky outcrops and as a result the aquatic
habitat features are largely comprised of rocky substrates. As such biological diversity is limited.
The deeper, offshore areas also consist of primarily rocky substrate that potentially provides
spawning areas for regionally important fish species, such as lake and round whitefish, as well as
habitat for deepwater sculpin.
Baie du Doré, just to the north of Bruce A, is the first major embayment along the eastern shoreline of
Lake Huron northward from Sarnia. The Baie is characterized by shallow depths and substrates
comprised mainly of rock and bedrock outcrops. It is nearly completely transected by two rocky
shoals that run in a northeast direction (i.e., parallel to the Lake Huron shoreline) and provide
protected habitat at the head of the Baie. Substrates in the Baie are typically a mix of sand and
gravel, interspersed among cobble and boulder, which alternate with bedrock outcrops. A number of
small, localized wetlands occur at the head of the Baie and are connected to the Baie through small
outflow channels.
The occurrence of aquatic vegetation throughout the area is sparse. A limited area of submergent
aquatic vegetation occurs only in the discharge channel in the relatively protected barge dock area
where suitable substrates exist. A few very small, localized patches of submergent vegetation have
also been noted in Baie du Doré, where suitable conditions exist.
December 200427

a. The synoptic, areal surveys of 13 plumes for
combined operations of Bruce NGS A and B during
the period 1987 to 1989
b. The synoptic, areal surveys of 17 plumes for
Bruce NGS A only during the period 1981 to1982
c. Continuous in-situ water temperature monitoring
at various locations in the plume areas for the period
1979 to 1989 and
d. Thermal modeling study for typical operating and
ambient conditions
OF BRUCE A AND B (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
THERMAL PLUMES RESULTING FROM COMBINED OPERATIONS
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM AREAL EXTENT OF ALL
6.1.2-1
NOTES:
1. The 2°C isotherm extends beyond the Southampton
water supply plant (about 23 km northeast of
Bruce NGS A) less than 20 % of the time.
4. The 2°C isotherm extends beyond the Kincardine
water supply plant (about 15 km southwest of
Bruce NGS B) less than 1 % of the time.
5. The areal extents of the thermal plumes resulting
from combined operations of Bruce NGS A and B,
were estimated based on the following:
LEGEND
Isotherms of excess temperature above
ambient in °C
Estimated quartile limits
(25% probability of exceedance)
Estimated maximum limits
Bathymetry contours (m)
2
2
Goderich is 176.0 meters above IGLD 1985.
Depths are reduced to low water datum which at
Approximate Depths in Meters
BATHYMETRY NOTES
REFERENCE
ONTARIO HYDRO, Design & Construction Branch, Hydraulic Studies & Development Department,
Paper File: DWG No. NK21-16-10140-0007 sht 001., Scale: 1:25,000, Dated : June 06, 1983.
2
Bruce A 914 m exclusion zone
THE ESTIMATED AREAL EXTENTS REFER TO ENVELOPE
CURVES COVERING ALL LIKELY PLUME CONFIGURATIONS. THE
SHAPE OF A THERMAL PLUME AT ANY GIVEN TIME IS HIGHLY
VARIABLE AND AFFECTED BY A NUMBER OF FACTORS, INCLUDING
THE PREVAILING CURRENTS AND AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE.

Benthic habitat diversity is low, and at least in the near-shore areas (less than 4 m) can be
characterized as severe and inhospitable. Benthic invertebrate habitats are primarily confined to rock
and sand substrates with only a few localized areas of fine-grained organic sediment.
A similar lack of substrate diversity affects potential use of the area by fish populations. Much of the
habitat consists of rocky areas interspersed with sandy substrates in protected areas. Adult and
young-of-the-year fish species in the Great Lakes use a wide diversity of substrates, although gravel,
sand and silt are the most preferred. These substrate types are often found within areas protected
from wave and current action, such as occur at the head of Baie du Doré, where the highest numbers
and diversity of fish were observed during 2001. Coarser substrates, such as those found in areas
exposed to currents (i.e., discharge channels) or wind/wave action (i.e., exposed shoreline), are also
important habitat features since they provide spawning, nursery and adult habitat for many fish
species.
A review of shoreline attached algae (periphyton) from 1973 to 1981 found that differences in growth
were observed relative to the various discharge points, with better algae growth in the discharge
channels relative to unaffected areas along the near-shore. Biomass was also higher in Baie du Doré
than in other areas along the near-shore and likely reflected warmer summer water temperatures in
this area.
Plankton communities in the area have been characterized as highly variable both in biomass and
species composition. Summaries of studies from 1975 to 1980 of the phytoplankton community
noted that while phytoplankton were abundant near the Bruce A site, diatoms dominated the
community.
Summaries of zooplankton sampling for 1975 to 1980, have noted that the most common group was
rotifers, though copepods and cladocerans were also noted as important members of the community.
The Baie du Doré is the most productive area for both zooplankton and phytoplankton.
Benthic community assessments found that benthic communities were limited by habitat
characteristics to a number of primary groups: oligochaetes (Naididae); amphipods; chironomids; and
ephemeroptera. Numerically, amphipods were the dominant group in the near-shore areas, while
Naidids were the dominant group in the discharge channel (in association with Cladophora).
Qualitative assessment of the near-shore benthic communities in 2001, conducted as part of the EA
studies, indicated that a relatively diverse community of benthic organisms exists in the near-shore
area, but that these were sparsely distributed within this area.
Between 1961 and 1993, 155 fish surveys were completed using several different gear types (gillnet,
trap net, seine, windemere net, larval tows, electrofishing) and techniques (SCUBA and skin diving,
impingement and entrainment sampling, creel surveys, surface visual surveys). A total of 85 species
December 200428

