���������

�

HEARING DAY ONE�

Bruce Power Inc.:�

Application to consider an amendment of the�

operating licence for the restart of Bruce A Units�

3 and 4�

THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning.�

We will now move to Hearing Day�

One of a two-day process on the matter of the�

application by Bruce Power Inc. to consider an

amendment to the operating licence for the restart�

of Bruce A Units 3 and 4.��

MR. LEBLANC: The Notice of Public��

Hearing 2002-H18 was published on September 20,��

2002. December 16th was the deadline set for��

filing by the applicant and by CNSC staff.��

January 8th was the deadline for filing of��

supplementary information by the applicant and��

Commission staff.��

�

03-H5.1 / 03-H5.1A�

Oral presentation by Bruce Power Inc.��

THE CHAIRPERSON: I would like to��

begin by calling on Bruce Power Inc. for their��

oral presentation, as outlined in CMD documents��

03-H5.1 and CMD 03-H5.1A.��

���������

�

I will turn it over to the�

President and CEO, Mr. Duncan Hawthorne.�

MR. HAWTHORNE: Madam President,�

Members of the Commission, good morning.�

My name is Duncan Hawthorne, and I�

am Bruce Power's Chief Executive Officer.�

With me today are Robert Nixon,�

our Executive Vice-President of Production, Ken�

Talbot, Executive Vice-President and Chief

Engineer, and Ron Mottram, Vice-President Bruce A�

Restart.��

Bruce Power is pleased to be here��

today at the second of three days of regulatory��

hearings required to restart Bruce A Units 3 and��

4. We appeared before the Commission on December��

12th to report on the 22-month comprehensive��

environmental assessment which produced nine��

technical support documents reviewing 132 possible��

effects.�

Today we are here to report on the�

licensing requirements.��

Prior to coming here we have met��

CNSC staff many times and addressed 53 identified��

requirements in 22 submissions in response to��

their requests.��

���������

�

In advance of this meeting the�

Commission received a detailed report of the work�

undertaken to meet the technical requirements for�

a safe restart. The purpose of this presentation�

is to provide an overview of the key points in the�

submission.�

As part of its nuclear plant�

recovery program the previous licensee had removed�

Units 1, 3 and 4 from operational service by the

spring of 1998, Unit 2 having been laid-up in�

1995. At the time they were laid-up, Units 3 and��

4 were known to have operational life and there��

were no technical issues that factored into the��

closure decision.��

A detailed lay-up program was��

produced and the plant lay-up followed. While��

Bruce A was in a laid-up state, it continued to be��

a Class 1 facility and Bruce Power continued to��

oversee the facility as such. This ensured that�

operator rounds and maintenance activity continued�

and that Bruce A was maintained in a well��

controlled state.��

Over 200 staff were involved in��

lay-up activities and security was maintained to��

the appropriate standards.��

���������

�

Units 1 and 2 continue to remain�

under the control of the lay-up program.�

Bruce Power made the decision to�

restart Units 3 and 4 based on the clear market�

demand and a belief that remnant life remained in�

the asset. The Ontario electricity market needs�

additional generating capacity, and Bruce A Units�

3 and 4 are capable of adding 1500 megawatts of�

much needed safe, clean and reliable power.

A rigorous condition assessment�

indicated that there were no significant technical��

impediments to the restart. All the critical��

elements to justify the restart were included in��

the scope of the project. My colleagues will��

address these elements in their comments.��

A detailed business plan was��

developed which was accepted by the Bruce Power��

Board.��

Bruce Power was confident that its�

employees had the expertise necessary to proceed�

with the restart and a highly effective project��

team was established by drawing on experienced��

staff from Operations, Engineering and Maintenance��

and augmented by external staff under the control��

of Bruce Power management.��

���������

�

Embarking on a significant restart�

project so soon after assuming operational control�

was not a decision taken lightly by the Bruce�

Power board.�

We had to be satisfied that it�

would be possible to maintain and enhance the�

performance of the Bruce B units while we�

proceeded with this restart project.�

Prior to launching the restart

program, Bruce Power conducted a comprehensive�

assessment to ensure that both the technical��

capability and staff expertise existed on the��

site.��

We determined the necessary human��

resources were on site and were able to be��

redeployed and to be retrained if that was��

necessary. Many of the staff had more than 20��

years' experience with the operational Bruce A.��

As the restart proceeded, Bruce�

Power worked hard to lay the foundation for the�

transition to a six-unit site.��

As the major employer and the��

economic engine to our immediate area, Bruce Power��

has a major impact on the region. We have worked��

hard to integrate ourselves within the community��

���������

�

and established strong links with community�

organizations and local government.�

The Bruce A restart is a major�

development for our region and Bruce Power has�

worked very closely with the community. Members�

of our Executive Team are active participants in�

Economic Development, Joint Liaison and Impact�

Advisory committees. We have strived to keep the�

community informed of our progress on the restart

and to address any concerns they may have.�

The Bruce A restart is strongly��

supported by our local community and that is��

demonstrated by the many supportive interventions��

made during the environmental assessment hearings��

held on December 12th.��

I would now like to introduce our��

Vice-President of Bruce A Restart, Ron Mottram,��

who will outline the steps Bruce Power has taken��

to ensure the safe and timely return to service of�

Units 3 and 4.�

MR. MOTTRAM: Thank you, Duncan.��

Madam President and Members of the��

Commission, my name is Ron Mottram and I am the��

Vice-President of the Bruce A Restart.��

Bruce Power embarked on one of the��

���������

�

most comprehensive assessments of a CANDU station�

in July 2000. This "Condition Assessment" project�

was tasked with determining the detailed scope of�

all activities that would be required to return�

the Bruce A Units 3 and 4 back to full power�

operation.�

The condition assessment project�

was completed by March 2001, within budget and to�

schedule. Using the scope and restart timeline, a

business model was constructed and we were able to�

confirm that there was a business case to restart��

Units 3 and 4.��

The predicted life of the units��

was eight years for Unit 3 and 13 years for Unit��

4. The estimated cost of the project was $340��

million.��

The conclusions of the condition��

assessment were reviewed by an independent panel��

comprised of experts from CANDU industry, British�

Energy Director of Engineering and USA consultants�

prior to the presentation of the business case to��

the board. They endorsed not only the technical��

merits of the case but also endorsed the remnant��

life predictions.��

After the go-ahead was given the��

���������

�

project was divided into four main areas:�

(1) safety and licensing�

requirements -- for example, safety analysis and�

probabilistic risk assessment, and so on;�

(2) projects to be completed by�

external contracts like qualified power supply�

upgrades and internal projects and plant�

maintenance, such as overhaul of low pressure�

service water pumps;

