Bruce A 2006 Safety Report
Part 1: Plant and Site Description
NK21-SR-01320-00001 Rev 003
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Page 1 of 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1 Plant and Site Description
SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant Description SECTION 2 Site Description
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:37
PART 1 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION AND PLANT DESCRIPTION
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 1 of 33
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PLANT DESCRIPTION ...... 3
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE SAFETY REPORT ...... 3 1.1.1 General...... 3 1.1.2 New Legislation...... 4 1.1.3 New Organization ...... 4 1.1.4 Organization of this Safety Report...... 4 1.1.4.1 Part 1 – Plant and Site Description...... 4 1.1.4.2 Part 2 – Systems and Components...... 5 1.1.4.3 Part 3 – Accident Analysis...... 5 1.1.5 Summary Data...... 5 1.1.5.1 Location ...... 5 1.1.5.2 Major Design Parameters...... 6 1.1.5.3 Station In-Service Dates...... 6 1.1.5.4 Effective Dates of Codes and Standards...... 6
1.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION...... 7 1.2.1 Safety Philosophy...... 7 1.2.2 Emissions Control Philosophy ...... 7 1.2.3 General Plant Description...... 7 1.2.3.1 Buildings and Structures...... 8 1.2.3.2 Reactor ...... 9 1.2.3.3 Reactivity Control System ...... 9 1.2.3.4 Heat Transport System...... 10 1.2.3.5 Moderator System...... 10 1.2.3.6 Instrumentation and Control Systems ...... 10 1.2.3.7 Special Safety Systems...... 10 1.2.3.8 Fuel...... 11 1.2.3.9 Fuel Handling Systems...... 11 1.2.3.10 Reactor Auxiliary Systems...... 12 1.2.3.11 Turbine Generator Systems ...... 13 1.2.3.12 Electrical Power Systems ...... 13 1.2.3.13 Process and Service Systems...... 13
1.3 COMPARISON WITH OTHER NUCLEAR GENERATING STATIONS IN ONTARIO...... 14 1.3.1 General Comparison...... 14 1.3.2 Chronological Development...... 14
1.4 DERIVED RELEASE LIMITS (DRLS) ...... 15 1.4.1 Legal Dose Limits...... 15 1.4.2 Method of Calculating DRL Values...... 15 1.4.3 Gaseous Effluents...... 16 1.4.4 Liquid Effluents ...... 17 1.4.5 Radioactive Emissions Management...... 17
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 2 of 33
1.5 REFERENCES...... 17
TABLES Table 1-1 Comparison of Nuclear Generating Stations in Ontario...... 19 Table 1-2 Radiation Dose Limits for Members of the Public...... 23
FIGURES Figure 1-1 Bruce Power Site Layout ...... 24 Figure 1-2 Bruce Power Site Location ...... 25 Figure 1-3 Bruce A, General Station Arrangement ...... 26 Figure 1-4 Simplified Unit Flow Diagram...... 27 Figure 1-5 Pickering A Reactor Building Cutaway ...... 28 Figure 1-6 Bruce A Reactor Building Cutaway...... 29 Figure 1-7 Pickering B Reactor Building Cutaway ...... 30 Figure 1-8 Bruce B Reactor Building Cutaway...... 31 Figure 1-9 Darlington Reactor Building Cutaway...... 32 Figure 1-10 Environmental Transfer Model...... 33
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 3 of 33
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PLANT DESCRIPTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE SAFETY REPORT
This Safety Report (SR) presents an introduction (Part 1), a detailed description (Part 2), and the Safety Analysis (Part 3) for the Bruce A Nuclear Generating Station (NGS). Units 1 and 2 have been in a lay-up state since 1998, to facilitate recovery and improvement initiatives at other nuclear generating stations in Ontario. Units 3 and 4 have been restarted and are currently in-service.
The purpose of the report is to describe the plant, assess the plant response to postulated Design Basis Accidents (DBAs), and to demonstrate that any releases to the public are within the prescribed limit.
The report is written in support of an operating licence for Bruce A, with Units 3 and 4 in service, and Units 1 and 2 remaining in lay-up state, pending refurbishment starting in November of 2005.
1.1.1 General
Bruce A is a four-unit Nuclear Generating Station located at the Bruce Power site, about 2 miles north-east of the four-unit Bruce B. Bruce A, comprised of Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, operated by Bruce Power A L.P. and Bruce B, comprised of Units 5, 6, 7, and 8, operated by Bruce Power L.P. (Bruce Power). Bruce A Unit 4 was brought back to service in October of 2003, Unit 3 was brought back to service in January 2004. Bruce B is an operating station. It is described in a separate Safety Report.
Bruce A was operating safely when its owner, Ontario Power Generation (OPG), decided to shut it down. In preparation for restart, numerous plant modifications were implemented to ensure that Units 3 and 4 will operate safely, reliably and in compliance with all regulatory requirements to the end of the units’ design lives (expected after 6 and 13 years, respectively, of additional operation). Following the refurbishment of Units 1 and 2, further modifications to Units 3 and 4 are planned to further extend their service lives beyond the 6 and 13 years up to 2043. For the full scope of all improvements and modifications proposed by Bruce Power, and accepted by the Regulator, see [1] and [2].
The systems modifications addressed in [1] and [2] are aimed at upgrading Units 3 and 4 to a technical level equivalent to that of the Bruce B station. This includes Seismic Assessment and Environmental Qualification, and improvements in fire protection, airlocks rehabilitation, control room hardening and the creation of Secondary Control Areas, improvements to the Emergency Filtered Air Discharge System (EFADS), the stack monitors, the Powerhouse Emergency Venting System (PEVS) and to the reliability of the electrical power supply system.
The Bruce A Safety Report was originally issued in support of the application to the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) of Canada for a licence to operate the Station. Subsequent to the granting of the operating licence, and in accordance with it, the report was to be updated at least once in every three-year period. The last issued report is dated 2003 Jul 04. Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 4 of 33
This revision of the Safety Report is issued in support of the application to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), the successor to the AECB, for an operating licence for Bruce A. It constitutes part of Bruce Power’s ongoing commitment to provide information to the regulatory authority on all significant changes within the plant and its environment.
1.1.2 New Legislation
This Revision of the Safety Report is the second since the new federal Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA) and its regulations came into force on May 31, 2000. The NSCA and its regulations set out in detail the information that must be submitted to the CNSC to obtain a licence or a licence renewal. The Safety Report is the major repository of the required information.
1.1.3 New Organization
Bruce A was originally designed by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) and Ontario Hydro (OH), and operated by Ontario Hydro.
Effective April 1, 1999, Ontario Hydro was reorganized by the Province of Ontario to separate the functions of generation and distribution of electric power. The organization responsible for the ownership and operation of all nuclear power generating stations in Ontario was named Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG), the organization responsible for the distribution of electric power was called Hydro One Inc. References and documents not yet formally revised and reissued since that reorganization may still refer to Ontario Hydro.
Ownership of Bruce A was at that time transferred from Ontario Hydro to OPG-Bruce A Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Ontario Power Generation Inc. Bruce A was then leased back to OPG with AECB approval.
Effective May 12, 2002, Bruce A was leased to Bruce Power L.P. This lease is valid, under certain provisions, until 2018 with an option to renew for up to a further 25 years. Effective October 31, 2005, Bruce A was sub-leased by Bruce Power A. L.P for a sublease term of until 2018 with an option to renew for up to a further 25 years. References and documents not yet formally revised and reissued since that reorganization may still refer to OPG.
1.1.4 Organization of this Safety Report
This Safety Report is organized into three parts, each of which deals with a separate aspect of Bruce A.
1.1.4.1 Part 1 – Plant and Site Description
Part 1 provides an introduction to the Safety Report and a general description of plant and site, including environmental considerations.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 5 of 33
1.1.4.2 Part 2 – Systems and Components
Part 2 provides a description of major station systems and components in sufficient detail to enable the reader to understand the functions and interactions, and to follow the accident analyses in Part 3.