were recorded, the most common being the yellow perch, white sucker, smallmouth bass, alewife,
rock bass, common carp and longnose sucker. In general, the composition of the fishes captured was
a mixture of species preferring warmwater and coldwater habitats. The fish community in the area of
the Bruce A site is comprised of two major types: those that range broadly throughout the region (the
Lake Huron fish community); and those that are confined to the local area for most or all of their life
stages (the local fish community).
Species included in the Lake Huron fish community category are round whitefish, lake whitefish, lake
trout and deepwater sculpin. These fish prefer cooler water temperatures and spawn at depths of 1-8
m, outside the shallow inshore littoral zone. The majority of these species make use of the near-shore
areas only during spawning preferring offshore deeper waters, particularly during the warmer summer
months.
The Lake Huron fish community uses the near-shore area only during specific periods. An example
of this community is the lake whitefish, which typically spawn in shallow areas on gravel and rock
substrates. Adult whitefish are benthically oriented and spend most of the summer and fall offshore
in deeper, cooler water beyond the influence of the Bruce Power site (18 m to 60 m). Seasonal
migrations into the near-shore zone are made in spring, possibly to take advantage of near-shore food
resources, and again in November/December for spawning when inshore water temperature cools.
Spawning is expected to occur at depths ranging from 1 m to 8 m. Loscombe Bank, located northwest
of the Bruce A discharge, has been postulated as the most southern extent of spawning area for both
round and lake whitefish. A tag, release and recapture program for both round and lake whitefish will
be initiated in fall of 2004 to determine the validity of this assumption as a result of the Bruce A Units
3&4 restart EA follow-up program.
Deepwater sculpin inhabit deep offshore areas well beyond the influence of the Bruce Power site for
almost their entire life cycle. The species’ only potential interactions with Bruce A occur when newly
hatched larvae migrate inshore and are susceptible to entrainment during late winter/early spring.
Species included in the local fish community category are smallmouth bass, northern pike, spottail
shiner and bowfin.
Baie du Doré provides the largest area of warmwater fish habitat in the vicinity of the Bruce A site.
The habitats of the Baie provide spawning, nursery and foraging areas for many species of fish
including large predators (e.g., northern pike, smallmouth bass), lake resident smaller species (e.g.,
spottail shiner), wetland species (e.g., central mudminnow, banded killifish) and riverine species (e.g.,
common shiner).
The two most common inshore warmwater (i.e., local) species were yellow perch and smallmouth
bass. Perch prefer water temperatures of approximately 20°C and migrate in and offshore according
December 200429

to seasonal temperature variations. They spawn in shallow water during spring and move offshore to
depths generally less than 9 m during summer.
During various times of the year many fish species move between offshore and near-shore habitats to
spawn, forage or enter tributaries. For example, emerald shiners spawn in the shallow littoral zone of
lakes in spring and then move to deeper water during summer. The exposed coastline of Lake Huron
periodically experiences rapid temperature fluctuations due to wind-driven currents such that the
deeper offshore habitats become warmed enough to be exploited by warmwater fishes. When these
conditions are present, warmwater fish often move out into the lake from their protected embayments
and river mouths to forage.
It should be noted that the First Nations consider the surrounding waters of Lake Huron part of their
traditional territory. Their lands, water and resources are an essential part of their identity and
culture, as well as their sustainable economy. The harvesting of fish from Lake Huron is an important
source of food for both communities and the commercial fishery is important to their livelihood (see
Section 6.1.8).
6.1.4 Atmospheric Environment
The Bruce Power site is located on the east shore of Lake Huron, and as such, is subject to lake
meteorological effects. The mean annual temperature measured at the Bruce Power site is 8.2°C.
The mean daily temperatures fall below 0°C in December through March. The coldest month is
January, with average mean daily temperatures of -3.4°C. The lowest recorded temperature for this
period was -24.7°C, recorded in January of 1999. Summer temperatures average 19.0°C, or higher,
and the highest temperature recorded was 31.2°C in June of 2001. Precipitation is quite consistent
throughout the year. The average annual precipitation ranges from 944 mm to 1154 mm.
The prevailing winds are generally from the westerly direction approximately 50% of the time. There
is also a strong south-westerly component that occurs approximately 11% of the time. The average
measured wind speed at the 10 m level of the on-site 50 m tower was 3.45 m/s for the years 1998 to
2000. No average wind speed was determined for 2001 to 2003. In 2003, calms (wind speed
<1.5 m/s) were reported 17% of the time and low to moderate wind speeds (1.5 to 3 m/s and 3 to
5 m/s, respectively) had the highest frequencies at 33% and 32%, respectively.
Local and regional air quality is typical of the general air quality in south-western Ontario. Air
quality impacts are dominated by the substances that combine to produce smog or acid rain: carbon
monoxide; nitrogen oxides; volatile organic compounds; sulphur dioxide; and particulate matter.
Existing off-site noise levels reflect a rural sound environment and are generally characterized by the
sounds of nature (rustling leaves, waves on the shore of Lake Huron, insects and birds).
December 200430

6.1.5 Terrestrial Biology
Bruce County contains a number of large forested areas and wetlands, providing core habitat for a
variety of wildlife species. Approximately 37% of Bruce County is forested, with much of the north
portion of the county under forest cover. The county contains a number of large forested areas and
wetlands, providing core habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Major river systems within the
region include the Saugeen, Sauble, and Rankin. The Lake Huron shoreline, which runs along the
west edge of the County, provides a natural habitat corridor that extends north to the Bruce Peninsula.
The Niagara Escarpment runs along the east side of the Bruce Peninsula, which forms the north end
of Bruce County. The natural environment in the vicinity of the Bruce Power site consists of a mosaic
of immature to mature deciduous and coniferous forest, wetlands, open water, and old field.
The Douglas Point Swamp, which is located within the Bruce Power site, is a locally significant
wetland that is dominated by eastern white cedar swamp communities. Stream C runs through the
Bruce Power site before discharging to Lake Huron through Baie du Doré, a recognized provincially-
significant wetland.
Other watercourses near Bruce A include Tiverton Creek, Little Sauble River, Underwood Creek, and
Mill Creek. Core natural areas in the area include: Inverhuron Provincial Park; Baie du Doré
wetland; Scott Point wetland; and MacGregor Point Provincial Park. The Huron Fringe Deer Yard is
another important natural feature. This deer yard runs along the Lake Huron shoreline from
Inverhuron Provincial Park to MacGregor Point Provincial Park and provides significant winter
habitat for white-tailed deer. Figure 6.1.5-1 shows significant environmental features in the vicinity of
Bruce A.
The Bruce Power site is large and much of it is forested with white cedar as the dominant tree species.
Figure 6.1.5-2 shows habitat types around Bruce A.
A large deer population is present on the site. Other wildlife species present on the site include
groundhog, raccoon, beaver, porcupine, brown bat, coyote and a variety of breeding and migrant bird
species, including wild turkeys.
A total of ten amphibian species and seven reptile species have been identified within and
immediately adjacent to the Bruce A exclusion zone. Northern spring peeper and American toad are
reported to be the most commonly heard species during the amphibian breeding season. Other
frequently encountered amphibians included northern leopard frog, green frog, gray treefrog, and
wood frog. Eastern garter snake was the most commonly encountered reptile. Midland painted
turtles were also observed relatively frequently.
December 200431