(3) support systems which looked�

at things like operational experience and quality��

assurance requirements; and��

(4) operations division, which��

will be the group left to run the plant after the��

restart has been completed.��

The organization structure��

reflected this approach. A significant part of��

the work was scheduled to be completed by "in��

house" staff, therefore ensuring that they would�

be experienced in the A Station plant after�

restart.��

The overall philosophy was to use��

the B Station basic systems approach, modified as��

appropriate.��

The project timeline was��

���������

considered to be driven by the work required to�

update the Safety Case.�

It was recognized that there would�

need to be a number of CNSC hearings. These would�

be to hear the environmental assessment and then�

the licence application hearings.�

The environmental assessment of a�

nuclear station restart, as per the Canadian�

Environmental Assessment Act, had only been

completed once before in Canada. The�

environmental assessment process provided a clear��

road map and defined the scope and sequence. This��

information was built into the restart planning.��

The existing safety analysis,��

which supported the safety case, was known to��

require revision due to methodology changes that��

had occurred since the shutdown of Bruce A. The��

work required to bring the analysis up to date was��

technically challenging and time consuming. Once�

the safety analysis activities had been factored�

into the overall restart plan, it became the��

critical path for the project.��

During the course of the project a��

change to the scope of the regulatory steps for��

the environmental assessment occurred to further��

���������

�

enhance the transparency of the regulatory�

process.�

The work required to safely return�

the plant to service was collated by two main�

routes: improvement projects that were known to�

be required and work to overcome known plant�

defects or to complete routine inspections.�

The detailed scope was defined by�

the creation of multidiscipline teams who walked

all 109 plant systems and produced System Restart�

Scoping Reports.��

The results of the condition��

assessment report defined that some additional��

inspections were required on steam generators and��

these were completed. The independent panel was��

reconvened to assess the further data.��

During the project there has been��

an amount of discovery work. Two examples of this��

would be the need to carry out extensive work on�

the 13.8 kV transfer system and to complete the�

cleaning of the internal surfaces of the main��

generator stator conductors.��

The total volume of "in house��

work" was 240,000 hours, excluding the routine��

effort required to maintain the lay-up state. In��

���������

��

addition, approximately 100 individual projects�

were identified.�

I would now like to turn the�

presentation over to Ken Talbot.�

MR. TALBOT: Thank you, Ron.�

My name is Ken Talbot and I am�

Executive Vice-President and Chief Engineer.�

In order not to unduly distract�

Bruce B operations with the Bruce A restart

program, the restart project to date has been�

under my purview. This has enabled us to ensure��

the appropriate utilization of resources across��

the site.��

After taking over the design��

authority for the Bruce units, we set about��

ensuring we could maintain the technical��

engineering expertise to support outstanding��

performance of both the A and B units. We have��

done this by several means.�

We have combined site engineering�

and project staff with past Bruce A and B��

experience with the operations and maintenance��

people to form the restart team. They have been��

planning and performing the necessary restart��

activities and regenerating the expertise to��

���������

��

safely operate and maintain the plant.�

We have been recruiting and�

training our own engineering resources in the�

design disciplines and are establishing�

contractual arrangements with external sources of�

specialized CANDU expertise.�

Our continuing participation in�

the CANDU industry groups, such as the CANDU�

Owners Group (COG), in support of the research and

development on generic and other CANDU engineering�

related issues.��

We are in the process of��

negotiating with other potential partners to��

maintain the life cycle management of critical��

components such as steam generators and fuel��

channels.��

The Bruce A restart project itself��

was founded on an extensive assessment of both the��

physical condition of the systems, structures,�

components and the supporting design basis�

documentation.��

From this assessment spawned the��

need to upgrade the plant to further reduce the��

operational risk and in turn the business risk.��

These improvements included environmental��

���������

��

qualification, fire protection, seismic capacity,�

electrical power distribution and security. These�

will be completed to the necessary degree prior to�

restart.�

All of these improvements are�

either complete or nearing completion and further�

enhance our safety case and the life cycle�

management programs. All improvements and changes�

are being performed to strict engineering change

controls and even though many of these changes are�

being performed by independent contractors, site��

engineering and design staff are approving all��

changes and verifying appropriate completion��

quality.��

Significant upgrades have also��

been made to our security capabilities. Security��

facilities, equipment, training and response��

capability have all been enhanced. The details��

are "security protected" and not appropriate for�

discussion in this forum, but CNSC staff are fully�

apprised of the enhancements.��

Our Technical Surveillance��

Program, with its comprehensive reporting on the��

health of all operational systems, is already��

being applied to Bruce A as systems are placed��

���������

��

into service.�

This information is being fed into�

maintenance and plant life cycle management which�

ensures a seamless transfer of inspection,�

maintenance and improvement programs from the�

restart phase to long-term operation. Not only�

are these arrangements demonstrating improved�

equipment health and reliability at Bruce B, they�

have also received accolades from peer

organizations such as WANO.�

I would now like to turn the��

presentation over to Robert Nixon.��

MR. NIXON: Thank you, Ken.��

Madam President and Members of the��

Commission, my name is Robert Nixon and I am��

Executive Vice-President of Production for Bruce��

Power.��

Bruce Power plans to manage the��

site as an integrated six-unit facility through a�

phased approach.�

Currently the work management and��

outage management processes are already being��

applied to Bruce A to ensure a smooth transfer.��

There are sufficient maintenance and engineering��

resources to safely operate and maintain all six��

���������

��

units, and the majority of engineering and�

maintenance staff presently involved in the�

restart activities will remain beyond restart.�

The restart is being handled in�

three phases:�

In Phase One, which is prior to�

fuel loading, all restart activities were the�

responsibility of Restart Vice-President, Ron�

Mottram.

In Phase Two, as fuelling�

commences, all activities and plant systems that��

maintain the Guaranteed Shutdown State will come��

under my oversight as Executive VP - Production.��

On removal of the Guaranteed��

Shutdown State, the responsibility for the safety��

of operations for the entire unit transfers to my��

department.��

As the first unit is placed into��

service, maintenance direction comes from the site�

maintenance organization under the EVP-Chief�

Engineer, Ken Talbot. That is to maintain the��

focus of the Restart Team on restart activities.��

Then in Phase Three when both��

units are in service, all engineering and��

maintenance functions for the six units will be��

���������

��

under the direction of the EVP-Chief Engineer, and�

operations for all six units will be under the�

control of myself as EVP-Production.�

In the area of training and�

staffing, it is worth noting that the required�

staffing has been maintained to provide continuing�

operational oversight of the Bruce A plant in its�

laid-up state. From that position, Bruce Power�

has identified staffing and training as an ongoing

challenge and has acted to address critical areas.�

We have conducted a long-term��

staffing capability assessment and are recruiting��

new staff. Approximately 400 new staff have been��

recruited, including key staff areas such as��

control technicians and nuclear operators.��

A new intensive First Line��

Managers program has been introduced to ensure all��

supervisors possess the management tools for their��

role. This received a very positive review as an�

industry strength in a World Association of�

Nuclear Operators review.��

Bruce Power has put in place a��

two-tier training oversight committee to ensure��

training standards are established and met, that��

training needs are effectively addressed, and that��

���������

��

both the licensed and non-licensed training�

programs are being upgraded.�

This meets best industry practice�

world-wide.�

Training and qualification of�

licensed staff are in progress and will be�

completed along with the issuance of CNSC staff�

certificates prior to the start of the first unit.�

Bruce Power is committed to

ensuring that Bruce A will have well-trained,�

first-class staff committed to safe reliable��

operations.��

Bruce Power is committed to��

operating the Bruce Nuclear facility as a six-unit��

site. This will allow us to integrate our systems��

and maximize our resources to ensure safe and��

reliable consistent operations.��

It is useful to review the CNSC��

ratings for Bruce B as a benchmark of Bruce�

Power's operational success. This review covered�

all programmatic areas for Bruce A and B and all��

the relevant operational aspects.��

On the program side, the CNSC��

identified our emergency preparedness under��

safeguards as exceeding requirements and all other��

���������

��

aspects as meeting requirements.�

On the implementation side,�

emergency preparedness, environmental performance�

and safeguards all exceeded requirements.�

However, the CNSC noted that while our performance�

assurance program met requirements, our�

implementation needed improvement. This is a�

priority for Bruce Power and we have been actively�

addressing this area.