1.1.4.3 Part 3 – Accident Analysis
Part 3 presents the analysis of all design basis accidents, to demonstrate that all safety design objectives for the station are met.
1.1.5 Summary Data
1.1.5.1 Location
Bruce A is located on the north-west corner of the Bruce Power site, about 2.5 km (1.5 miles) to the north-east of Douglas Point, on parts of lots 28, 29, and 30, Lake Range, Municipality of Kincardine, County of Bruce, Province of Ontario and as described in Ontario Hydro drawing number 1591-SR-1-14100-FS-1, Rev. 9.
The area is part of a 932 ha (2,300 acres) site originally owned by Ontario Hydro for the establishment of a nuclear energy power complex on the east shore of Lake Huron, about midway between the towns of Kincardine and Port Elgin, at a longitude of approximately 81°30’ west and latitude 44°20’ north, as shown in Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2.
By Transfer Orders made under Part X of the Electricity Act, 1998 (Ontario) effective April 1, 1999 all of the ownership interest of the former Ontario Hydro in various parts of the Bruce Power site and in Inverhuron Park were transferred to various wholly owned subsidiaries of Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG), with the Bruce A station and surrounding lands being transferred to OPG-Bruce A L.P. The entire Bruce Power site was then leased to OPG by its subsidiaries in a series of head leases. Currently OPG and its subsidiaries sublease the Bruce Power site, including part of Inverhuron Park (Part 10 on Reference Plan 3R-7351) to Bruce Power L.P. The lease and sublease transactions were approved by the CNSC (formerly AECB). Bruce Power L.P. currently subleases Bruce A to Bruce Power A L.P.
The Bruce A Section includes part of a 914 m (3,000 ft) exclusion zone surrounding the Bruce A powerhouse structure and includes two portions of Lake Huron that are not part of the Bruce Power site. These portions are assumed controlled by the Province of Ontario. All occupancy and use of the area within the zone is controlled by Bruce Power through the Bruce Site Lease, including the OPG use of the Construction Retube Building and the Hydro One usage of the switchyard and the power corridors.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 6 of 33
The station site may be reached by Provincial Highway No. 21 and two east to west concession roads. These have been improved and extended to provide access to the existing facilities and to those under construction. The former railway spur line track was removed after abandonment of the railway by Canadian National as approved by the National Transportation Agency. Only short extensions of road were required to reach the generating station site. Docking facilities for barges are available at the north-west corner of the Bruce Power site to serve Bruce A. Similar facilities were subsequently constructed to service Bruce B.
1.1.5.2 Major Design Parameters
The station size and type is described as follows:
1. Four units.
2. Core thermal power level of 2,832 MW (th) per unit.
3. Each unit at Bruce A is rated as follows:
a) A gross electrical maximum continuous rating of 825 MW (e), and a net electrical maximum continuous rating of 769 MW (e).
b) A gross unit maximum continuous rating of 904 MW (ee) (electrical equivalent) and a net unit maximum continuous rating of 848 MW (ee). The nominal net station output is 3,392 MW (ee).
4. CANDU pressurized heavy water nuclear steam supply system, designed by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Ontario Hydro.
5. Reinforced concrete containment structure designed by Ontario Hydro.
Note: Throughout Parts 1 and 2 of this Safety Report, all plant Design Parameters (e.g., maximum power rating of plant) refer to the 100% Full Power (FP) level of the original plant design. With restart of Units 3 and 4, the permissible maximum reactor power of these units is limited to 92.5% FP. Consequently, all Operating Parameters (e.g., trip setpoints) given in this report refer to the 92.5% FP level.
1.1.5.3 Station In-Service Dates
The four units of Bruce A were originally taken into service between 1976 and 1978. Unit 4 was brought back into service in October 2003. Unit 3 was brought back into service in January 2004. Units 1 and 2 remain in layup pending refurbishment as part of the Unit 1 and 2 restart project approved in October of 2005.
1.1.5.4 Effective Dates of Codes and Standards
As a minimum, the structures have been designed and built in accordance with the requirements of the National Building Code of Canada, 1965.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 7 of 33
Detailed descriptions of the Codes and Standards that apply to the reactor, the reactor process systems and the special safety systems are provided in Part 2 of this Safety Report.
1.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
1.2.1 Safety Philosophy
Bruce Power is responsible for ensuring that the station is designed, constructed, and operated to meet safety requirements that adequately protect the public. In addition to operating a station that meets all safety requirements and regulations, it is Bruce Power's intention to perform adequate in-service inspections throughout the life of the station to ensure that it remains safe and reliable.
A major safety concern is the accidental release of radionuclides from the station. The Canadian nuclear safety philosophy of defence-in-depth has been followed to ensure adequate protection of the public.
1.2.2 Emissions Control Philosophy
Emissions control is concerned with such aspects as radiation, radioactive wastes, non-radioactive domestic and industrial wastes, heat dissipation and noise. It is Bruce Power's stated policy to achieve the lowest practical emission levels in order to minimize potentially harmful effects on the individual and the environment. Continuous monitoring is performed to ensure effective control and to demonstrate compliance with regulatory criteria.
The preferred method of dealing with potentially harmful emissions is to eliminate the sources. However, where management of emissions or waste is necessary, it will be based on treatment, storage, and dispersal, in keeping with established practice and government regulations.
The public dose limits set out in the Nuclear Safety and Control Regulations (Regulations) are used to determine Derived Release Limits (DRLs) for the radionuclides that may be present in the station effluents. The calculation of DRLs, the emission targets and the strategy used by Bruce Power for the management of radioactive effluents are discussed in Subsection 1.4, below.
1.2.3 General Plant Description
Bruce A is comprised of four nuclear reactors, four turbine generators and associated equipment, and services and facilities arranged as shown in Figure 1-3. Figure 1-4 is a simplified flow diagram for one reactor unit.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 8 of 33
1.2.3.1 Buildings and Structures
Bruce A is comprised of the following buildings and structures:
1. Four reactor buildings.
2. Four reactor auxiliary bays.
3. A powerhouse which includes the turbine hall and turbine auxiliary bay running the entire length of the station.
4. A central service area.
5. A vacuum building.
6. An ancillary services building, four pump houses, the (“old”) water treatment building (which includes the new Qualified Power Supply (QPS) System).
7. Four standby generator enclosures.
8. An emergency filtered air discharge system building.
9. Emergency coolant injection structures which include an accumulator building, recovery pump room, and a storage tank.
In addition, there are the following auxiliary buildings and structures: an amenities building, an access tunnel, and a retube building (attached to the powerhouse).
The reactor buildings are rectangular, reinforced concrete buildings that serve as support and enclosure for the reactors and some of their associated equipment. The part of a reactor building in which the reactor is located is called the reactor vault.
A single fuelling duct interconnects the four reactor buildings. It runs the length of the station under the reactor vaults. The duct connects the fuel handling and fuel storage areas located in the central services area to each of the four reactor vaults. The duct extends east of Unit 4 to include the fuel handling east service area. Two pressure relief ducts connect the fuelling duct to the vacuum building.
The Station’s containment envelope is comprised of the four reactor vaults, fuelling duct, fuelling duct extension, ECI recovery sump, central fuelling area, pressure relief ducts, pressure relief manifold, and vacuum building. These areas are all interconnected.
Each reactor vault is enclosed on four sides by a reactor auxiliary bay. The reactor auxiliary bay contains reactor auxiliaries and secondary circuits at low temperature and pressure, and generally of low radioactivity level. Reactor auxiliary bays are conventional steel frame structures.