BRUCE A
BRUCE B
LAKE
HURON
BAIE
DU DORE
MACPHERSON
POINT
SCOTT POINT
LIFE SCIENCE ANSI
GUNN
POINT
HOLMES
BAY
INVERHURON
BAY
MCRAE
POINT
MACGREGOR POINT
PROVINCIAL PARK
MIRAMICHI
BAY
CHANTRY
ISLAND
MCNAB
POINT
ARRANLAKE
RON RIDGE
TIVERTON
PORT
ELGIN
UNDERWOOD
NORTH
BRUCE
SOUTHAMPTON
TIVERTON
CREEK
LITTLE
SAUBLE
RIVER
STREAM
C
UNDERW
O
OD
CREEK
MILL CREEK
MACGREGOR POINT
PROVINCIAL PARK
BRUCEDALE
CONSERVATION
AREA
INVERHURON
PROVINCIAL
PARK
BAIE DU DORE
WETLAND
SCOTT POINT
WETLAND COMPLEX
LIFE SCIENCE ANSI
MACGREGOR POINT
WETLAND COMPLEX
LEGEND
BRUCE POWER SITE BOUNDARY
914m EXCLUSION ZONE (SITE STUDY AREA)
REFERENCE
BASE MAP SCANNED FROM PAPER COPY OF NRCan
TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS. MAP NUMBERS 41A/4, 41A/5,
41 A/3 AND 41 A/6, SCALE 1:50 000.
FIGURE
BRUCE POWER SITE AND VICINITY
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT FEATURES 6.1.5-1
0
SCALE
2 2 4
1:100000 KM
HURON FRINGE DEERYARD
WETLAND
PROVINCIAL PARK / CONSERVATION AREA

L A K E
H U R O N
BRUCE
A
POINT
MACPHERSON
CNR
WNTC
CMF
BRUCE
STORES
CENTRAL
GUARDHOUSE
FOREBAY
1
2
3
4
DISCHARGECHANNEL
DOCK
C.W INTAKE TUNNEL
INTAKE
C.W
. INTAKE CHANNEL
SW
ITCHING
AREA
SW
ITCHING
AREA
PARKING
AREA
PARKING
AREA
SWITCHYARD
HYDRO ONE
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
Baie du
Dore
STREAMC
STREAM
B
LEGEND
WATERFOWL SURVEY
CONTROL SITES
WATERCOURSE
BRUCE POWER SITE
BOUNDARY
( SITE STUDY AREA)
914m EXCLUSION ZONE
A
BOUNDARY
SITE STUDY AREA
DRY-MOIST OLD FIELD
MEADOW
CONIFEROUS FOREST
MIXED FOREST
CULTURAL THICKET
OPEN FEN
SHRUB FEN
SHALLOW MARSH
SHALLOW WATER
CONIFEROUS SWAMP
DECIDUOUS SWAMP
THICKET SWAMP
WETLAND BOUNDARY
A
B
E
G
F
C
D
MIXED SWAMP
(breeding, foraging)
snake (foraging)
* Herpetofauna - American toad, northern leopard frog, garter
warbler (breeding and migratory)
* Songbirds - northern flicker, white-throated sparrow, mourning
* White-tailed deer (winter cover)
HABITAT FOR:
CONIFEROUS FOREST
* Wild Turkey (breeding, foraging)
* Small mammals (cavity trees, deadfall, burrows, and dens)
(overwintering habitat)
snake, garter snake (breeding habitat in vernal pools,
* Herpetofauna - leopard frog, wood frog, green frog, northern ribbon
woodpecker, brown creeper (breeding and migratory)
* Songbirds - American redstart, black-capped chickadee, hairy
* White-tailed deer (winter cover, browse)
HABITAT FOR:
MIXED FOREST
(breeding and migratory)
* Songbirds - common yellowthroat, sedge wren, alder flycatcher
mud flat use during migration)
* Waterfowl, herons, and shorebirds (loafing and foraging,
habitat in pools, overwintering)
frog, gray treefrog, mudpuppy (breeding
green frog, spring peeper, midland chorus
* Herpetofauna - garter snake, northern water snake,
* Painted turtle (breeding, feeding)
* Bald eagle (feeding)
SHALLOW WATER AND MARSH HABITAT FOR:
BAIE du DORE WETLAND
* Herpetofauna - green frog, wood frog (breeding, foraging)
* Songbirds - winter wren, northern waterthrush (breeding and migratory)
* White-tailed deer (winter cover)
HABITAT FOR:
CONIFEROUS SWAMP
* Mammals - meadow vole, raccoon, mink, striped skunk (foraging)
* Songbirds - alder flycatcher, house wren, yellow warbler (breeding, foraging)
* Waterfowl and shorebirds - mallard, great blue heron (foraging)
garter snake, snapping turtle, midland painted turtle (breeding, foraging, overwintering)
* Herpetofauna - American toad, spring peeper, green frog, leopard frog, northern water snake,
HABITAT FOR:
STREAM C
northern ribbon snake (breeding, foraging)
* Herpetofauna - leopard frog, green frog, midland painted turtle,
* White-tailed deer (browse)
and migratory)
* Songbirds - indigo bunting, black-capped chickadee (breeding
HABITAT FOR:
MIXED SWAMP
(breeding habitat in vernal pools, foraging)
* Herpetofauna - green frog, leopard frog, garter snake
* Small mammals (foraging and shelter)
and migratory)
waxwing, rose-breasted grosbeak (breeding
* Songbirds - eastern kingbird, brown thrasher, cedar
HABITAT FOR:
CULTURAL THICKET
* Wild Turkey (foraging)
* Small mammals - meadow vole (foraging)
* Herpetofauna - garter snake (foraging)
and migratory)
* Songbirds - bobolink, savannah sparrow (breeding
* White-tailed deer (foraging)
HABITAT FOR:
CULTURAL MEADOW
* Herpetofauna - leopard frog, wood frog, spring peeper,
yellowthroat (breeding and migratory)
* Songbirds - hairy woodpecker, eastern kingbird, common
* White-tailed deer (browse)
HABITAT FOR:
DECIDUOUS SWAMP
FIGUREBRUCE A AND VICINITY
EXISTING WILDLIFE HABITAT
6.1.5-2