Our number one value at Bruce�

Power is safety first, because we recognize the��

fact that the most commercially successful nuclear��

power operations are also the safest. This leads��

to improved public confidence in our operations.��

Contributing to this confidence is��

reliable, high-quality human performance in the��

day-to-day operation of the plant as measured by��

event-free operations.��

All our initiatives, including the�

use of event-free tools, field observation and�

coaching and planned inspections have been applied��

across the site, including Bruce A and Bruce B.��

The improving trend has been achieved through��

productivity improvements, enabling us to free��

staff to assist with the complex task of��

���������

�

restarting Bruce A Units 3 and 4.�

For example, in the area of�

industrial safety, programmatic efforts such as�

the implementation of the International Safety�

Rating System, ISRS, in combination with our joint�

union-management sponsored target zero initiative�

are having a positive impact in that we are seeing�

an improving trend at Bruce A and Bruce B.�

I would now like to turn the

presentation back to Duncan Hawthorne.�

MR. HAWTHORNE: Thank you, Robert.��

Clearly my colleagues have��

outlined what is a very complex and multi-task��

project. It is helpful, recognizing that many of��

the tasks are still ongoing, to give the��

Commission a general view of current progress in��

some of the major areas.��

Environmental assessment. The��

CNSC Screening Report was accepted in January�

2003.�

Some of the larger projects, the��

introduction of a qualified power supply upgrade��

is some 70 per cent complete, with full completion��

shortly.��

Class 1 battery banks replacement��

���������

�

is more than 75 per cent complete.�

Emergency Coolant Injection�

Strainer System is more than 88 per cent complete.�

Emergency Filtered Air Discharge�

System is greater than 50 per cent complete.�

On Units 3 and 4 themselves,�

replacement of the Class 1 battery banks is more�

than 75 per cent complete.�

Steam line relocation is complete,

awaiting start up to commission.�

Fuel channel repositioning --��

which is a major project itself -- on Unit 3 is��

more than 80 per cent complete, with full��

completion by January 19th.��

Fuel channel Spacer Location and��

Repositioning of Unit 4 is now fully complete.��

Madam Chair and Members of the��

Commission, Bruce Power feels confident that we��

have completed or will complete all of the�

necessary components to ensure a safe, reliable�

and timely return to service of Bruce A Units 3��

and 4.��

If the Commission approves the��

licence amendment, Bruce Power will fulfil its��

plan to become a fully operational six-unit site��

���������

��

by the summer of 2003.�

We will then prepare for regular�

outages and continue the periodic inspection�

program and in-service inspection program to�

ensure that Bruce A, Units 3 and 4 provide safe,�

reliable electricity to the people of Ontario.�

Thank you for your attention. We�

would be happy to answer any questions.�

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very

much.�

I will now turn to CNSC staff for��

their presentation before we open the floor for��

questions.��

��

03-H5��

Oral presentation by CNSC staff��

THE CHAIRPERSON: I would like to��

ask Mr. Blyth to address the CNSC presentation as��

outlined in CMD document 03-H5.�

Mr. Blyth.�

MR. BLYTH: Thank you very much,��

Madam President, Members of the Commission.��

Again for the record my name is��

Jim Blyth. With me today are Mr. Jim Douglas, who��

is the CNSC's Director of Compliance and Licensing��

���������

��

at the Bruce site; Mr. Maury Burton, Project�

Officer at our office at Bruce A who played a�

major role in preparing the staff document and has�

been project managing our part of the Bruce A�

restart.�

We are presenting CMD 03-H5 to the�

Commission for a decision regarding Bruce Power's�

application for an amendment to the Bruce Nuclear�

Generating Station A operating licence to allow

the restart of Units 3 and 4.�

The current licence for this��

station will expire on October 31, 2003. Hearings��

for the renewal of this licence will take place��

later this year.��

I will now turn the presentation��

over to Mr. Burton.��

MR. BURTON: Thank you, Jim.��

Good morning, Madam President and��

Members of the Commission. I am Maury Burton, a�

Project Officer in the Bruce Compliance and�

Licensing Division.��

This presentation summarizes CNSC��

staff's review of Bruce Power's licence amendment��

application for Bruce A and the licensees��

performance during the current licensing period,��

���������

��

including the Bruce A restart project.�

The CMD contains further details�

in support of this summary.�

At present at Bruce A all four�

units are in a laid up guaranteed shut down state�

in accordance with the current operating licence.�

Bruce Power has indicated that they would like to�

restart Units 3 and 4 and operate these units for�

eight and 13 years respectively.

The Commission held a one-day�

hearing in December 2002 on the environmental��

assessment screening report for the Bruce A��

restart application. The Commission rendered its��

decision on this environmental assessment��

screening report on January 6, 2003.��

The Commission also held a one-day��

hearing in December 2002 on allowing a designated��

officer to consider Bruce Power's application to��

amend the Bruce A operating licence to allow the�

refuelling of Units 3 and 4. In its decision�

rendered on January 6, 2003, the Commission��

decided to allow the designated officer to��

consider the application.��

To update the Commission, the��

Bruce A power reactor operating licence was��

���������

��

amended by a designated officer on January 13,�

2003 to permit the refuelling of Units 3 and 4.�

The restart of Units 3 and 4 is�

being considered at this hearing. Day 2 of this�

hearing is scheduled for February 26, 2003.�

On November 16, 2001, Bruce Power�

applied to the Commission for an amendment to its�

power reactor operating licence to allow the�

restart of Bruce A Units 3 and 4.

Staff has reviewed the application�

and concludes that it contains all the information��

prescribed by the General Nuclear Safety and��

Control Regulations and the Class 1 Facility��

Regulations.��

Acceptance of the licence��

amendment and staff recommendations by the��

Commission would be the first step towards the��

restart of Bruce A Units 3 and 4.��

Actual restart of these reactors�

is still several months off. As can be seen from�

the Appendix C of CMD 03-H05, a considerable��

amount of work has yet to be completed by Bruce��

Power.��

On January 31, 2002, CNSC staff��

send a letter to Bruce Power outlining staff��

���������

��

requirements for the review of the licence�

amendment application. The staff review of Bruce�

Power's submissions on these requirements form the�

basis of staff's conclusions and recommendations.�

Some of the requirements include:�

that all previously identified and committed�

safety upgrades be completed; a comprehensive�

safely assessment be completed reviewing the�

station against modern codes and standards; all

upgrades essential to safety identified as a�

result of the comprehensive safety review be��

installed prior to restart; and improvement��

programs started by Ontario Power Generation at��

Bruce B be implemented at Bruce A to a level��

similar to Bruce B.��

CNSC staff has reviewed the��

information submitted by Bruce Power in its��

application to restart Bruce A and has assessed��

the adequacy of the program descriptions.�

CNSC staff has also assessed the�

implementation of these programs, mainly using the��

following two sources of information. CNSC staff��

has used Bruce Power's past performance in the��

context of Bruce B operation to assess the��

implementation of programs that are generic to the��

���������

��

operation of Bruce A and B.�

For example, staff has assessed�

the implementation of Bruce Power's environmental�

monitoring program using information that is�

available from its operation of Bruce B.�

Staff has also used information�

gained from Bruce Power's performance in the�

context of activities carried out for the restart�

of Bruce A. For example, CNSC staff has used

Bruce Power's performance in carrying out restart�

training activities to assess the implementation��

of the training program.��

Staff's overall rating of the��

licensee's performance is "B. Meets Requirements".��

This was determined by evaluating the licensee's��

programs and performance in each of the nine��

safety areas.��

The radioactive emissions from the��

station are well below regulatory limits and the�

radiological risk to workers and the public are�

acceptably low.��

As well, programs are being��

implemented as part of the restart project��

improving station safety and reliability.��

There are two areas of licensee��

���������

��

performance that fall below CNSC requirements and�

are rated by staff as "C". They are training,�

examination and certification in the performance�

assurance safety area and structural integrity in�

the equipment fitness for service safety area.�

In October 2002 CNSC staff raised�

concerns regarding the lack of training that had�

occurred to date and requested training material�

and schedules from Bruce Power.

At the present time staff is�

concerned that the majority of training is being��

developed and delivered on a just-in-time basis.��

In particular, the quantity of training that��

station modifications could require may result in��

an overly aggressive training schedule. Should��

the Commission amend the licence and accept CNSC��

staff recommendations, staff will require that��

prior to restart Bruce Power submit evidence that��

all workers have successfully completed refresher�

and upgrade training appropriate to the knowledge�

and skill requirements of their position to regain��

their full competence.��

The area of structural integrity��

covers three of the most critical components in a��

nuclear station: steam generators, pressure tubes��

���������

��

and feeder pipes. At the present time there are�

outstanding dispositions on feeder pipes and�

pressure tubes that are required before CNSC staff�

can complete an assessment of the fitness for�

service of these components.�

The periodic inspection plans�

required by licence condition 5.2 for Units 3 and�

4 were submitted by Bruce Power on December 13,�

2002 and are currently being reviewed by CNSC

staff.�

If the Commission amends the��

licence and accepts CNSC staff recommendations,��

these outstanding issues will need to be resolved��

before the Bruce A units can be restarted.��

Due to the fact that Bruce A��

restart is an ongoing project there were a number��

of items that were not complete at the time of��

writing CMD 03-H05. These items are listed in��

Appendix C of the CMD. These items are considered�

by CNSC staff to be necessary for the safe�

operation of Bruce A or must be completed to meet��

the assumptions used in the preparation of the��

environmental assessment screening report.��

If the Commission amends the��

licence and accepts CNSC staff recommendations,��

���������

�

then the items listed in Appendix C will require�

written assurances of completion from Bruce Power�

and CNSC staff verification before the removal of�

the guaranteed shutdown state for either Unit 3 or�

4.�

Bruce Power has undertaken a�

number of safety upgrades to the station. These�

include:�

the addition of a secondary

control area to provide monitoring and shutdown�

capability remotely from the main control room��

should it become uninhabitable;��

upgrading the backup emergency��

electrical power supply, known as the qualified��

power system, to improve both functionality and��

reliability;��

environmentally qualifying the��

station to protect against harsh environments��

caused by postulated high-pressure steam or water�

line failures;�

installing seismic upgrade��

modifications; and��

installing improved fire��

protection capabilities.��

As noted previously, the��

���������

�

Commission held a one-day hearing in December 2002�

on the environmental assessment screening report�

required for this application. The Commission has�

concluded that the screening report meets all the�

requirements set out in the approved EA guidelines�

and subsection 16(1) of the Canadian Environmental�

Assessment Act.�

The Commission will not refer the�

project to Federal Minister of the Environment for

his referral to a panel, review or mediator.�

The project, taking into account��

the appropriate mitigation measures, is not likely��

to cause significant environmental effects and,��

consistent with the course of action described in��

paragraph 20(1)(a) of the Canadian Environmental��

Assessment Act, the Commission will proceed with��

the consideration of Bruce Power Inc.'s��

application for the amendment of the Bruce A power��

reactor operating licence.�

CNSC staff concludes that Bruce�

Power is qualified to operate the Bruce A Nuclear��

Generating Station in the current guaranteed��

shutdown state and respond to any emergency��

situation.��

Staff further concludes that once��

���������

��

Bruce Power has met the prerequisites listed in�

Appendix C of the CMD, Bruce Power will be�

qualified to operate Bruce A Units 3 and 4 at�

power, making adequate provision for the�

protection of the environment, the health and�

safety of persons and the maintenance of national�

security and measures required to implement the�

international obligations to which Canada has�

agreed.