The powerhouse encloses four in-line turbine generators and the turbine auxiliary bay. The powerhouse is a conventional steel frame structure.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 9 of 33
The central service area, which serves the entire station, contains stores, laboratories, workshops, the contaminated laundry facility, the primary irradiated fuel bay, administrative offices, and the control centre. The building also houses facilities for the treatment and storage of heavy water, spent ion exchange resins, and active wastes. The building is of steel-frame construction with concrete floors. Its basement area is of reinforced concrete construction. The other buildings listed above are of conventional steel-frame construction.
Outside of the fenced security area is the project construction building, the Technical Building and the new water treatment plant. The new water treatment plant supplies demineralized water for the boiler systems.
1.2.3.2 Reactor
Each of the four Bruce A reactors consists of a horizontal, cylindrical tank (the calandria) with integral endshields, fuel channel assemblies with integral endfittings, and reactivity control units. The whole assembly is enclosed by a shield tank, which is filled with light water.
The calandria contains the heavy water moderator and reflector, and is axially penetrated by 480 through-tubes (the calandria tubes) which house the in-core portion of the fuel channel assemblies.
The calandria, the two endshields and the shield tank form an integral multi-compartment structure. The endshields and shield tank provide part of the building operational shielding and full shutdown shielding between the calandria and the reactor vault.
1.2.3.3 Reactivity Control System
In-core flux detectors are used to measure the neutron flux in 14 different zones of the reactor core. These are supplemented by ion chamber assemblies mounted in housings on the calandria shell. The signals from the in-core flux detectors and ion chambers are used by the reactor regulating system to control several different reactivity control devices: the liquid zone control units, control absorber units, and the moderator poison addition system.
Normal short-term and spatial reactivity control is achieved by the zone control units. These consist of 14 compartments, spaced in the reactor, containing a controllable amount of light water. Variation of all 14 zone levels together results in bulk control; variation of individual zone levels results in spatial flux control.
Slow, or long-term, reactivity variations are achieved by refuelling and moderator poison additions. For example, a neutron absorbing poison is added to the moderator to compensate for the excess reactivity existing in a full core of fresh fuel at reactor startup.
Control absorber rods penetrate the core vertically and are used to control the neutron flux level at times when a greater rate or amount of reactivity control is required than can be provided by the zone control units.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 10 of 33
Each reactor had originally 16 booster rods. They were removed from all units between 1997 and 1998. All Reactor Regulating System logic tied into the booster rod assemblies was disabled following the lay-up of Units 1 to 4.
1.2.3.4 Heat Transport System
The Heat Transport (HT) system circulates pressurized heavy water through the fuel channels, thereby removing the heat produced in the fuel. The heat is then transferred to light water in the steam generators.
The HT system includes four circulating pumps, six headers, feeder pipes to and from each fuel channel, and the primary side of eight steam generators and four preheaters. Pressure control is provided by a pressurizer connected to the east outlet header. The pressure is controlled by steam bleed valves and immersion heaters associated with the pressurizer vessel.
Water chemistry is closely controlled and filtration and ion exchange are used to limit build-up of any fission products or activated corrosion products.
1.2.3.5 Moderator System
The heavy water moderator is circulated through the calandria and cooled in a relatively low temperature, low pressure system. Helium is used as a cover gas over the heavy water. Chemistry control of the moderator water is maintained by the moderator purification circuit.
1.2.3.6 Instrumentation and Control Systems
Automatic instrumentation and control ensures safe and reliable station operation. There is a common main control room for remote monitoring of variables and control of equipment. A dual computer system forms part of the control system for each unit, with either computer being capable of providing safe and reliable control. Independent computers are used for fuelling machine control and another is used for monitoring shutdown system neutronic and process trip instrumentation, and the ECI and containment systems instrumentation.
1.2.3.7 Special Safety Systems
There are four special safety systems provided to mitigate the consequences of accidents:
1. Shutdown System (SDS1).
2. Shutdown System (SDS2).
3. An Emergency Coolant Injection System (ECI).
4. A Negative Pressure Containment System (Containment).
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 11 of 33
The two shutdown systems are independent of each other. The first system uses shutoff rods, which drop into the core by gravity, with an initial spring assist. The second system uses the injection of a neutron absorbing solution into the moderator.
The emergency coolant injection system is a high pressure, light water system designed to refill the HT system and thereby cool the fuel in any one of the four reactor units following a HT system loss of coolant accident. Low pressure recovery pumps and heat exchangers provide long-term cooling.
The containment system is an envelope around the nuclear components of the reactor coolant system. It provides a means of controlling and limiting radioactive releases from the plant.
In addition to the special safety systems, some safety related systems and features are provided solely to perform safety functions. These include:
1. An emergency boiler cooling system to ensure there is sufficient water available to establish an adequate heat sink for decay heat removal when the normal source of water is not available.
2. A qualified power supply system to provide power for the equipment and instrumentation required to maintain and monitor the reactors in a safe shutdown state following a total loss of normal and backup power supplies.
3. An emergency venting system to limit the internal pressure and temperature in the powerhouse following a main steam piping failure.
4. An emergency air conditioning system servicing main control room, safety system instrumentation rooms, and qualified power supply rooms.
Safety related systems and features are described in detail in Section 6.
1.2.3.8 Fuel
The fuel is in the form of compacted and sintered, natural uranium dioxide pellets, sheathed and sealed in zirconium alloy tubes. Thirty-seven fuel elements are assembled between two end plates, forming one fuel bundle. Each of the 480 channels contains 13 bundles.
1.2.3.9 Fuel Handling Systems
The reactors are refuelled, on power, by two remotely controlled fuelling machines, which are mounted on the same trolley. The two fuelling machines work from opposite ends of the same fuel channel, with one machine inserting new fuel and the other removing irradiated fuel.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 12 of 33
In all, there are three fuelling machine trolleys (north, south, and south extension), each carrying a pair of fuelling machines. The north and the south trolley systems are operational. The south extension trolley was converted to SLAR mode (see Section 10) and is currently laid up (however, the south extension trolley control system remains operational). As part of the Unit 1 and 2 Restart Project the south extension trolley will be brought back into service. All three trolleys are controlled from consoles in the control room.
The irradiated fuel is transported, in the fuelling machines, along the fuelling duct to the central service area where it is discharged and transferred to the fuel bay.
1.2.3.10 Reactor Auxiliary Systems
There are a number of auxiliary systems associated with the nuclear processes of the plant. The most significant auxiliary systems are:
1. Shutdown cooling system.
2. Maintenance cooling system.
3. Moderator liquid poison system.
4. Shield cooling system.
5. Liquid zone control system.
6. Moderator main circuit.
7. Annulus gas system.
8. Heat transport purification system.
9. Moderator purification system.
10. Moderator and heat transport resin handling systems.
11. Heavy water transfer and collection systems.
12. Heavy water clean-up and upgrading equipment.
13. Irradiated fuel storage bay circulation and purification system.
14. Moderator cover gas system.
15. Heavy water supply system.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 13 of 33
1.2.3.11 Turbine Generator Systems
The power generating equipment consists of:
1. A turbine generator set with a gross electrical maximum continuous rating of 825 MW (e). The turbine is a tandem-compound, single-shaft machine directly coupled to the generator. It comprises one double-flow high pressure cylinder, followed by live steam reheat and three double-flow low pressure cylinders. The generator is cooled with water and hydrogen and has a rectified AC excitation system.
2. A surface condenser suitable for full power operation and capable of accepting up to approximately 60% of full reactor power steam flow as direct rejection through the condenser steam discharge valves.
3. Five stages of feedwater heating, comprised of three low pressure heaters, one de-aerating heater, and one high pressure heater. The feedwater heater drain system is designed such that the turbine generator can be operated at low load conditions and at approximately full load conditions with one of the two banks of either high pressure and/or low pressure heater shells isolated.