The greatest number and diversity of bird species are observed along the Lake Huron shoreline and in
the Baie du Doré wetland. Species regularly observed in these areas included double-crested
cormorant, ring-billed gull, herring gull, great blue heron, Canada goose and American black duck.
Both of these areas provide protected embayments that may attract birds seeking refuge from wind
and wave action that occurs at the mouth of the embayment. Less frequently observed species
included red-breasted merganser, black-crowned night heron, and spotted sandpiper.
The majority of significant, rare or endangered species recorded in the vicinity of Bruce A are bird
species. These include black-crowned night heron, bufflehead, bald eagle, wild turkey, pectoral
sandpiper, dunlin, great black-backed gull, Caspian tern and red-headed woodpecker. Most of these
bird species are found within the Baie du Doré wetland.
Yellow spotted turtle has been identified in the Baie du Doré wetland, although this species was not
observed in the course of the field investigations carried out in 2001.
6.1.6 Radiation and Radioactivity
In terms of radioactivity, people living and working in the area are exposed to both natural and man-
made sources of radiation. Natural sources of radiation include ionizing radiation from cosmic rays,
naturally occurring radionuclides in air, water and food and gamma radiation from radioactive
materials in soil, rock and building materials. Man-made sources of radiation are primarily from the
operation of nuclear facilities (e.g., Bruce A, Bruce B and other CNSC licensed facilities).
6.1.7 Land Use
Land use in the area surrounding the Bruce Power site falls into two general classifications. Along
the shoreline is a recreation area, while inland is primarily used for agriculture.
Title to Inverhuron Provincial Park, which is situated at the southern boundary of the Bruce Power
site, was acquired by Ontario Hydro so that CNSC siting guidelines for heavy water plants (HWPs)
are satisfied (the heavy water plant at the Bruce site has since been closed and is in the process of
being decommissioned). However, Inverhuron Provincial Park is leased to the MNR, which operate
the southern portion as a day-use provincial park. The MNR plans to re-open 125 overnight
campsites sometime during the 2005 season.
Cottage development in the Bruce County has been growing at a rate of five per cent per year since
1968. In recent years, the number of cottages along the shoreline within 40 km of the Bruce Power
site has grown to approximately 5,800. There are also three conservation areas, two provincial parks
and numerous private parks that offer camping and trailer facilities. MacGregor Point Park, located
approximately 13 km north of Bruce A is a day-use and overnight camping facility.
December 200432

Agriculture is an important component of Bruce County with over 62% of the County’s area
dedicated to the agricultural industry. There are over 2,300 farms in the County, and it is ranked first
in Ontario for total cattle production, and second in Ontario for total pork production. The County is
ranked third in Ontario in sheep production, and is also the top producer of oats and the second largest
producer of canola in Ontario. There is also a wide variety of supporting and processing industries
related to the production of food.
One of the major industrial developments within Bruce County is the Bruce Energy Centre. This is
an 800 acre serviced industrial park located immediately southeast of the Bruce Power site that was
established in 1986.
The Bruce Power site is within the Municipality of Kincardine. The municipality includes the
communities of Kincardine and Tiverton as well as several smaller residential areas. Bruce A is
approximately 4, 5 and 8 km from the closest of these residential centres, Scott Point, Inverhuron and
Tiverton, respectively. The local area is predominantly rural in nature, with isolated residences such
farm homes and country cottages. No residences occur within the 914 m exclusion zone of the Bruce
A station, or within the Bruce Power site boundary, which encompasses the majority of the Douglas
Point promontory west of Tie Road.
6.1.8 First Nations
There are two First Nations communities in the area of the Bruce Power site: the Chippewas of
Saugeen First Nation Reserve No. 29 and the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation located at
the Cape Croker Reserve No. 27.
The Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation Reserve No. 29 is located adjacent to the town of
Southampton on the shoreline of Lake Huron, between the mouths of the Saugeen and Sauble Rivers,
approximately 30 km north of the site. The population on this reserve in 1998 was estimated by the
Department of Indian & Northern Affairs at 617, with an additional 773 members living off-reserve,
many within the traditional territory in the County.
The Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation is centred at Cape Croker Reserve No. 27, located
on the north side of Colpoys Bay and the east shore of the Bruce Peninsula north of the town of
Wiarton. The population on this reserve in 1998 was estimated by the Department of Indian and
Northern Affairs at 718 with an additional 1,246 members living off-reserve many within the
traditional territory in the County.
As noted previously the First Nations consider the surrounding waters of Lake Huron part of their
traditional territory. Their lands, water and resources are an essential part of their identity and
December 200433

culture, as well as their sustainable economy. The harvesting of fish from Lake Huron is an important
source of food for both communities and the commercial fishery is important to their livelihood.
Métis people are recognised as a distinct group of Aboriginal peoples in the 1982 Constitution Act.
There are a number of Métis people in the vicinity of the Bruce Power site who are part of the broad
community and who are represented by the Saguingue Métis Council. The Council has shown a
continuing interest in environmental studies relating to the operation of facilities on the Bruce Power
site.
Two registered archaeological sites, Upper Mackenzie and Dickie Lake, are on record as having been
located within the confines of the Bruce Power site, discussed in more detail in the next section.
Bruce Power is working cooperatively with the First Nations to address two specific issues related to:
• the on-going care of the burial ground within the Bruce Power site; and
• participation in an international lake-wide monitoring program of lake whitefish in Lake
Huron. Lake whitefish is an important commercial and traditional fish species for the First
Nations.
Two registered archaeological sites, Upper Mackenzie and Dickie Lake, are on record as having been
located within the confines of the Bruce Power site. A third heritage area, the “Indian Burial
Ground”, was identified by Ontario Hydro in the mid-1970s and demarcated by signposts in the early-
1980s. A joint council meeting of the Chippewas of Saugeen and Chippewas of Nawash on March
10, 1998 resolved that the site previously known as Dickie Lake and the “Indian Burial Ground” be
assigned an Ojibway name. The site is now referred to as Jiibegmegoong (Spirit Place). Both
Chippewas of Saugeen and Chippewas of Nawash have requested and have received approval in the
past to access the Bruce Power site to conduct either ceremonies or monitoring at the Jiibegmegoong
burial ground.
6.1.9 Socio-economics
The economic base of Bruce County (the County) is diverse and includes agriculture, tourism and
recreation, a service sector, manufacturing, light industry, fishing and some aggregate resource
extraction. The County has a significant agricultural sector involving over 3,750 farm operators
(approximately 63% of farms are family owned and operated) and is ranked number one in cattle in
Ontario, with approximately half of all of the County farms dedicated to beef cattle production.
Tourism and recreation, hospitality services and the area’s heritage-oriented tourism attractions and
associated crafts manufacturing/retailing are well established.
December 200434