CNSC staff recommends that the�

Commissioners accept CNSC staff's conclusions and��

amends the licence as proposed.��

If the Commission amends the��

licence as proposed, staff further recommends that��

the Commission allow a designated officer to��

consider Bruce Power's application for an approval��

to restart the reactors pursuant to condition 11.4��

of the proposed licence.��

This concludes staff presentation.�

CNSC staff are available to answer any questions�

the Commission may have.��

Thank you.��

MR. BLYTH: That completes staff's��

presentation.��

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Blyth,��

���������

��

before we open the floor for more general�

questioning, I just have a specific question that�

I believe would help complete the record. I will�

be asking Bruce also.�

I note on CMD 03-H05 on page 40,�

my interpretation is that the current licence for�

Bruce A facility does not include conditions with�

respect to financial guarantees, either�

operational or decommissioning and that you refer

to these as unresolved licensing issues. That can�

be discussed further.��

However, because we had a��

discussion yesterday about operational financial��

guarantees at a meeting of the Commission -- just��

for the record and for the transcript, the��

transcripts of the meeting minutes will be��

available, however just to form that linkage back��

to this discussion and to ensure that it is on��

this record with regards to Bruce A, I wonder if�

you could do a short synopsis from the staff's�

point of view and then I will ask Bruce Power if��

there needs to be additions to that.��

I just feel for the record we��

should have the operational financial guarantees��

for Bruce A on the record for this licence.��

���������

��

First of all, am I correct about�

the current licence, and then the synopsis,�

please.�

MR. BLYTH: Yes, Madam President,�

you are correct.�

I will ask Mr. Paquette, Mr.�

Philippe Paquette of our Bruce Compliance and�

Licensing Division to provide that synopsis.�

MR. PAQUETTE: Thank you, Mr.