4. Other auxiliary systems.
1.2.3.12 Electrical Power Systems
Each reactor/turbine generator unit has an independent service electrical system. During normal operation, the load of the service electrical system is carried by the generator service transformer. An independent common service system provides loads that are common to the four units.
Each service electrical system consists of four classes of power, each with its own set of buses. Each class is supplied by at least one pair of duplicate buses. The entire power system is arranged so that each bus is automatically connected to an alternate source of power if its normal supply should fail. A Qualified Power Supply (QPS) is provided as a backup for common mode events, such as large failures of secondary side piping which may cause widespread disruption to normal power supplies.
1.2.3.13 Process and Service Systems
The common station process and service systems include:
1. Condenser cooling water system.
2. Service water systems.
3. Fire protection system.
4. Domestic water system.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 14 of 33
5. Demineralized water system.
6. Radioactive and non-radioactive waste handling systems.
7. Ventilation, air conditioning, and heating systems.
8. Compressed air systems.
9. Gas systems (hydrogen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, helium, etc.).
10. Mechanical handling equipment, maintenance facilities and shops.
11. Miscellaneous equipment (laundry, etc.).
1.3 COMPARISON WITH OTHER NUCLEAR GENERATING STATIONS IN ONTARIO
1.3.1 General Comparison
Table 1-1 provides a comparison of the technical parameters for the five nuclear generating stations in Ontario. Additional information on differences between the stations is provided below.
Cutaway views of reactor buildings are shown for Pickering A (Figure 1-5), Bruce A (Figure 1-6), Pickering B (Figure 1-7), Bruce B (Figure 1-8) and Darlington (Figure 1-9).
1.3.2 Chronological Development
Pickering A (First Electricity 1971 – 1973)
Pickering A was the first full scale pressurized heavy water reactor, multi-unit nuclear generating station to be constructed in Ontario. Its design was guided by the design and operating experience gained at the AECL-owned, OPG operated Douglas Point reactor.
Bruce A (First electricity 1976 – 1978)
Bruce A was the first station to use a common set of fuelling machines to service the four reactors.
Pickering B (First electricity 1982 – 1984)
Pickering B used the basic design of Pickering A but deleted moderator dump facilities and introduced a second independent shutdown system in the form of shutoff rods combined with liquid poison injection into the moderator.
Bruce B (First electricity 1984 – 1987)
Bruce B used the basic design of the Bruce A station. The number of vertical flux assemblies was increased from 12 to 27 and the number of horizontal flux assemblies from 2 to 8. Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 15 of 33
Darlington (First electricity 1990 – 1992)
The design of Darlington closely resembles Bruce B. The most significant differences between Darlington and Bruce B are:
1. The main circuit of the HT system is divided into two loops.
2. The steam generators are of the integral preheater, integral steam drum type.
3. There is an irradiated fuel bay at each end of the fuelling duct, compared with only one at Bruce A (located in the central service area).
4. There is one pressure relief duct instead of two.
5. The vacuum structure is larger and the dousing water storage tank is supported by a central cylindrical support and peripheral columns.
1.4 DERIVED RELEASE LIMITS (DRLS)
1.4.1 Legal Dose Limits
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) sets the radiation dose limits for members of the public for releases of radionuclides from nuclear facilities. The limits are provided in the Radiation Protection Regulations [3]. The dose limits apply to the sum of the doses received from all exposure pathways, i.e., airborne, liquid, and direct radiation exposure.
At present, the dose limits given in Table 1-2 are in effect.
1.4.2 Method of Calculating DRL Values
The DRL is the calculated emission rate of a given radionuclide/radionuclide group, which if released from a nuclear generating station for one year, would result in a typical member of the critical group receiving the maximum permissible dose for a member of the public. The critical group is a representative group in the population who would be expected to receive the highest dose from the particular radionuclide/radionuclide group and emissions pathway being considered.
An environmental transport model, developed by Gorman [4] and illustrated in Figure 1-10, is used to calculate the DRLs for all radionuclides/radionuclide groups. The model employs the concept of compartments where a series of compartments is numbered, denoted by the index i. The quantity of activity in compartment i is Xi. The radioactive emissions from the source (X0, compartment 0) are transported by various pathways to other compartments and finally to an individual recipient (in compartment 9) of the radiation dose (X9). The transfer of activity from compartment i to compartment j is characterised by a transfer parameter Pij such that, under steady state conditions:
X = P X j ∑i ij i
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 16 of 33
where the sum is taken over all the compartments i, transferred into compartment j.
The DRL for a particular radionuclide/radionuclide group and critical group is calculated by dividing the value of X9/X0 into the relevant dose limit, as follows:
annual dose limit[Sv ∗ a −1 ] DRL = []∗ −1 ∗ −1 ∗ X 9 / X 0 Sv a Bq s
where X9 is the dose received by an individual member of the critical group and X0 represents the release rate of the specific radionuclide/radionuclide group.
Individual DRLs are calculated by:
• Identifying exposure pathways and the critical group(s).
• Determining the values of the required transfer parameters.
• Performing a series of calculations to determine the limiting pathway and organs.
• Selecting the smallest calculated DRLs for each radionuclide/radionuclide group.
Interim DRLs calculated for Bruce A and approved by the CNSC are given in [5]. The interim values are adopted pending the calculation of new DRLs using the CNSC approved methodology and the revised impact software.
The DRL values have units of Becquerels (or Curies) per unit time. They are a conservative estimate of the maximum permissible average emission rates that ensure compliance with the maximum permissible dose limits for the public.
1.4.3 Gaseous Effluents
In determining the critical group for gaseous emissions, the factors considered include consumption of fruit, vegetables, and animal produce, and external exposure pathways. For releases of unidentified particulates, the DRL value for the most restrictive radionuclide (Cs-137) is used. For HTO (tritium), and C-14 the critical group is an infant residing at the nearest farm. Adults residing at Baie du Dore are the critical group for noble gases and unidentified particulates. The critical group for radioiodines is an infant residing at Baie du Dore. An averaging time of one week is used with gaseous emissions.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 17 of 33
1.4.4 Liquid Effluents
In determining the critical group for waterborne emissions, factors considered include station effluent flow rate, consumption of lake water, fish, and fruit and vegetables irrigated with lake water. Dilution of the radioactive effluents by the lake is also considered. Infants residing at Baie du Dore are the critical group for tritium emissions. For C-14 and gross beta/gamma emissions, adults residing at the Baie du Dore are the critical group. For gross beta/gamma releases, the most restrictive nuclide (Cs-134) is used. An averaging time of one month is used with liquid emissions.
1.4.5 Radioactive Emissions Management
Emissions of each radionuclide group associated with each pathway are managed to As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) levels which are a very small fraction of the DRL. The methodology for managing radioactive emissions [6] has been approved by the CNSC. Emissions are routinely evaluated against administrative limits called Internal Investigation Levels (IIL). The IILs are established to be at the high end (97.5th percentile) of the Normal Operating Level (NOL) for emissions of that radionuclide group. This assures prompt investigation of emissions that are at the high end or above the normal range of emissions. Action Levels are specified for each radionuclide group. These are at considerably higher emission levels than IILs and if exceeded, are indicative of a potential loss of control over a part of the facility’s radiation protection program. Should emissions of a radionuclide group exceed defined Action Levels, prompt action to return emissions to normal levels is taken, and the CNSC is notified of the event.
In addition, emissions for all radionuclide groups from all facilities at Bruce Power are routinely evaluated with respect to an overall emission administrative limit. This is to promptly identify abnormal emissions for more than one radionuclide group and/or from more than one facility at Bruce Power.
A measure of the radioactive emissions performance compared to the action levels is presented in the Quarterly Operations Report for Bruce A.
1.5 REFERENCES
1. Bruce “A”, Basis for Return to Service, J. Hegarty and R. Mottram, November 2001.
2. Letter, F. Saunders to J.H.M. Douglas, “Bruce A: Submissions in Support of Bruce A Return to Service”, March 15, 2002, NK21-CORR-00531-00683, and references quoted therein.