Saugeen Shores is the largest community in the County and Kincardine is the closest urban centre to
the Bruce Power site. The Bruce Power site is within the municipality of Kincardine, which had a
population of 11,255 in 2003. The municipality includes the communities of Kincardine and Tiverton
as well as several smaller residential areas, including Inverhuron and Underwood. Bruce A is
approximately 4, 5 and 8 km from the closest of these residential centres, Scott Point, Inverhuron and
Tiverton, respectively.
The overall population growth pattern for the County is stable. The towns of Kincardine, Walkerton,
Port Elgin and Southampton (the lattermost two making up the majority of the population in Saugeen
Shores) are the largest nearby communities with 2001 populations of 6,113 (2,542 households), 5,036
(1,951 households), 9,865 (2,651 households) and 3,151 (1,402 households), respectively. Tiverton,
located approximately eight kilometres from the site, had a 2001 population of 743 (338 households).
Inverhuron has a year-round population of approximately 200, plus approximately 250 seasonal
cottagers.
The Bruce Power site is the single largest employer in the County, currently employing over 3,800
people. These full-time high paying jobs, along with the Bruce A related expenditures and tax
payments, represent a major factor in the local economy.
December 200435

7.0 POTENTIALLY AFFECTED COMPONENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT
One of the purposes of this document is to assist the CNSC and FAs in the early identification of
potential environmental issues that should be considered in preparing the scope of the assessment in
the event that it is determined that an EA is required. Table 7-1 identifies the potential interactions
between the Project and the environment, based on a preliminary analysis and the changes expected
to result in the environment, if any. The identification of potential interactions between the Project
and the environment and a determination of expected change is based on the judgement of the
technical specialists who prepared this report based on their experience with similar EAs at Bruce
Power and other Ontario facilities.
December 200436

Table 7-1: Potential Project-Environment Interactions and Changes
Environmental Component Potential Interaction Expected Change
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
Air Quality Periodic discharge of steam generator chemicals (e.g., hydrazine) is a potential source of
exposure to humans and non-human biota. No greenhouse gases or smog-producing
substance releases are expected.
No change anticipated.
Noise No new construction proposed. Facility is located entirely within zoned industrial area
and within 914 m exclusion zone.
HYDROLOGY, WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
Lake Circulation Discharges from the station have the potential to affect near-shore conditions in Lake
Huron.
Lake Water Quality The Project has potential to affect lake water quality through release of substances in
routine and stormwater discharges (e.g., tritium and other radionuclides, steam generator
chemicals, metals, oil, road salt).
Aquatic Biota Aquatic biota may be affected by thermal discharges, high flow and releases of substances
in discharges from the CCW and through other discharges as stormwater drainage.
There is the potential for changes to
occur.
Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat may be affected by thermal discharges, high flow and releases of
substances in discharges from the CCW and through other discharges as stormwater
drainage.
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
Vegetation Communities There will be no direct physical disturbance. Indirect effects are possible through release
of radioactive and non-radioactive substances.
Wildlife Habitat No direct physical disturbance is expected; however, site is adjacent to a provincially
significant wetland. Indirect effects may occur through release of radioactive and non-
radioactive substances.
Wildlife Communities There will be no direct physical disturbance. Indirect effects are possible through release
of radioactive and non-radioactive substances.
Natural Heritage System No new construction or alternation of existing landscape is expected.
December 200437

GEOLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY
Geology No new construction is planned as part of the Project. The Project is a potential source of
soil and groundwater contamination, through spills of heavy water, oils and chemicals.
Hydrogeology No new construction is planned as part of the Project. The Project is a potential source of
soil and groundwater contamination, through spills of heavy water, oils and chemicals.
Seismicity Plant is designed to safely withstand earthquake greater than any earthquake likely to
occur.
LAND USE AND RESOURCES
Land Use No new construction or changes in land use or zoning are planned as part of the Project. No change anticipated.
Transportation The Project has the potential to affect local traffic due to site-related traffic (transportation
of workers and supplies).
Landscape and Visual Setting No new construction or alteration of existing structures.
RADIATION AND RADIOACTIVITY
Radiation Dose to Workers Nuclear generating station is a potential source or radiation exposure to workers.
Radiation Dose to General Public Radioactive releases to air and water are a potential source of exposure to members of the
public.
Radiation Dose to Aquatic Biota Radioactive releases to air and water are a potential source of exposure to aquatic biota.
Radiation Dose to Terrestrial Biota Radioactive releases to air and water are a potential source of exposure to terrestrial biota.
Under normal operating conditions, no
change is anticipated; however, there is
the potential for changes to occur as a
result of accidental radioactive release to
the work place and to the environment.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Population and Economic Base The meaning people attach to the presence of a nuclear facility and their community and
the influence of normal station operations may potentially affect people’s feelings of
personal security.
There may be a change in people’s
feeling in regards to personal security.
Residents and Communities The meaning people attach to the presence of a nuclear facility and their community and
the influence of normal station operations may potentially affect people’s feelings of
personal security.
December 200438