Blyth.�

Philippe Paquette, for the record.��

Bonjour madame la présidente,��

bonjour messieurs et mesdames les membres de la��

Commission.��

On December 23 Bruce Power��

announced that a consortium of Canadian-based��

companies had agreed in principal to purchase��

British Energy's share in Bruce Power. Financial��

closure is expected to take place in mid-February�

for this deal. In the meantime, the financial�

guarantees in the Bruce B licence are being��

provided by the U.K. government. CNSC staff��

believes that this guarantee is acceptable as an��

interim provision.��

After financial closure, CNSC��

���������

��

staff intends to proceed on two fronts: establish�

acceptable interim measures and identify an�

acceptable long-term solution.�

In terms of interim measures for�

Bruce A, by Day 2 of the current hearing CNSC�

staff will provide the Commission for its�

consideration and decision a revised proposed�

licence. This revised licence will include a�

condition on financial guarantees that is

consistent with the Bruce B licence.�

With regards to long-term��

solution, CNSC staff is currently trying to obtain��

the services of an independent firm that will��

provide expert advice on the form and amount that��

the long-term financial guarantee solution should��

take.��

CNSC staff will pursue its��

discussions with Bruce Power and will present the��

proposed long-term solution to the Commission at�

the Bruce A and B licence renewal hearings later�

this year for consideration and decision of the��

Commission.��

As Mr. Blyth mentioned earlier in��

his presentation, these licences expire in October��

of the current year.��

���������

��

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.�

Are there any additions, Mr.�

Hawthorne, that you would like to make with�

regards to operational financial guarantees?�

MR. HAWTHORNE: Yes, Madam�

President.�

Just for clarification, one�

further issue that staff did put forth yesterday�

was an acceptance that the current quantum of

financial guarantee was considered adequate to�

support both Bruce B and Bruce A since the sum��

that had been calculated was based on a six month��

of the total site operation and maintenance cost��

and that isn't affected by the number of��

operational units.��

THE CHAIRPERSON: Is that correct,��

Mr. Blyth?��

MR. BLYTH: Yes, that is correct.��

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very�

much. I just thought it was really important for�

us to transfer the information from yesterday to��

today with regards to Bruce A.��

With that, on the record I will��

start now with more general questioning.��

Dr. Barnes.��

���������

��

MEMBER BARNES: To Bruce Power,�

just out of interest, you referred on page 2 of�

your presentation that Units 1 and 2 were�

remaining in lay-up stage.�

Do you plan at this stage to�

consider bringing those back?�

MR. HAWTHORNE: Duncan Hawthorne.�

I think it is fair to say that we have always�

focused our attention on Units 3 and 4 for a

number of reasons.�

One, we understand the remnant��

operational life that remains in Units 3 and 4 and��

that is not the case in 1 and 2. In order to��

restart those there is very significant capital��

investment, such as pressure tubes and steam��

generator replacement.��

Secondly, our assessment of our��

technical and operational staffing capability��

would only ever have allowed us to tackle to at�

this time.�

Thirdly, frankly, there is an��

obvious financial burden required in order to��

raise the investment. Clearly our view would be��

that having successfully restarted Units 3 and 4��

on time, on budget, we would have a different view��

���������

��

perhaps. Clearly there are obvious issues in the�

Ontario marketplace that might or might not�

dictate the validity of a business case to restart�

Units 1 and 2.�

MEMBER BARNES: On page 14 of your�

presentation you gave a table which is the CNSC�

staff report card. But the designations in that�

were different from the report card of staff in�

CMD 03-H05(ii). For example, in the staff one

there are two "C" designations and you only have�

one. There is one "A" in yours under��

environmental performance, which is a "B".��

I'm not quite sure why this is the��

case.��

MR. HAWTHORNE: I also had the��

confusion and if I could just explain.��

This report card that we represent��

here is actually an extract from the CNSC's annual��

review of regulatory performance. So this table�

is a direct take from that.�

MEMBER BARNES: Okay. Maybe to��

staff, on page 10 of your presentation, "3.2.3.1.��

Training Program Evaluation", this is an��

indication that at the present time this is not��

meeting CNSC requirements.��

���������

��

As I understand it, is that right�

under Appendix D that Bruce Power will have to�

give you firm assurance of meeting this before�

startup?�

MR. DOUGLAS: Jim Douglas,�

Director of Compliance and Licensing at Bruce.�

Yes, that is true. We are after�

firm assurance that everyone is qualified to�

operate these reactors and in the meantime we are

doing evaluations of the training program to make�

sure it is being improved and meeting our��

expectations.��

MEMBER BARNES: To Bruce Power,��

referred to really in the staff presentation CMD��

03-H05, pages 28 and 29, dealing with feeder��

piping under the general category of��

"Supplementary Inspection Program", it is pointed��

out that:��

"... even under the most�

favourable scenarios, some�

feeders could require��

replacement after operating��

periods ranging from 2 to 2.8��

years."��

Within the lifespan of the startup period.��

���������

�

One has to wonder why those are�

not being replaced at this stage as opposed to�

within a couple of years after startup. Do I�

understand that correctly?�

MR. MOTTRAM: Yes. Ron Mottram,�

Vice-President, Bruce A.�

The inspections we have done on�

feeders have a set of criteria which says that if�

they are greater than 80 per cent in original

size, then they are not reportable. Eighty per�

cent to 60 per cent falls into the reportable��

category and lower than that, lower than 60 per��

cent is dispositionable. We have to disposition��

he indication.��

All of the feeder measurements we��

have carried out show that all feeders -- most of��

the feeders at 2.5 inch diameter. There is a��

small number on row A which are two inch diameter��

and they are the ones that see the most velocity�

and flow.�

All of the feeders on 3 or 4 are��

actually in the reportable but not dispositionable��

category and therefore we don't expect any��

difficulty, with the exception of one feeder,��

which is A15 East, and it shows that it is��

���������

�

dispositionable.�

We have actually reported that,�

but the code we used in the report we made was,�

again, an inappropriate code and that is in the�

process of being resubmitted.�

Having said that, the position of�

the degradation in that particular feeder is in a�

totally different place as all the rest.�

Typically the extrados of the bend which has the

highest velocity, this particular feeder is�

actually a straight section after the bend and we��

believe that the results are not to do with��

accelerated corrosion at all but just an initial��

anomaly in the construction of that particular��

feeder.��

So it is the only feeder that is��

in a condition of needing any disposition. We can��

disposition it against the current conditions, but��

we intend to inspect it again to demonstrate that�

it is an anomaly in the original feeder geometry�

of that one isolated feeder.��

MEMBER BARNES: Maybe a final��

question to staff.��

On page 30 of your presentation,��

"3.4.3.2 Probabilistic Risk Assessment", in the��

���������

��

last paragraph on that page you indicate that:�

"... probabilistic risk�

assessments are currently not�

a regulatory requirement."�

Just for my interest, should they�

be or are they being considered to be in future?�

MR. BLYTH: Yes, in future all�

power reactors in Canada will have a probabilistic�

risk assessment and CNSC staff have produced

policy to that effect, but they are not in place�

at all facilities at this time.��

MEMBER BARNES: So when is the��

future? When will they be in place and required?��

MR. BLYTH: I will ask Mr. Hawley��

of the System Engineering Division to respond to��

that.��

MR. HAWLEY: This is Pat Hawley,��

Director of the Systems Engineering Division.��

As Mr. Blyth stated, we do have�

policy in draft form at the moment. It is going�

through internal consultation. It has been out��

for external consultation. It is our top priority��

to have out in final form for this fiscal year, or��

the fiscal year coming out.��

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Barnes, I��

���������

��

just wanted to perhaps build on your question with�

regards to the report cards.�

Perhaps reading into your�

question, I wonder if Bruce Power wishes to either�

comment on the report card as a summary as noted�

in (ii) of the staff CMD 03-H5 now or on Day 2 in�

terms of bringing this up to date for Bruce A.�

Would you like to make any�

comments now or would you like to bring that back?

MR. HAWTHORNE: Certainly if it�

helps the Commission today we could give a brief��

overview of where these two issue lie.��

The two issues that we refer to��

are training standards and certification and��

structural integrity matters.��

On a training issue, clearly one��

of the key concerns that staff have highlighted is��

the just-in-time nature of the delivery of some of��

their training packages. As I mentioned in my own�

remarks it is an ongoing project. We see this�

particular area of concern to be related to nine��

modifications which are still in progress and as��

yet not complete and therefore the training of��

this is indeed being carried out just in time in��

that we want to have the modification work��

���������

��

complete in order to delivery timely and relevant�

training information to our staff.�

So I guess, frankly, in that�

regard the question isn't about quality, it is�

about ensuring the timeliness and adequacy of that�

training as those systems are brought into�

service.�

So again I think it is an agreed�

Schedule C content, that as we do these

modifications an important piece of training will�

have to be completed prior to restart.��

On the structural integrity issue,��

I think we recognize also some of the��

documentation continues to be conveyed between��

ourselves and CNSC staff to support pressure tube��

flaw disposition and some of the feeder pipe stuff��

we have just spoken about.��

I guess with respect to pressure��

tubes itself, there are a number of issues there�

which are not specifically to Bruce, they are�

actually industry generic issues in terms of��

overall flaw disposition and code. We continue to��

work with our other utility colleagues as well as��

CNSC staff to resolve those matters.��

Again, we understand that as a��

���������

��

requirement prior to restart.�

THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, I�

should have been more specific actually.�

When you look at the table which�

is (ii) -- and Dr. Barnes will correct me if I am�

wrong here, or the staff -- is there are two�

areas: equipment fitness for service and�

environmental performance -- this is in CMD 03-H5�

-- where the ratings of staff for Bruce A, and we

understand that, are different than the staff�

report card which you correctly say is from the��

status report.��

So there are two areas, equipment��

fitness for service and environmental performance.��

I don't know, Dr. Barnes, if there were others��

that you noted. Those are those two.��

Mr. Blyth would like to comment��

and then I will go back to Mr. Hawthorne.��

MR. BLYTH: I am going to ask Mr.�

Douglas to provide the clarification on this�

point.��

MR. DOUGLAS: Jim Douglas, for the��

record.��

Yes, these are the two areas that��

are below acceptance level, mainly because at the��

���������

��

time we wrote the CMD a lot of this material�

hadn't been submitted to us for review or hadn't�

been assessed. This is an ongoing process.�

Obviously before restart�

everything will meet requirements.�

THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, it�

must be the full moon. We still don't have it.�

Actually, environmental�

performance is not below requirements, it is "B".

So we weren't talking about the two C's, we were�

talking about the two areas where Bruce A appears,��

from your (ii) chart, to be not different, not to��

the same level as the staff report card on what I��

understand is Bruce A and B based on the status��

report on reactors that is done, the annual��

report.��

I am comparing page 14 of Bruce,��

which is what Dr. Barnes did, to (ii) of CMD 03-��

H5.�

MR. DOUGLAS: Jim Douglas again.�

From reading Bruce Power's��

presentation, they used the ratings for Bruce B.��

They don't match our ratings. Their ratings were��

purely on Bruce A restart.��

THE CHAIRPERSON: I guess I will��

���������

��

go back to Mr. Hawthorne.�

Dr. Barnes' and my assessment is�

equipment fitness for service is a "C" in�

implementation and environmental performance are a�

"B". Now, knowing that you have some station-wide�

programs versus specific programs from Bruce B�

versus Bruce A, would you like to make any�

comments now?�

MR. HAWTHORNE: Yes. Firstly I

would like to apologize for any confusion here,�

Madam President.��

Actually, on our table we are��

referring to CMD 02-M38, which is the annual��

review of regulatory performance. It did include��

an assessment of Bruce A. What it does do is it��

rules inapplicable elements of it clearly because��

the units are non-operational. So I guess from��

our point of view it was reasonable to reflect the��

most recent global view of this.�

However, with respect to the two�

issues specifically raised by Commissioner Barnes,��

equipment fitness for service I think, as Mr.��

Douglas indicates, is an indication of assessment��

at a point in time. Clearly we did have a program��

to ensure the equipment fitness for service and��

���������

��

that was rated as "B", but actually the�

implementation of that program at the time staff�

created the CMD was still an area that they were�

seeking performance improvement.�

Our general view would be that as�

this project unfolds, then we will be in a�

position to satisfy staff that we have in fact met�

the requirements. I think in that regard we are�

perhaps saying the same thing.

THE CHAIRPERSON: And the�

environmental performance "B" for Bruce A versus��

"A" for Bruce B?��

MR. HAWTHORNE: Madam President, I��

believe it is largely the same thing. These are��

works in progress.��

I guess with respect to Bruce A��

hearings staff appropriately felt that it was��

reasonable to benchmark Bruce A on its own. We��

ourselves see this program being such that we�

integrate across a six-unit site with common�

standards for all.��

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Barnes?��

MEMBER BARNES: I am still��

confused. I am quite happy to leave this until��

Day 2 if you like, but in reply to Mr. Douglas'��

���������

��

comment, if I go back to page (i), the first�

bullet that you have there you say:�

"CNSC staff has used Bruce�

Power's past performance in�

the context of Bruce B�

operation to assess the�

implementation of programs�

that are generic to the�

operation of Bruce A and B."