3. Radiation Protection Regulations, SOR/2000-203, May 31, 2000.
4. Gorman, D.J., The Basis for the Derived Limits for the Emission of Radionuclides in Air Borne and Liquid Effluents from Ontario Hydro's Nuclear Facilities, Safety Services Department, March 1986.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 18 of 33
5. N4 Research Associates Inc., Interim Derived Release Limits for Bruce Nuclear Generating Station A, NK21-REP-03482-00001-R01, June 30, 2000.
6. BP-PROC-00171-R007, Radiological Emissions Limits and Action Levels 12 Aug 2005.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 19 of 33
Table 1-1 Comparison of Nuclear Generating Stations in Ontario
Item Pickering A Bruce A Pickering B Bruce B Darlington A Unit electrical output 515 769 a 516 785 a 881 MW (e) (net) Number of Units 4 4 b 4 4 4 Core and fuel data Maximum licence 100% 1,744 2,832 1,744 2,832 2,776 reactor power MW (th) No. of channels 390 480 380 480 480 Maximum licenced 100% channel power 6.1 7.25/6.95 c 6.1 7.2/6.7 c 7.2 MW (th) No. of bundles/channel 12 13 (12 in core) 12 13 (12 in core) 13 (12 in core) Maximum licenced 750 1,035 750 995 1,035 bundle power kW (th) No. of elements/bundle 28 37 28 37 37 Average fuel element power kW (th) (based 26.8 28.0 26.8 26.9 28.0 on licenced bundle power) Fuel Handling Douglas Point, KANUPP, NPD Pickering A Bruce A Bruce B Previous similar design Rapp Direction of refuelling With flow With flow d With flow With flow e Against flow Fuel separators Fuel carrier, Fuel separators Fuel carriers, Fuel carriers, Major features latches latches latches Type of endfitting Expanding Rot. Integral Expanding Rot. Integral Rot. Integral closure jaws lugs jaws lugs lugs Oil and Water Electrical Oil and water Electrical Electrical Fuelling machine drives hydraulics hydraulics Via fuel F/M to bay via Via fuel F/M to bay via Direct to cradle Irradiated fuel handling transfer transfer port transfer transfer port mechanism mechanism Via fuel Direct to Via fuel Direct to Direct to New fuel loading transfer fuelling transfer fuelling fuelling mechanism machine mechanism machine machine Reactor Air-filled Light water- Light water- Light water- Light water- Calandria shielding concrete vault filled steel filled steel-lined filled steel filled steel shield tank concrete vault shield tank shield tank
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 20 of 33
Table 1-1 (cont.) Comparison of Nuclear Generating Stations in Ontario
Item Pickering A Bruce A Pickering B Bruce B Darlington A Steel plates Steel balls and Steel balls and Steel balls and Steel balls and Endshielding and light water light water light water light water light water Minimum pressure tube 4.06 4.06 4.06 4.11 4.2 wall thickness, mm Reactivity Mechanisms in Service 24 (stainless Adjuster rods 6 (Stainless 21 (Stainless steel) - f 24 (cobalt) (absorbers) Steel) Steel) (provision for cobalt) Boosters rods (enriched - - - - 16 (removed) uranium) Liquid Zone Liquid Zone Liquid Zone Liquid Zone Liquid Zone Control, plus Control, plus Control, plus Control, plus Control, plus Reactivity Control Moderator 4 (cadmium) 4 (cadmium) 4 (cadmium) 4 (cadmium) Level Control Control Control Control Control Absorbers Absorbers Absorbers Absorbers 14 (Unit 6) Vertical Flux assemblies 6 12 27 23 20 (Units 5,7,8) Horizontal flux - 2 7 8 14 assemblies Safety Systems Primary shutdown 23 Shutoff rods 30 Shutoff rods 28 Shutoff rods 32 Shutoff rods 32 Shutoff rods mechanism 7 Poison 6 Poison 8 Poison 8 Poison Secondary shutdown Moderator injection injection injection injection mechanism dump g nozzles nozzles nozzles nozzles Multi-unit Multi-unit Multi-unit Multi-unit Multi-unit connected to connected to connected to connected to connected to Containment vacuum vacuum vacuum vacuum vacuum building h building building h building structure From high From high From high From high From high pressure pressure Emergency core cooling pressure pump pressure pump pressure pump accumulator accumulator system i system I system system system Reactor building design 41 69 41.4 82.7 96.5 pressure kPa (g) HT System Reactor inlet header 249 251/265 c 249.5 255/268 c 267 temperature °C Reactor outlet header 293 304 293.4 306 310 temperature °C
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 21 of 33
Table 1-1 (cont.) Comparison of Nuclear Generating Stations in Ontario
Item Pickering A Bruce A Pickering B Bruce B Darlington A Quality in reactor outlet 5°C subcooled 0% saturated j 7°C subcooled 0% saturated j 2.0 wt% header at 100% FP Reactor outlet header 8.83 9.18 8.83 9.30 10.0 pressure MPa(a) Main system volume, 139 266 139 266 217 m3 Heavy Water inventory 0.317 0.38 0.317 0.34 0.25 at 38°C Mg/MW (e)k No. of steam generators 12 8 12 8 4 Surface area per steam 1,858 2,368 l 1,843 m 2,400 l 4,830 generator m2 No. of pumps 12 + 4 spare 4 12 + 4 spare 4 4 Pump motor operating 1.23 6.41 1.17 6.41 6.70 MW Pump motor rated MW 1.42 8.20 1.42 8.20 9.40 Pressure control Feed and bleed Pressurizer Feed and bleed Pressurizer Pressurizer Purification half-life, 130 60 130 60 60 min. Moderator System No. of pumps 5 at 25% 2 at 100% 5 at 25% 2 at 100% 2 at 100% Main system volume, 260 296 242 296 302 m3 Heavy water inventory 0.56 0.42 0.52 0.38 0.38 at 25°C Mg/MW (e) Secondary System Steam flow Mg/s 0.81 1.31 n 0.81 1.35 1.25 Steam pressure (drum) 4.09 4.55 4.09 4.74 5.07 MPa(a) Steam bypass Steam bypass Steam bypass Steam rejection Steam reject Steam reject lines to turbine lines to turbine lines to turbine following turbine trip valves valves condenser condenser condenser Separate steam drums & Integral steam Integral steam Separate Integral steam Steam drums and preheaters; drums & drums and steam drums drums and preheaters Common preheaters preheaters and preheaters preheaters steam drum for set of 4 boilers Station efficiency (net electrical output/total 29.5% 29.9% 29.6% 30.4% 31.7% fission thermal power)
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 22 of 33
Note:
a) Based on uprated conditions.
b) Bruce A Units 1 and 2 laid up, Units 3 and 4 restarted.
c) Inner zone/Outer zone.
d) Upon restart.
e) Conversion to Fuelling with Flow (FWF) in progress.
f) Provision has been made to use Cobalt in Units 6, 7 and 8.
g) Since Pickering A has a moderator dump system, a spray cooling system is provided to cool the calandria tubes.
h) Pickering A and B share a common vacuum building.
i) Following High Pressure Emergency Coolant Injection system retrofit. Pickering A and B share their emergency cooling water supply from the station’s common coolant injection water storage tank.
j) Some channels have up to 4% quality.
k) Excluding requirements for pressurizer and auxiliary systems.
l) The Bruce steam generators have separate preheaters whose area is not included.
m) Based on 2,573 tubes.