Community Infrastructure No change anticipated.
Community Services
Municipal Finance and Administration
The Project could have potential effects on finances, employment and demand for services.
PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES
Physical Heritage Sites No new construction or alteration of existing structures is planned. No change anticipated.
Cultural Heritage Sites
ABORIGINAL INTERESTS
Aboriginal Communities
Traditional and Current Land Use
Cultural Heritage and Spiritual Sites
and Activities
Affects on Mother Earth and Future
Generations
Employment and Business
Opportunities
Treaty Rights/Land Claims
The meaning aboriginal people attach to the presence of a nuclear facility and their
community and the influence of normal station operations may potentially affect people’s
feelings of personal security.
There may be a change in regards to
feelings of personal safety.
December 200439

8.0 REFERENCES
Bruce Power. August 2001. Bruce A Units 3&4 Restart Project Description.
Bruce Power. August 2002. Bruce A Units 3 & 4 Restart Environmental Assessment Study Report
No. NK21-07000-P.
Bruce Power. October 2003. New Fuel Project for Bruce B Project Description. Report No. NK29-
REP-00778-00001, REV 001.
Bruce Power. April 2004. Request for Approval of Revisions to Bruce A OP&P 30.3 and 30.4.
Report No. NK21-CORR-00531-02707.
Bruce Power. June 2004. New Fuel Project for Bruce B Draft Environmental Assessment Study
Report No. NK29-REP-07730-00001 REV 000.
Bruce Power. June 2004. Operating Policies and Principles – Bruce A. BP-OPP-00002 R004.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. August 2000. Preparing Project Descriptions under
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Operational Policy Statement OPS - EPO/5 –
2000.
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. August 2003. Environmental Assessment Guidelines (Scope
of Project and Assessment) Environmental Assessment of Proposed Modifications to Hydro-
Quebec’s Gentilly-2 Radioactive Waste Management Facilities.
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. August 2003. Records of Proceedings, including Reasons for
Decisions, Environmental Assessment Screening Report – Proposed Modifications to the
SRWMF.
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. March 2004. Records of Proceedings, including Reasons for
Decisions, Application for the Renewal of Bruce A Nuclear Generating Station Operating
Licence.
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. 2004. Nuclear Power Reactor Operating Licence, Bruce
Nuclear Generating Station A. PROL 15.01/2009.
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. May 2004. Approval of Revisions to Bruce A OP&P 30.3 and
30.4. Report No. NK21-CORR-00531-02791.
CH2M Hill Canada Limited. August 2002. Bruce Nuclear Power Development Fuel Oil Storage
Tank Compliance Assessment Final Report.
CH2M Hill Canada Limited. August 2002. Phase II (Part 2) Environmental Site Assessment at Eight
Sites, Bruce Nuclear Power Development, Tiverton, Ontario. Vol. 1 & 2.
Dollmaier, T., Bruce Power. 2001. Spills to the Environment. Report No. BP-PROC-00093.
December 200440

Farooqui, R. June 1992. Lake Huron Nearshore Currents, 1987 – 1989 and a Long-term Summary
of Water Movements in the Vicinity of Bruce NPD 1969-1989. Design and Development
Division – Generation. Report No. 92065 (2087)
Johnston, Holly M., Kinectrics. September 22, 2000. Bruce Nuclear Environmental Site Assessment:
Phase II Part I. Report No. 8010-001-RA-0001-R00.
Lawler, D.W. June 1992. Lake Huron Water Temperatures in the Vicinity of Bruce NPD 1988 &
1989 and Summary for the Period 1973 to 1989. Design and Development Division –
Generation. Report No. 92146 (3364)
LGL Environmental Research Associates. August 2001. Bruce Nuclear Power Development
Bioinventory Study - Interim Report 2001. LGL Limited Project TA2522.
New Brunswick Power. March 2001. Project Description Solid Radioactive Waste Management
Facility Modifications. Report No. 87RF-00521-130-000.
Ontario Power Generation (OPG). June 2000. Bruce Nuclear Power Development Ecological Effects
Review. Revision R00. Report No. G99242.
Ontario Power Generation (OPG). April 2000. Pickering A Return to Service Environmental
Assessment.
Ontario Power Generation (OPG). September 1984. BNPD: An Assessment of the Effects of
Construction and Operation on the Natural Environment to 1981. Report No. NK37-07000-
18 (84363).
Regulations Respecting the Coordination by Federal Authorities of Environmental Assessment
Procedures and Requirements, SOR/97 – 181.
December 200441

APPENDIX A
List of Acronyms
December 2004

LIST OF ACRONYMS
Acronym Descriptive Term
µSv microsievert
Bq Becquerel
Bq/L Becquerels per litre
Bruce A Bruce A Nuclear Generating Station
Bruce B Bruce B Nuclear Generating Station
Bruce Power Bruce Power LP, or Bruce Power, Inc., as the case may be depending on context
CANDU
® A Canadian developed nuclear power reactor system. The name is derived from
Canada Deuterium Uranium, indicating the moderator is deuterium or heavy water,
and that the fuel is natural uranium.
CANFLEX Trade name for new 43-element CANDU®
Fuel Bundle
CCW Condenser Cooling Water
CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
CNSC Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
DFGSS Defuelled guaranteed shutdown state
DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada
DIAND Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
EA Environmental Assessment
EC Environment Canada
FA Federal Authority
FEAI Federal Environmental Assessment Index
GUCSO Ministry of the Environment Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario
Ha Hectares
HC Health Canada
HLW High Level Waste
HWP Heavy Water Plant
IX Ion Exchange
kg Kilogram
kg-C Kilograms of Carbon
km kilometer
LILW Low and Intermediate Level Waste
LLW Low Level Waste
LOCA Loss of Coolant Accident
LVRF Low Void Reactivity Fuel
December 2004

Acronym Descriptive Term
MISA Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement
MNR (Ontario) Ministry of Natural Resources
MOE (Ontario) Ministry of the Environment
mSv milliSievert
MW Megawatt
MW(e) Megawatt Electricity
NRCan Ministry of Natural Resources Canada
ODS Ozone Depleting Substances
OP&P Operating Policy and Procedures
OPG Ontario Power Generation
OPGSS Overpoisoned guaranteed shutdown state
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PROL Power Reactor Operating Licence
RA Responsible Authority
SCUBA Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus
SDS2 Shutdown System 2
SG Steam Generator
The County Bruce County
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TWh Terawatt Hours
TSSA Technical Standards and Safety Authority
U-235 Uranium isotope 235
WPCP Water Pollution Control Plant
WSP Water Supply Plant
WWMF Western Waste Management Facility
December 2004