Whereas you said, I think, that�

that assessment was for Bruce A.��

So I think both of you, both CNSC��

staff and Bruce Power are trying to deal with the��

same table, but at the moment we have on the��

public record a table which just has those two��

discrepancies "Equipment Fitness for Service" is��

"C" on the staff and it is "B" on the Bruce Power��

table. For "Environmental Performance" it is "B"��

on CNSC document and it is listed as "A".�

I don't think we should�

necessarily take too much more time here, but I��

think it should be clarified for the public record��

at maybe Day 2. That is the best way to deal with��

it.��

MR. HAWTHORNE: Perhaps, Madam��

���������

�

President, if I could just make one final comment.�

The table in the CMD 02-M38, which�

does show Bruce A and Bruce B, under the area of�

equipment performance it actually has is non-�

applicable, so clearly staff have sought to�

introduce gradings for areas of Bruce A that were�

not graded as part of the annual review.�

That seems like a reasonable�

benchmark from both Bruce Power and CNSC staff to

work from.�

THE CHAIRPERSON: To just provide��

an elaboration, then, on what Dr. Barnes has��

asked, I think it is important that we not have��

confusion. We are kind of new at these report��

cards in general, but for Day 2 hearing I think we��

need to have a staff report card on Bruce A, that��

is a reasonable thing to do, and it will be out in��

enough time for Bruce Power to look at this and to��

provide any consideration of whether you agree or�

feel that there is documentation needed on Bruce�

A. We will kind of, if we could, put aside the��

idea of the annual report card as a model.��

I just don't want to confuse the��

public at all, or the intervenors, or the��

Commissioners. It is hard to believe that that��

���������

�

would be possible, but anyway.�

--- Laughter�

THE CHAIRPERSON: We will move,�

then, to Dr. McDill.�

Dr. Giroux.�

MEMBER GIROUX: Yes, a few�

questions to Bruce Power.�

On page 11 of your presentation�

you refer to the upgrading and the seismic

assessment and you mentioned that you chose a�

review level earthquake which was in line with the��

historical data in the area but also challenging��

enough.��

Could you describe or define what��

is the review level that has been used and how��

would it compare, for instance, with something in��

the St. Lawrence Valley?��

MR. MOTTRAM: I am unable to tell��

you the exact acceleration that was used. The�

original assessment is done against a .182�

acceleration earthquake. That was the first level��

of seismic margin assessment that we looked at.��

The thing was then reviewed to bring the impact��

used in the EPRI guidelines down to a lower impact��

break size to see what needed to be done in terms��

���������

��

of that.�

That work has led to a series of�

improvements that we need to make to the plant,�

which reflect back again under the arrangements�

under the EPRI system of reflecting on the�

repeatability in real time of earthquakes.�

It is a curious process, but at�

the end of the day the "B" station was designed�

against a 3,000-year repeat earthquake frequency

which then give a damage arrangement. Our�

intention in "A" station is to ensure that the��

plant is able to meet exactly those standards and��

different improvements reflect on the ability to��

withstand that repeatability of earthquakes of an��

increasing size through time.��

So actually the methodology��

doesn't fix the earthquake dimension, it just says��

what is the repeatability of a thing of that size��

and what do you need to do to get the plant to a�

condition which it will be able to meet.�

Our intention down line over the��

next few years is to take it to a 10,000-year��

repeatable earthquake capability.��

MEMBER GIROUX: Okay. Thank you.��

My second question is for staff.��

���������

��

You mentioned, staff, on page 4 of your CMD that�

you have confidence in the management ability of�

Bruce Power to manage the operations for the�

restart of Units 3 and 4.�

My question is: Are you referring�

to the management of the six-unit organization�

that will result from restarting 3 and 4, if it�

happens?�

Does that also refer to the three

phases that Mr. Nixon has indicated with the�

shifting responsibilities between the Executive��

Vice-Presidents?��

If not, what were you talking��

about?��

MR. DOUGLAS: Jim Douglas, for the��

record.��

We were talking about the current��

organization. We haven't reviewed in detail yet��

the six-unit organization. We have recently�

started to get submissions on this and we are�

reviewing it.��

We are looking at the current��

organization at the station and looking ahead to��

what will happen now that refuelling has started��

and the staff that are in place.��

���������

��

MEMBER GIROUX: So your judgment�

is based on the current organization and staffing?�

MR. DOUGLAS: That is correct.�

MEMBER GIROUX: That is your�

answer?�

MR. DOUGLAS: Yes.�

MEMBER GIROUX: Thank you.�

My final question is a question of�

detail, but it struck me.

In the licence conditions, licence�

condition 3.2 -- that is on page 4 of 24 in the��

proposed licence. In 3.2 you discuss the levels��

of power and you mention the maximum power for one��

fuel bundle and then maximum power for one fuel��

channel. Then in (c) you say:��

"the total thermal power from��

the reactor fuel does not��

exceed 2619.6 megawatts..."��

I was wondering if you are�

referring to one unit or the two units?�

MR. DOUGLAS: Jim Douglas.��

We are talking about one unit.��

MEMBER GIROUX: Is that clear for��

all readers, that is the maximum for one reactor?��

MR. DOUGLAS: That is a clause��

���������

��

that has been in all the licences over the years�

and it is always taken as one unit.�

MEMBER GIROUX: Thank you.�

THE CHAIRPERSON: Just to maybe�

elaborate, Dr. Giroux, on your question, Mr.�

Douglas, you answered that you are currently�

basing it on the management that is in place at�

this time and you haven't turned your mind or had�

time to look at the organization that will be put

in place for Bruce A and/or Bruce A and B�

together.��

Will we expect an update on this��

for Day 2? I think this would be an extremely��

critical issue, which is management capability. I��

think we would want to know something sooner or��

later on that.��

MR. DOUGLAS: Jim Douglas.��

Yes, we can give you an update on��

that.�

We have turned our mind to it, but�

we haven't reviewed it in detail. We have had��

presentations set up and talked about it, but we��

haven't actually reviewed the details yet.��

THE CHAIRPERSON: I believe, Dr.��

Barnes, you have a supplementary on that and then��

���������

��

I will turn to Mr. Hawthorne.�

MEMBER BARNES: I had the same�

question that Dr. Giroux is going to ask anyway,�

but I have the same concern to your reply, because�

under Phase 2, to quote page 12 of Bruce Power,�

once fuelling commences all activities and plant�

systems maintain guaranteed shutdown come under�

the oversight of the V-P Production.�

Refuelling has already started.