n) Maximum design steam flow including flow to the former steam transformer plant, now decommissioned and dismantled.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 23 of 33
Table 1-2 Radiation Dose Limits for Members of the Public
Organ Annual Dose Limits Whole body 1 x 10-3 Sv (0.1 rem) (Effective Dose) Lens of an eye 15 x 10-3 Sv (1.5 rem) (Equivalent Dose) Skin 50 x 10-3 Sv (5 rem) (Equivalent Dose) Hands and Feet 50 x 10-3 Sv (5 rem) (Equivalent Does)
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 24 of 33
Figure 1-1 Bruce Power Site Layout Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 25 of 33
Figure 1-2 Bruce Power Site Location
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 26 of 33
Figure 1-3 Bruce A, General Station Arrangement
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 27 of 33
Figure 1-4 Simplified Unit Flow Diagram
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 28 of 33
1. PRESSURE WALLS 12. REACTOR ENDFITTINGS 25. FUELLING MACHINE AUXILIARIES ROOM 2. BLOWOUT PANELS 13. FUELLING MACHINE HEAD (EAST) 3. STEAM GENERATORS 14. FUELLING MACHINE BRIDGE 26. FUELLING MACHINE VAULT DOORWAY 4. HEAT TRANSPORT PUMPS 15. MAIN STEAM SUPPLY PIPES 27. FUEL TRANSFER PORT 5. CONTROL AND SHUT OFF RODS 16. PIPE CHASE 28. FUELLING MACHINE SERVICE ROOM (EAST) 6. BOILER EMERGENCY COOLING WATER 17. INSTRUMENTATION ROOM (WEST) 29. FUELLING MACHINE VAULT (EAST) TANKS 18. HEAVY WATER COLLECTION ROOM 30. FUELLING MACHINE AIRLOCK 7. BOILER ROOM CRANE 19. ZONE CONTROL SYSTEM ROOM 31. REACTOR AUXILIARIES BAY 8. PRIMARY HEAT TRANSPORT REACTOR 20. BOILER ROOM AIRLOCK 32. BLEED CONDENSER AND BLEED COOLER OUTLET HEADER 21. MAIN EQUIPMENT AIRLOCK 33. BOILER ROOM COOLING UNITS 9. PRIMARY HEAT TRANSPORT REACTOR 22. MODERATOR HEAT EXCHANGERS 34. SHIELDING WALL INLET HEADER 23. MODERATOR PUMPS 10. FEEDER PIPES 24. MODERATOR FILTERS AND ION 11. FEEDER INSULATION CABINET EXCHANGE COLUMNS
Figure 1-5 Pickering A Reactor Building Cutaway
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 29 of 33
1. AIR DRYERS 9. CALANDRIA 17. HEAVY WATER STORAGE TANK 2. FUELLING MACHINE DUCT 10. ENDFITTINGS 18. STEAM DRUM 3. MODERATOR HEAT EXCHANGER 11. SHIELD TANK 19. STEAM GENERATOR 4. MODERATOR PUMPS 12. REACTIVITY MECHANISM 20. PREHEATER 5. PRESSURIZER 13. FUELLLING MACHINE HEAD 21. PRIMARY PUMPS 6. BLEED COOLER 14. FUELLING MACHINE BRIDGE COLUMN 22. 68 Mg (75 TON) BRIDGE CRANE 7. BLEED CONDENSER 15. FUELLING MACHINE BRIDGE 23. SAFETY BLOW-OFF VALVES 8. FEEDER CABINET 16. FUELLING MACHINE TRANSPORT TROLLEY
Figure 1-6 Bruce A Reactor Building Cutaway Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 30 of 33
1. PRESSURE WALLS 13. FUELLING MACHINE HEAD 26. FUELLING MACHINE VAULT DOORWAY 2. BLOWOUT PANELS 14. FUELLING MACHINE BRIDGE 27. FUEL TRANSFER PORT 3. STEAM GENERATORS 15. MAIN STEAM SUPPLY PIPES 28. FUELLING MACHINE SERVICE ROOM 4. HEAT TRANSPORT PUMPS 16. PIPE CHASE (EAST) 5. CONTROL AND SHUTOFF RODS 17. INSTRUMENTATION ROOM (WEST) 29. FUELLING MACHINE VAULT (EAST) 6. BOILER EMERGENCY COOLING WATER 18. COVER GAS AND HEAT TRANSPORT 30. FUELLING MACHINE AIRLOCK TANKS HEAVY WATER COLLECTION ROOM 31. REACTOR AUXILIARIES BAY 7. BOILER ROOM CRANE 19. ZONE CONTROL SYSTEM ROOM 32. BLEED CONDENSER AND BLEED 8. PRIMARY HEAT TRANSPORT REACTOR 20. BOILER ROOM AIRLOCK COOLER OUTLET HEADER 21. MAIN EQUIPMENT AIRLOCK 33. BOILER ROOM COOLING UNITS 9. PRIMARY HEAT TRANSPORT REACTOR 22. MODERATOR HEAT EXCHANGERS 34. SHIELDING WALL INLET HEADER 23. MODERATOR PUMPS 10. FEEDER PIPES 24. MODERATOR FILTERS AND ION 11. FEEDER INSULATION CABINET EXCHANGE COLUMNS 12. REACTOR ENDFITTINGS 25. FUELLING MACHINE AUXILIARIES ROOM (EAST)
Figure 1-7 Pickering B Reactor Building Cutaway
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 31 of 33
Figure 1-8 Bruce B Reactor Building Cutaway Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 32 of 33
1. FUELLING DUCT 9. FUELLING MACHINE HEAD 2. SHUTDOWN COOLING HEAT EXCHANGER 10. FUELLING MACHINE BRIDGE COLUMN 3. PRESSURIZER 11. FUELLING MACHINE TRANSPORT 4. HEAVY WATER STORAGE TANK TROLLEY 5. FEEDER CABINET 12. STEAM GENERATOR 6. CALANDRIA 13. HEAT TRANSPORT PUMP 7. SHIELD TANK 14. BRIDGE CRANE 8. REACTIVITY MECHANISM DECK 15. MAIN STEAM LINE 16. DE-AERATOR
Figure 1-9 Darlington Reactor Building Cutaway
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: SECTION 1 Introduction and Plant NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 Description Page 33 of 33
Immersion P(e)19 Inhalation P(i)19
P13 External P39 P23 VEGETATED SOIL 3
P34
P01 P14 ATMOSPHERE Ingestion P49 1 P24 FORAGE AND CROPS 4
P45
P15 Ingestion P59 ANIMAL P25 PRODUCE 5 SOURCE P12 DOSE 0 9
Ingestion P69 P26 AQUATIC ANIMALS 6
P02 SURFACE WATER Ingestion P79 P27 AQUATIC 2 PLANTS 7
P28 External P89 SEDIMENT
8
Ingestion P(i)29
Immersion P(e)29
Figure 1-10 Environmental Transfer Model
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:40
PART 1 SECTION 2 SITE DESCRIPTION
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 1 of 46
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION...... 3
2.1 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION...... 3 2.1.1 Access ...... 3
2.2 GEOGRAPHY...... 4 2.2.1 Population...... 4 2.2.2 Agriculture...... 5 2.2.3 Industry...... 6 2.2.4 Transportation...... 7 2.2.5 Fishing ...... 7 2.2.6 Recreation ...... 7
2.3 METEROLOGY...... 8 2.3.1 Severe Meteorological Conditions...... 8 2.3.1.1 Thunderstorms ...... 8 2.3.1.2 Tornadoes ...... 8 2.3.1.3 Ice Storms...... 9 2.3.2 Regional Climatology...... 9 2.3.3 Temperature ...... 10 2.3.4 Precipitation...... 10 2.3.5 Wind ...... 10 2.3.6 Lake Effect...... 10 2.3.7 Atmospheric Stability...... 11 2.3.7.1 Combined Meteorological Data...... 11
2.4 CLIMATE CHANGE...... 12
2.5 HYDROLOGY...... 12 2.5.1 Lake Water...... 12 2.5.1.1 Lake Currents...... 12 2.5.1.2 Wave Heights ...... 13 2.5.1.3 Water Levels...... 13 2.5.2 Water Temperatures...... 13 2.5.2.1 Thermal Plumes...... 14 2.5.2.2 Ground Water...... 14
2.6 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY ...... 15 2.6.1 Geology ...... 15 2.6.2 Seismology ...... 16 2.6.2.1 Regional Seismicity...... 17 2.6.2.2 Seismic Ground Motion ...... 18 2.6.2.3 Seismic Design of Nuclear Structures ...... 18
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 2 of 46
2.7 REFERENCES...... 19
TABLES Table 2-1 Population of Municipalities in the Vicinity of Bruce A...... 22 Table 2-2 Population Distribution within 100 km Radius of Bruce A ...... 23 Table 2-3 Summary of Agricultural and Livestock Food Production Data (2001) within Specific Radii of Bruce Site...... 24 Table 2-4 Summary of Agricultural and Livestock Food Production Data (2001) by Sector within 100 km of Bruce Site...... 25 Table 2-5 Airports Surrounding the Bruce Site...... 26 Table 2-6 Use Estimates for Inverhuron and MacGregor Point Parks...... 27 Table 2-7 Atmospheric Temperature (2002-2005) ...... 28 Table 2-8 Precipitation (Canadian Normals) ...... 29 Table 2-9 Wind Frequencies (%) According to Direction and Speed (2002-2005)...... 30 Table 2-10 Frequency of Occurrence (%) of Atmospheric Stability Class...... 31 Table 2-11 Joint Frequency of Occurrence of Stability Class, Wind Direction and Wind Speed (2002-2005)...... 32 Table 2-12 Summary of Lake Currents 1974-1986 ...... 38