APPENDIX B
Proposed Communications and Consultation Plan
December 2004

Bruce A Refurbishment Bruce Power
for Life Extension and Proposed Communications
Continued Operations Project and Consultation Plan
Bruce Power
Communications and Consultation Plan
Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension and
Revision 1
December 2004
December 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................1
2.0 OBJECTIVE ...............................................................................................................2
2.1 Specific Objectives .................................................................................... 2
3.0 COMMUNICATIONS AND CONSULTATION PLAN................................................3
3.1 Focus Area ................................................................................................ 3
3.2 Process...................................................................................................... 3
3.3 Stakeholders.............................................................................................. 4
3.4 Stakeholder Database............................................................................... 4
3.5 Notification Advertisements and Letters.................................................... 5
3.6 Stakeholder Contact.................................................................................. 5
3.7 Stakeholder Briefings and Interviews ........................................................ 5
3.8 Open Houses............................................................................................. 6
3.9 Community Displays.................................................................................. 6
3.10 Newsletters/Brochures .............................................................................. 7
3.11 Bruce Power Employee Consultation Activities......................................... 7
3.12 Web Site.................................................................................................... 7
3.13 Comments and Issues Tracking................................................................ 7
3.14 Media......................................................................................................... 8
December 2004

1.0 BACKGROUND
Bruce Power will formally announce its intent to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
(CNSC) to proceed with the Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension and Continued
Operations Project (hereinafter referred to as the “Project” for the purposes of the EA).
The Project entails restarting Bruce A Units 1&2 (currently laid-up), replacing key components of
Units 3&4 (currently operating), and operating the four-unit station, potentially using a new fuel
formulation, through the extended lives of the refurbished reactors, potentially at full capacity.
The four Bruce A reactors are located on the Bruce Power site in Kincardine, Ontario.
The restart of Units 1&2 will create approximately 1,650 MW of additional electrical generating
capacity for Ontario. Upgrading and enhancing activities and the potential future use of LVRF
will permit long-term high-output operation and potentially allow operation at greater than 92.5%
capacity (the current authorized output for of Units 3&4). In total, the Project may ultimately
generate in excess of 1,700 MW in clean, non-greenhouse-gas-generating power for Ontario.
The Bruce A Refurbishment for Life Extension and Continued Operations Project is comprised of
the following principal activities:
• Required maintenance of Units 1&2 during lay-up;
• Fuel Channel Replacement in Units 1-4;
• Nuclear Systems Upgrade in Units 1-4 (including steam generators);
• Balance-of-Plant Upgrade in Units 1-4 (conventional systems);
• Refuelling Units 1&2 with initial load of fuel;
• Restarting Units 1&2 and operating through their extended life including
maintenance; and
• Potentially loading Low Void Reactivity Fuel (LVRF) and subsequently operating at
maximum reactor power6
.
It is Bruce Power’s understanding that some of these project activities (highlighted in bold) will
require amendments to the license by the CNSC, including an EA under the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). Bruce Power understands that the CNSC will determine
the scope of the EA which would at a minimum encompass all project activities including those
which will require licence amendments and those which are permitted or required by the existing
licence. The EA will also assess the direct effects of all project activities on the environment over
a time frame that extends from 2004 to 2043. The EA will also assess the cumulative effect of
6
Maximum reactor power is currently expected to be 95.5 % of maximum continuous rating.
December 20041

other projects, including Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG’s) Western Waste Management
Facility (WWMF).
This document provides a plan for conducting consultation and communication activities which
will be undertaken as part of the EA.
2.0 OBJECTIVE
The primary objectives of this communication plan are to:
• Deliver project information;
• Address community issues and concerns;
• Provide opportunities for input by the community at large and to groups and individuals
with a specific interest in the Project; and
• To meet requirements under CEAA.
Bruce Power and its consultants will implement this communications and consultation plan and
will ensure that Bruce Power's Corporate interests and messages are utilized to fulfill
communication objectives.
As project issues and events arise, this document is open to review and revision to ensure
appropriate action and response to the changing needs of interested public, stakeholders and
interested groups.
Revisions to this Plan must be approved by the Vice President Corporate Communications and
accepted by the Bruce A Restart Nuclear Safety and Licensing Manager.
2.1 Specific Objectives
To form the basis of the initial communications initiatives of the Project, an educational approach
must be taken to allow a good understanding of the Project. The focus of the communications
plan is to address project issues and provide information on the anticipated effects on the
environment, human health and safety. After the initial announcement of the Project, the
communications will address issues and questions such as the following:
1. What is involved in the Project?
2. What is the objective and timelines of the Project?
3. What effect will the Project have on the environment, human health and safety?
4. What are the benefits of the Project?
December 20042

3.0 COMMUNICATIONS AND CONSULTATION PLAN
3.1 Focus Area
The primary focus area for this communications plan consists of the five municipalities proximate
to the Bruce Power site. In addition, some members of the public, including stakeholders and
interested parties that do not live in close proximity to the Bruce Power site will be included in all
aspects of this communication plan. The municipalities identified, as the primary focus area for
this communications plan could include the following six municipalities:
a) Huron Kinloss;
b) Brockton;
c) Arran Elderslie;
d) Saugeen Shores;
e) Kincardine; and
f) Owen Sound.
In addition to these Bruce County municipalities, elected representatives and County officials in
Bruce County could also be consulted.
3.2 Process
To maximize the effectiveness of this communication plan, the following key processes will be
followed:
a) Identify interested stakeholders (defined in section 3.3, following) along with their
communication needs. If required, establish an EA-specific stakeholder list as identified
by CNSC;
b) Inform all stakeholders about the progress of the Project, i.e., milestones and key
activities;
c) Provide opportunities for stakeholders to exchange information and identify and discuss
any concerns they may have;
d) Ensure communications activities identified for the Project align and do not conflict with
other Bruce Power activities;
e) Document and maintain a record of all communication processes and outcomes;
f) Identify and document issues, comments and concerns raised by stakeholders related to
the Project and Bruce Power in general, as they arise;
g) Develop and maintain an up-to-date stakeholder comment database;
h) Develop and document all appropriate responses to address issues as they arise; and
December 20043