Correct? So in a sense there has been this�

transition from what I think you referred to as��

the current management structure to transition��

into a new one, or did you mean when you referred��

to the "current structure" that as of, in a sense,��

today with this change already happening?��

MR. DOUGLAS: Yes. What I meant��

was they haven't totally implemented a six-unit��

organization at the moment, but the organization��

that in place at Bruce A in our opinion is�

adequate to maintain the safe operation of the�

plant.��

Within the licence that was issued��

this week for refuelling we have details about the��

number of people who must be in the control room,��

et cetera, and we are satisfied that the minimum��

���������

��

complement will be met in emergencies and such�

like.�

MEMBER BARNES: So for Day 2 you�

will address this issue of management in the three�

phases that Robert Nixon referred to for Bruce�

Power?�

MR. DOUGLAS: Yes, we will.�

MEMBER BARNES: Okay. Thank you.�

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Hawthorne,

would you like to add something to that?�

MR. HAWTHORNE: Yes, Madam��

President. I think there are a couple of useful��

data points that the Commission should be aware��

of.��

When we originally requested a��

licence as Bruce Power we provided a quality��

assurance plan and in that we set forth our��

organizational structure and arrangements for��

control of the facility.�

We have recently submitted to�

staff a revision to that document, management��

system manual. Within that we explained all of��

the methodology for a six-unit site operation. We��

have passed it to staff for their approval. So��

the document is with staff for review.��

���������

��

The intention of that clearly is�

to set the organization up as a six-unit facility�

proactively before the units come back to service.�

So certainly that document and the approval of�

that document should give the Commission�

confidence that there is indeed a structure.�

Separate and distinct from that�

clearly is the requalification of staff on Bruce�

A. All of our authorized nuclear operators have

indeed passed training and are now actually back�

in place at Bruce A. It was that sort of��

qualification of staff that allowed the CNSC staff��

to give us permission to move into the refuelling��

stage.��

So certainly there is no question��

of us having adequately qualified staff for the��

phase that the plant is currently in.��

Our view is that we have in fact��

begun, as we mentioned previously, some things�

such as work management and other areas begun to�

integrate with the six-unit organization. These��

are not normally changes that would require CNSC��

staff approval because they are clearly things of��

an organizational efficiency nature, but��

nonetheless all of these things are included in��

���������

��

the documentation that we have submitted for�

staff's assessment.�

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.�

Dr. McDill.�

MEMBER McDILL: Thank you.�

With respect to your document page�

22 and the implementation of a bar coding system�

for waste source identification, I wonder if you�

could tell me if the technology you have selected

for this system will have a longevity needed to, I�

don't know, assist my grandchildren when they come��

across a green garbage bag with a bar code on it?��

MR. HAWTHORNE: These are always��

interesting questions when you talk about life��

cycle of software systems.��

One of the things I can tell you,��

because we introduced similar systems in the U.K.,��

and the one thing that has remained standard��

throughout developments in technology is the bar�

code itself. Our view is that that will continue�

to be the case.��

It tends to be very much��

developments and readers retention of memory��

display and processing of the data, but the bar��

code -- in fact we were involved at one time in��

���������

�

the case studies that I say developed this, and�

clearly there has always been an issue about a�

technology that is intended to -- a bit like�

Carbon 14, it is intended to date things over a�

long period of time and putting that in a�

software-based mechanism was always a cause for�

concern. At that time it was agreed that the code�

system, code generation would remain standard and�

it would be the scanning technology that would be

developed over time.�

MEMBER McDILL: Do you know the��

bar code you are using? Is it a 2 of 5, 3 of 9?��

No? I was just curious.��

My second question is with respect��

to CMD 03-H05, page 11, and the exams. I asked��

this question of other operators, so I would like��

to ask you.��

What is a "pass"?��

--- Pause�

MR. HAWTHORNE: Since it was a�

staff document I assumed you were asking them.��

Yes, 70 per cent is a pass mark.��

MEMBER McDILL: Thank you.��

As I asked this question of the��

other operators, to be fair: Are you in��

���������

�

compliance with the Professional Engineers Act of�

Ontario with respect to your engineering staff?�

MR. TALBOT: Yes, we are.�

THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms MacLachlan.�

MEMBER MacLACHLAN: Thank you very�

much.�

This is a question of staff and it�

relates to the recommendations that were being put�

forward on page 12 of CMD 03-H05. I just wanted

to understand the sequencing and the current�

status in light of the refuelling of Units 3 and��

4.��

It is my understanding that staff��

has been spending quite a bit of time on��

establishing standards for recertification of��

operations and that the recommendation had been --��

and I would assume continues to be -- amendment of��

the existing licence to require certification and��

recertification in accordance with the new�

standards.�

Can you give us assurance that the��

personnel on staff during refuelling either have��

met these standards, if the standards have��

actually been finalized, or provide us with��

assurance of the standards that these staff have��

���������

��

had to meet for CNSC staff approval?�

MR. BLYTH: I will ask Ms Adrianna�

Nicic to address that question.�

MS NICIC: For the record,�

Adrianna Nicic, Director of Human Performance�

Division.�

Yes. The answer to the question�

is yes. All the certified operators and the shift�

supervisors were currently in the certification

program which is conducted by the licensee with�

assistance from CNSC.��

At this point in time our��

certification exam conducted by CNSC and staff for��

the fuel state are going to go through these��

normal procedures.��

MEMBER MacLACHLAN: I'm sorry, I'm��

not sure that I quite understood that.��

Yes to the continued��

recommendation of staff for inclusion of an�

amendment of recertification standards.�

That is one question and one��

answer. Is that correct?��

MS NICIC: We are talking about��

two types of certification, about initial��

certification, which is this case. As we talked��

���������

��

yesterday, we are talking about the�

recertification program which has a duration of�

five years.�

In this case, we are under the so-�

called initial certification program and all staff�

is going through the adequate training and a�

comprehensive exam which is administered by the�

licensee and a certification exam which is�

administered by the CNSC staff.