FIGURES Figure 2-1 Map Showing New Amalgamated Townships within ~ 40 km of Bruce A ...... 39 Figure 2-2 2001 Census Population Distribution within 100 km Radius of Bruce A ...... 40 Figure 2-3 2015 Projected Population Distribution within 100 km of Bruce A...... 41 Figure 2-4 Wind Rose (1997-2005) ...... 42 Figure 2-5 Bruce B Water Intake Daily Temperature (2004-2005) ...... 43 Figure 2-6 Building Layout and Drill Hole Locations...... 44 Figure 2-7 Drill Hole Data ...... 45 Figure 2-8 Southern Ontario Seismicity Map for 1992-2004 ...... 46
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 3 of 46
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION
The topography in the Bruce site area is generally classified as smooth to gently undulating with a gradual rise from the lake water level, elevation about 174 m (580 ft) along the shore, to elevation 195 m (650 ft) approximately 3.2 km (2 miles) inland. At that point the ground rises steeply to elevation 725 ft and then more gradually to elevation 800 ft another 3.2 km (2 miles) east. There are no major rivers or lakes in the vicinity of the site other than Lake Huron. However, there are two small east to west drainage courses entering the lake adjacent to the site. Underwood Creek empties into the Baie du Dore to the north and the Little Sauble River empties into Inverhuron Bay to the south.
Within the immediate area of Bruce A, the land is flat to gently sloping, with a very gradual rise in the easterly or inland direction. Along the shore, there is a narrow strip of beach shingles and some sand. Beyond this narrow strip the land is considered as a poorly drained bog plain due to the flatness of topography and the lack of any surface drainage system.
Offshore, the lake bottom slopes away very gradually. A depth of about 6 m (20 ft) is reached at a distance of 460 to 610 m (1,500 to 2,000 ft) from the shore while the 9 m (30 ft) depth is encountered some 60 to 150 m (200 to 500 ft) further.
The topography of the immediate area surrounding the plant affects atmospheric dispersion in two ways:
1. A wind blowing in-land would force air movement up the steep incline. This acts to compress airflow streamlines in the vertical. The net result above the ridge is reduced vertical dispersion relative to flat terrain.
2. The area within a few kilometers around the plant is heavily wooded. This surface feature increases surface roughness and thereby increases vertical dispersion relative to flat, smooth terrain. This impact is more pronounced in the summer and negligible in the winter (due to loss of foliage and snow cover).
The impacts of the above factors offset each other. The net effect is likely to negligible in the winter and marginal in the summer.
2.1.1 Access
The station site may be reached by Provincial Highway 21 and two east to west concession roads, Nos. 2 and 4. These have been improved and extended to provide access to the existing facilities and those under construction. Docking facilities for barges are available at the site for each station.
The site location and road access to it, and the site layout are shown in Section 1, Figures 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 4 of 46
2.2 GEOGRAPHY
2.2.1 Population
Bruce A is located on the shore of Lake Huron, about half way between the towns of Kincardine and Port Elgin. This area is primarily rural and there is no single major urban center in this region. The region within 100 km of the station is rural containing small towns and villages. Table 2-1 contains population data from the 2001 Census (Statistics Canada) for towns, townships, and villages within about 40 km of the station and an update obtained directly from individual municipalities for 2004 population data. Figure 2-1 is a map of the current townships surrounding the station. These are an amalgamation of smaller towns and villages as indicated in Table 2-1. In comparison with other Ontario nuclear sites, there are few people living within 40 km of the station. The 2001 Census shows a declining population in the vicinity of the station; the annual rate of change in population is -0.8% per annum (1996-2001), although the 2004 figures indicate that this trend may now be reversing.
For population dose calculation purposes, population distributions around the Bruce A Station have been determined. The population data was distributed with geographic cells bounded by the standard 22.5 degree compass directions (i.e., N, NNE, NE, ENE, etc.) and radial distances of 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 60, 80, and 100 km from the station. Figure 2-2 contains a map of the region in which the population in each geographic cell is shown.
The population distribution around Bruce A was generated by Statistics Canada using their Geographical Information System (GIS). It is based on 2001 Census information for Canada. GIS is a computerised nodal system, with each node having standard geographic co-ordinates. GIS assigns to each node population as well as other data for the region around the node. Population counts for nodes that were located within each geographic cell were added to that cell.
The population data contained in Figure 2-2 is summarized in Table 2-2. It should be noted that the nodal resolution was greater in 2001 than for the previous Census in 1996, and this has the effect that the population appears to have migrated from some sectors to others. This is simply a function of the resolution of the data and shows a more accurate spatial distribution rather than a true population shift.
Collective dose calculations are based on the projected population for the last year of station operation, currently assumed to be 2015. Neither the GIS system nor any other source can reliably provide a projection of future population for the area of interest. However, to be conservative, an annual rate of population growth of 0.3% has been assumed since 1986. (This is about double the population growth rate experienced between 1991 and 1996.) This is supported by the recorded growth in Census population data from 1986 to 2001 out to 100 km from the site, although it is clear that the distribution of the population is shifting, given that the population local to the plant has reduced (Table 2-1). Using this value, the projected population for 2015 has been provided in both Table 2-2 and Figure 2-3.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 5 of 46
It should be noted that the closure date of the stations has been extended, however to project the population growth beyond 2015 would introduce too many variables and too long a period to give any accuracy, particularly given the unknown impact of the Bruce A 1 and 2 Restart Project. It is assumed that the population projection date will be updated at the next SR update.
2.2.2 Agriculture
There are 394,065 ha of land in Bruce County. Land use in the surrounding area falls into two general classifications. Along the shoreline, the land is a vacation area while inland it is primarily used for agriculture.
The 2001 Census reported 247,642 ha (611,461 acres) of farmland in the Bruce County. Of the agricultural land, 60% was used for crop production (primarily grain and fodder) and about 23% was used for pasture. The number of farms with sales of more than $2,500 per annum is as follows:
Dairy 247 Cattle 1,028 Pig 104 Poultry 37 Wheat 14 Other small grain 111 Fruit 9 Vegetables 17 Miscellaneous/Specialty/Mixed 312 Total 2,230
Total value of agriculture sales for 2001 in Bruce County was $310,000,000.