i) Post comments and responses to a dedicated public website.
3.3 Stakeholders
To ensure all interested members of public, individuals and groups are captured in this
communication process, stakeholder identification will consider the following:
a) Past Bruce A Restart EA stakeholder list;
b) Past Bruce B New Fuel EA stakeholder list;
c) Interveners in the Bruce Power re-licensing process;
d) Response to advertisements/brochures/newsletters;
e) Attendance at project public information sessions; and
f) Suggestions.
Stakeholder groups and individuals will be identified in, but not limited to the following key
stakeholder categories:
a) Regulatory Agency – CNSC;
b) Federal government – local and area MPs, departmental and agency staff;
c) Local First Nations communities;
d) Provincial government – local and area MPPs, ministry and agency staff;
e) Regional and local municipal councils, agencies and staff;
f) Community Committees including Regional Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Group;
g) Bruce Economic Development Committee;
h) Bruce Energy Center Customers;
i) Established non-governmental organizations;
j) Neighbouring landowners in the vicinity of the Bruce Power site;
k) Community residents, ratepayers, business associations, and suppliers;
l) Bruce Power Employees;
m) General public; and
n) Print and Broadcast Media.
3.4 Stakeholder Database
To ensure all pertinent stakeholder contact information is maintained, a stakeholder database,
with the appropriate contact information, will be developed and kept current throughout the
December 20044

environmental assessment, CNSC decision on the EA, and the initial phases of work, anticipated
to extend to 2008.
While building on the existing Bruce B New Fuel EA stakeholder database, this database will
identify the name, address, phone, fax, email and affiliation.
3.5 Notification Advertisements and Letters
Media outlets such as: dailies, community papers, radio and television could be utilized to
announce, in advance any project community involvement activities.
Direct mail flyers and advance notification letters will also be sent to persons on the contact list
announcing these occasions in the event.
3.6 Stakeholder Contact
Appropriate stakeholder contact activities will be undertaken to conduct initial identification of
stakeholder concerns and issues. Communication will be maintained throughout the Project
period to ensure questions and concerns are addressed in a timely fashion as they arise. The
number, severity, nature or frequency of the concerns and issues raised will determine the nature
and frequency of the contact with stakeholder groups.
Key stakeholders will be notified of Open Houses and/or Workshops through formal invitations,
announcements in the media and through the regular project newsletters.
3.7 Stakeholder Briefings and Interviews
All stakeholders with a known interest in the Project could be offered presentations and a chance
to have questions and comments answered. Project material will be made available to
participants in advance of any presentation. Where appropriate and in consultation with First
Nations representatives, special meetings may be arranged for First Nation communities. All
feedback received from these will be recorded for incorporation into the stakeholder comment
database, response and issue management tracking system, as appropriate.
Regular project updates will be presented to elected representatives of the following committees
on a frequency commensurate of key project activities and milestones at a minimum:
a) Impact Advisory Committee; and
b) Local Liaison Committee.
December 20045

3.8 Open Houses
Three or four rounds of Open Houses could be held throughout the initial phase of the Project to
identify and address public concerns or issues pertaining to the Project.
The first Open House will be held at the Bruce Power Visitors’ Centre with the subsequent Open
Houses held in the surrounding communities. These would provide a forum for two-way
communication between participants and Bruce Power. Table 3-1 presents the planned focus of
each series of Open Houses.
Table 3-1: Planned Focus of the Open Houses
Open House Focus
1) Round 1 • Project process and calendar
• Preliminary Project Description
• Public Communications Plan
• Public questions and answer period
• Study process and components
• VEC selection
2) Round 2 • Project calendar up-date
• Project interactions with the environment
• Preliminary existing conditions
• Comments received and responses
3) Round 3 • Project calendar up-date
• Project interactions with the environment
• Preliminary EA results
• Comments received and responses
4) Round 4 • As necessary
3.9 Community Displays
Following each series of Open Houses, the information provided at Open Houses, such as
newsletters comment sheets, etc., will be available for viewing at identified local library
information repositories.
The libraries used as public information repositories for the Project are:
a) Kincardine;
December 20046

b) Port Elgin;
c) Tiverton;
d) Southampton;
e) Walkerton;
f) Paisley; and
g) Hanover.
The location of the repositories will be made known to the community and interested stakeholders
through the Project newsletters, web page and other information materials. Addition information
repositories can be added if a need is identified.
3.10 Newsletters/Brochures
Newsletters/brochures relating to Project updates and Open House events could be prepared and
distributed to all contacts listed in the stakeholder database, residents and businesses in identified
areas within the primary focus area.
3.11 Bruce Power Employee Consultation Activities
As part of ongoing communication with employees, Bruce Power informs its employees of
environmental assessments through various means. Newsletters are displayed on site brochure
racks throughout the Bruce Power site, and display versions of Open House panels are mounted
in cafeterias, administration areas and the Bruce Power Visitors’ Centre. Team talks, The Point
weekly newsletter and the company’s intranet site are also used to inform Bruce Power
employees of the EA.
3.12 Web Site
A project web page on the main Bruce Power web site will be established. The web site will
serve as a vehicle to provide information to interested persons, as well as a mechanism to receive
input from interested persons as an enhancement of the public consultation program. Information
such as: scope, schedule, descriptions, events and contacts pertaining to the Project and the EA
study process will be maintained current.
3.13 Comments and Issues Tracking
A comment database will be created to track, record and monitor all comments, correspondence
and communications with stakeholders in the Project communication process.
December 20047

The Stakeholder Comment Database objectives are:
a) Identify and record the source of the comment (name of person or group);
b) Indicate the date and event of origin;
c) Identify the type of communication and the original document for cross-referencing
(letter, meeting report, email, voicemail report, etc.);
d) Provide a summary of the comment and response;
e) Indicate the response action taken, when and by whom; and
f) Document how the response was communicated to the comment source, where
applicable.
3.14 Media
The media are an important vehicle to disseminate information to a wider audience. Bruce Power
will ensure that the media are advised of Project events and the progress of these activities.
December 20048

Bruce Power Project-Description

More Related Content

What's hot

Bruce Power Project-Description