MEMBER MacLACHLAN: I think I�

understand you and you are saying that the Bruce��

Power staff that were employed during refuelling��

of Units 3 and 4 were certified in accordance with��

the initial certification standards?��

MS NICIC: Yes, this is correct.��

MEMBER MacLACHLAN: Right. Okay.��

Then the recertification standards are another��

issue?��

MS NICIC: Yes, this is correct.�

MEMBER MacLACHLAN: Thank you.�

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Dosman.��

MEMBER DOSMAN: Thank you, Madam��

Chair. I have several questions.��

There has been considerable��

discussion on training and there is just one point��

���������

��

I would like to ask CNSC staff to clarify a little�

further.�

You referred in your presentation�

to "overly aggressive training schedule". Would�

you be willing to perhaps provide more detail on�

the situation that led to this statement?�

MR. DOUGLAS: Jim Douglas.�

I will ask François Rinfret to�

respond to that. His division did evaluations of

the training program and he knows more of the�

detail.��

MR. RINFRET: Good morning. My��

name is François Rinfret, Licensee Program��

Evaluation Division.��

Just a brief introduction. Staff��

from our division are inspectors that go out at��

the various licensees to do specific program��

evaluations such as training. Training involves��

looking at a process that is being developed by�

the licensees and also at the product.�

When we look at the process, you��

find recommendations in each of our evaluations to��

the licensees.��

In this case, when considering��

restart staff started discussing in 2001 with the��

���������

��

licensees on requirements and formulated the�

requisites for restart.�

Discussion went on and over 2000,�

as you can read in the staff report, there have�

been, let's say, two specific evaluations done at�

the site. These led to various recommendations�

that are also available.�

We find that in order to achieve�

the restart date, in our opinion -- and this is an

opinion -- it will take a considerable amount of�

resources in order to develop, prepare and��

implement the training necessary.��

While doing this we looked at the��

product that was being given. We found little��

difficulties with the process being used. I will��

give you a brief example.��

When you are about to train your��

staff on upgrades in your station one has to look��

at first of all what is the upgrade, especially�

what is in detail the upgrade that is being put�

together, using what detailed engineering��

technology for example.��

If you make an early judgment of��

your training necessary and you do not have put��

together the detailed engineering of the��

���������

��

modification, you might conclude wrong or slight�

erroneous judgment of what to be trained for your�

staff working at the plant.�

This is one of the points of�

discussion with the licensees in their process of�

putting together their product, that is training�

material for dealing with the upgrades to their�

staff, things of that nature.�

These have been discussed with

Bruce staff and they are aware of our requirements�

and there is ongoing discussion about what needs��

to be done to the satisfaction of CNSC staff��

before allowing restart.��

I hope that answers your question.��

MEMBER DOSMAN: Thank you.��

I seek advice, Madam Chair. Would��

it be reasonable to ask Bruce Power, perhaps at��

the second day, to respond to these issues in��

detail?�

Would Bruce Power be willing to�

respond to these comments?��

MR. HAWTHORNE: Yes, of course.��

We would expect at Day 2 to have the opportunity��

to update our progress on these things.��

As I said previously, we do��

���������

��

understand that there is a training workload here�

still to be done. I can give some figures now,�

but perhaps it is probably more relevant to come�

back in Day 2 and report the progress that has�

been made in closing out this concern.�

MEMBER DOSMAN: Is Bruce Power�

confident that they can meet these issues?�

MR. HAWTHORNE: Yes. Yes, we are.�

The reality of it is that we have bolstered our

training organization, we have taken people�

through this.��

What gives me confidence about��

where we are right now is that we have 100 pass of��

all of our authorized nuclear operators. A very��

aggressive requalification program.��

The initial training program for��

people who had been there 20 years largely assumed��

that they would just come in the door, but they��

went through all of that with 100 per cent pass�

rate.�

Frankly, my view would be that the��

very significant part of the manuals related to��

training is behind us now, given that we have��

qualified the certified staff.��

What we have to do is to deal with��

���������

��

a number of modifications that have some element�

of training with them, I don't dispute that, but I�

equally do not see it as something that we can't�

manage.�

MEMBER DOSMAN: May I, Madam�

Chair?�

I take it the issue is, in part,�

the confluence of the technical changes and the�

training appropriate to those engineering

alterations. Am I correct in that assessment?�

MR. HAWTHORNE: Yes, you are��

correct.��

Perhaps if I give an example. One��

of the modifications I reported progress on was��

the installation of the qualified power supply��

system. Clearly, in doing so there are a number��

of changes and operational procedures, et cetera,��

once a qualified power supply is in place. It��

would be inappropriate at this stage to train�

people on the system until we actually have it�

fully complete.��

But again, when you assess the��

requirements the engineering assessments of the��

training may result in a small number of manuals��

per person. Clearly it can be dealt with through��

���������

��

a required reading format, it can be dealt with�

with a walk through, it can be dealt with in�

workshop training, et cetera, and that is the�

element of development that is ongoing in parallel�

with the modification.�

As I say, we have done an overview�

assessment. We have supported the training staff�

because we do understand -- it is an important�

element for ourselves as well as CNSC that our own

people are fully conversant with the status of the�

plant before it is brought back into service.��

MEMBER DOSMAN: Thank you.��

May I entertain another two��

questions?��

I am just curious about the��

secondary control area that is being built. Would��

Bruce Power be willing to elaborate on the degree��

to which the secondary control area could assume��

function for the primary control area if�

necessary?�

MR. MOTTRAM: Yes. The secondary��

control area in "A" station was built to cover��

three specific events.��

The first one was a loss of water��

in the spent fuel area, which happens to sit��

���������

�

underneath the control room and hence would need�

the main control room being left.�

The second one was a terrorist�

attack, that the control was taken over by�

somebody outside the plant who had bad motives in�

mind.�

The third one was the fire in the�

control room itself.�

So the secondary control area is

being constructed to provide the capability of�

shutting down the plant and controlling the��

cooling of the plant in those three specific��

areas.��

MEMBER DOSMAN: Will the secondary��

control area be fit for operation at the time of��

restart?��

MR. MOTTRAM: Yes, it will.��

MEMBER DOSMAN: May I, Madam��

Chair?�

One additional question which�

refers to the independent panel. I am just��

wondering if Bruce Power would be willing to��

elaborate somewhat on the independent panel.��

Where do they come from, qualifications, and do��

they have specifically any association with Bruce��

���������

�

Power?�

MR. HAWTHORNE: For the record,�

Duncan Hawthorne.�

Clearly one of the key issues for�

our investors was that this is a major financial�

investment. The risk in that was that the project�

team themselves convinced themselves as to the�

adequacy of their plan. The important thing our�

shareholders wanted to do was to bring in

technical experts with no specific involvement in�

the project itself to conduct a cold body review��

of the project plan.��

We have done that on two or three��

cases and, frankly, whenever there has been an��

area that we have considered to be judgmental and��

material we have tended to call an independent��

panel. We have used it for two or three cases,��

the disposition of pressure tube and steam��

generator and inspections being one.�

The initial project itself, the�

project plan before it went to the board, the��

board of British Energy had put in place��

arrangements to ensure that when the Board��

deliberated on a submission from the project team��

that they would receive a separate and independent��

���������

��

report from the independent panel.�

As such, specifically we have used�

British Energy's Director of Engineering to come�

across. He has no involvement at all in this plan�

or this design but many years of operational�

experience.�

We have brought some people from�

the U.S., a chap called Daryl Einsenhutt was part�

of the team. He is someone who is an ex-NRC

inspector. One of the gentlemen sitting behind�

me, Glenn Archinoff was part of that independent��

panel also.��

So we have had a number of people��

who are very well versed in CANDU technology,��

specifically looking at safety analysis, material��

findings that might require disposition.��

But the panel, as I say, was quite��

a challenging group, none of whom had any direct��

loss or gain, if you like, as a result of any of�

the decisions taken.�

MEMBER DOSMAN: Thank you.��

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Graham.��

MEMBER GRAHAM: The advantage of��

being last, you get most of your questions��

answered. They were around training and��

���������

��

evaluation, also the feeder pipe. But I do have�

just two questions.�

The first question is to Bruce�

Power regarding employment.�

You talked in your presentation�

this morning about 400 new staff. Sometime ago --�

and I maybe stand to be corrected -- I understood�

or saw in a press release that there would be�

downsizing of staff at Bruce.

Could you clarify that? It wasn't�

in a presentation here. It was something I had��

seen or read in the past that there would be��

downsizing and now you are saying 400 new. Could��

you clarify that?��

MR. Hawthorne: Yes. I think the��

subject does warrant a bit of a discussion.��

When we can here initially and��

talked about relicensing of this site we��

identified a significant demographic challenge on�

the site. We inherited a workforce with an�

average age of 49. The previous arrangements on��

the site I would sort of characterize as a famine��

and feast recruitment policy and there hadn't been��

any real recruitment for eight or 10 years. So��

not only did we have an average age of 49, but��

���������

��

amongst 3,200 employees we only had 35 people�

under the age of 35. So it was a very aging�

workforce.�

We said initially that our�

intention was to recruit 50 young people per year.�

Partly I came to lower the average age in case�

anyone was worrying about it.�

--- Laughter�

MR. Hawthorne: Only by a

fraction.�

But the reality was that we��

conducted a five-year capability view of the site��

in total. We understood that if we didn't��

aggressively deal with demographics then it wasn't��

really an issue about downsizing, it was a loss of��

skill, it was a loss of qualification. So we��

chose to hire aggressively and critically.��

For example, this year we will��

hire a further 130 operators. The reason for�

doing that, even though we are only 20 below our�

full complement, is that we understand it is a��

long training pipe to fill so we want to make sure��

we have a significant body of staff well in��

advance of any retires.��

Notwithstanding that, again we��

���������

��

have done the same in physicists and control�

technicians, whatever we felt is a critical skill�

that we need to bring in in advance of the loss of�

staff we have tended to do that.�

So our average age today is 46 and�

there are something like 270 people under the age�

of 35. So we have tried to bring the demographic�

down. Equally we have tried to recruit�

experienced staff that can quickly come and

contribute.�

Nonetheless, we have continued to��

express the view that -- I don't like to use best��

in class because that is not really particularly��

relevant, but observation on site has been and��

continues to be that productivity improvements��

could be made. We think we have made some.��

Nonetheless, if you were to look��

at the site you generally have a belief that it is��

capable to run the site with fewer staff. We have�

said our view would be that a section at site�

would be more like 2,700 or 2,800 as opposed to��

the current 3,200.��

I expect, frankly, that two years��

from now we will a section at site with maybe��

2,800 staff, but something like 900 of those will��

���������

��

be new people who we have brought in to manage the�

demographic.�

MEMBER GRAHAM: In other words,�

then, the 400 are not additional, they are new to�

replace the demographics. I appreciate your�

answer.�

The only other question I have,�

and it is to CNSC staff, at page 46, Appendix C of�

your presentation I think is an excellent listing.

In Day 2 the Appendix C, will you leave 1 to 55�

there but give status reports on each one as you��

go along?��

I think it is a good way of��

following through, but on Day 2 can we have a��

status report on each of the issues as they are��

listed so we don't have to go finding them on a��

certain page and then say "No. 6 be on page 20 and��

then No. 8 be on page 16". Can they be itemized��

exactly the way Appendix C is indicated?�

MR. DOUGLAS: Jim Douglas.�

Yes, we will do them that way. It��

will make it easy for us as well. Thank you.��

MEMBER GRAHAM: Thank you. That's��

all I have, Madam Chair.��

THE CHAIRPERSON: I think it is an��

���������

��

important issue that we have looked at with other�

CMDs. Because this really is a work-in-progress�

it is important for us to have a sense that this�

is moving forward at an appropriate rate that we�

feel comfortable in looking at this project.�

Questions for round two. Dr.�

Barnes.�

MEMBER BARNES: Just one. It is a�

continuance of the Appendix C issue to Bruce

Power.�

This is obviously one of the most��

important parts of the staff document listing the��

55 items that are prerequisites to the restart of��

Bruce A Units 3 and 4. Some of them are perhaps��

relatively small and straightforward, others seem��

to me to require quite a lot of work.��

To Bruce Power, when you survey��

this list of 55, are you confident at this point��

that you will be able to complete these within, at�

the present time, your anticipated schedule for�

startup?��

MR. HAWTHORNE: Duncan Hawthorne.��

Yes. Actually, we do have Table��

55 in order, if that helps staff.��

I guess the reality of it is that��

���������

��

even as we sit here today there aren't 55�

outstanding items we did see it as a dynamic�

process and we will clearly be working closely�

with staff to work off this list.�

But frankly, we understand all of�

these issues and we would be confident on our�

ability to disposition them on time, yes.�

MEMBER BARNES: Thank you.�

THE CHAIRPERSON: I think, Dr.

Barnes, actually that is an important refinement,�

because I think that it will be important to have��

the update for Day 2 -- knowing that we have a��

fairly aggressive schedule for Day 2, I think that��

has to be acknowledged -- and then a sense of the��

answer to the question that Dr. Barnes has put��

forward really for the items. I think we would��

like a view from the staff and from Bruce about��

the achievability of this, knowing that the��

facility will not go, not matter what the schedule�

is, without the completion of this.�

I think it is very important for��

Day 2 that we reassure the public of the controls��

that will be in place from both Bruce Power's��

point of view and from the CNSC staff point of��

view, assuming that the staff remains with its��

���������

��

recommendation of a designated officer.�

So I really think this is a�

confidence issue of, frankly, a very large list of�

areas. Restarts are not happening every day here,�

so it is important for us to be as clear as�

possible.�

Dr. Barnes.�

MEMBER BARNES: I just want to ask�

one other question of staff.

Is this list of 55 complete? At�

this stage or in the next month or beyond that do��

you anticipate adding others or is this it?��

MR. DOUGLAS: Jim Douglas.��

It is complete. These are the��

major safety issues that we are going to see��

completed to our satisfaction before we will allow��

the unit to go out of the guaranteed shutdown��

state.��

MEMBER BARNES: Okay.�

�

Closing��

MR. LEBLANC: This hearing is to��

be continued on the 26th day of February 2003 here��

in the CNSC offices.��

The public is invited to��

���������

�

participate, either by oral presentation or�

written submission on hearing Day 2. Persons who�

wish to intervene on that day must file�

submissions by February 17, 2003.�

The hearing is now adjourned to�

February 26, 2003.�

Merci.