An inventory of site-specific agricultural data that are pertinent to the food chain pathway analysis has been compiled for areas within 100 km of the Bruce site, derived from the 2001 Census data.
Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 show the summary results by distance and sectors from the site. The data is presented based on acres of land in use and heads of livestock, in contrast to the information provided previously which was based on Mg produced. This is due to a change in the way the information is now collected by Statistics Canada, and the types of activity recorded. It should be noted that in some sectors the number of farms is reported rather than production for commercial confidentiality reasons. For the same reason, data for sectors 1, 2 and 16 (N, NNE and NNW) and 9 and 10 (S and SSW) are reported together.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 6 of 46
The inventory includes estimates of two major human food categories:
1. Vegetable and food crops. 2. Livestock and dairy products.
The first major category is further divided into four groups based on phenotypic and agricultural characteristics. These include:
1. Leafy vegetables. 2. Exposed produce. 3. Protected produce. 4. Wheat and grains.
Leafy vegetables (cabbage and lettuce) have a broad flat leaf surface that may directly intercept deposition material from the atmosphere. In this group, the edible portion of the plant is primarily the vegetable growth (leaves and stems). Exposed produce refers to vegetables and fruits that may also intercept deposition material, but whose edible surfaces are smaller than those of leafy vegetables (thus less deposition interception). The edible portions are typically the seeds and fruits.
Protected produce items are not directly exposed to airborne material because they grow underground, or if above ground, their edible portions are protected by pods, shells or non-edible skins or peels. The edible portions of the protected produce are typically the reproductive or storage parts. Wheat and grains are similar to protected produce, but they are used both as human food and livestock feeds.
The second major category includes the livestock food items of beef, pork, poultry, milk, and eggs. These foodstuffs are included in the inventory because animals may graze on contaminated vegetation or feed on contaminated plant material.
2.2.3 Industry
The main industrial activities in the area besides Bruce Power are tourism and agriculture.
The region surrounding the Bruce site has little manufacturing industry. A number of small to medium size private companies operate a small industrial park, known as the Bruce Energy Center, just outside Bruce Power’s property. A small amount of industry, mostly woodworking and light manufacturing, exists in most of the larger communities having populations of over 1,000.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 7 of 46
2.2.4 Transportation
Road and rail traffic: there are no public roadways or railways on the site. The access roads and railways into the site are not considered external hazards.
Air traffic: the locations of airports in the surrounding area are listed in Table 2-5 with their approximate distance from the Bruce site. Several low level air routes pass within 100 km (63 miles) of the site. One lightly traveled, non-scheduled commercial air route from Wiarton, Ontario to Peck, Michigan passes directly over the site. A heavily traveled high level air route from Toronto to Wiarton and points west lies about 75 km (47 miles) to the east. There are plans to extend Kincardine airport with a potential increase in air traffic to this site however any impact on the site and its environs will be assessed when and if this occurs.
2.2.5 Fishing
The waters of Lake Huron are used for sport and commercial fishing. The latter varies from year to year, the 2003 harvest was approx. 402,000 kg and 2004 was approx. 441,500 kg [1, 2] from the Bruce County offshore area south of Stokes Bay. Lake Trout, whitefish and chub make up the majority of the catch, which is landed primarily at Southampton. Almost all of the catch is exported to the New York area. This is a three fold increase on previous years.
Sport fishing in this area is estimated to account for somewhat less than this figure. The lake is used for water supplies by several of the municipalities along the shore. Kincardine and Port Elgin are the two nearest communities.
2.2.6 Recreation
In 1982, the number of cottages along the shoreline, within about 40 km (24 miles) of the Bruce site, had grown to about 5,800. As of 2004 there were over 9400 cottages along the lakeshore. This represents an annual increase of approximately 2.2%.
There are also three conservation areas, two provincial parks and numerous private parks that offer camping and trailer facilities. Title to lnverhuron Provincial Park, which adjoins the southern boundary of the site, was acquired by Bruce Power Inc. and OPG Inc. on April 1, 1999 for separate parts of the park.
The park is leased back to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources who operates the southern portion. With the closure of the Bruce Heavy Water Plant, and removal of hydrogen sulphide from the Bruce site, the day use only restrictions for the park have been lifted and overnight camping restarted in 2005. A portion of the northern end of the park lies inside the exclusion zone of Bruce Power site [3].
MacGregor Point Park, located about 10 km (6 miles) north of Bruce A, is also run by the Ministry of Natural Resources as a day use and overnight camping facility. Use estimates for the two parks from 1992 to 2004 are given in Table 2-6.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 8 of 46
2.3 METEROLOGY
2.3.1 Severe Meteorological Conditions
Severe weather events increase the probability of a release through their potential to damage or weaken the plant structures. Bruce A structures have been designed and constructed to withstand the most severe meteorological conditions likely to exist at the site, as specified in the National Building Code of Canada and the associated Climatic Information Supplements. These design criteria are presented in Part 2, Section 2. Building structures at the Bruce site have been exposed to various weather conditions for over 20 years with no significant effect on the plant structures.
2.3.1.1 Thunderstorms
Thunderstorms represent the final stage of the growth of convective instability in atmosphere having a high moisture content. A thunderstorm day is recorded if thunder is heard. Thunder results from the explosive expansion of a narrow column of air due to heating by a lightning discharge.
Between 28 and 29 thunderstorm days per year would be expected to occur in this area [4] based on thunderstorm records in Ontario over the 1971-2000 period. The Lightning Average Flash Density (LAFD) is about 1.6 flashes per square km per year. The damage potential resulting from thunderstorms is not specifically evaluated in this report.
2.3.1.2 Tornadoes
A tornado is a violently rotating column of air associated with cumulo-nimbus clouds and usually visualized by a funnel cloud. Tornadoes are caused by excessive instability and steep lapse rates in the atmosphere. They are usually associated with heavy thunderstorms. In spring and summer, a tornado system may be triggered when cold air from the north meets with warm moist air from the lower Great Lakes. The cold air undercuts the warm air and forces it to bubble up producing convection clouds. If, at the same time, the westerly air stream is diverging at upper levels, the warm air is drawn up even faster. This creates highly turbulent storm clouds and the tornado funnel may appear growing down to the ground. More than one tornado may develop and each funnel may track some distance before lifting and dissipating.
Tornado severity is ranked according to the Fujita scale which is based on the damage that the tornado causes. The Fujita tornado intensity scale which links tornado damage to wind speeds is defined as:
F0 - light (winds of 64 - 116 km/hr) F1 - moderate (winds of 117 – 180 km/hr) F2 - considerable (winds of 181 - 252 km/hr) F3 - severe (winds of 253 - 330 km/hr) F4 - devastating (winds of 331 - 417 km/hr) F5 - incredible (winds of 418 - 509 km/hr)
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 9 of 46
Tornadoes are extremely localized with random distribution. Southern Ontario experiences high frequencies of tornadoes in comparison with the rest of Canada; however, few are as intense as those in the United States south and west of the Great Lakes.
In the Bruce area, there have been three F0 and F1 scale tornadoes in the region around Bruce over the period 1918 to 2003. The region has not experienced any of severity F2 or greater, although some have clipped the edge of Bruce County around 2 South Bruce. In reality, an average of 1 to 2 tornadoes per 10,000 km annually can be expected.
2.3.1.3 Ice Storms
An ice storm is a prolonged occurrence of freezing rain that results in excessive build-up of ice on outdoor structures. Freezing rain occurs in southern Ontario when warm moist air from the U.S. meets cold air coming down from the Hudson Bay region. When this occurs, the warm air is pushed upwards where it cools and drops its moisture as rain. The meteorological conditions have to be “just right” to get freezing rain; a 1°C swing may make the difference in averting freezing rain. Near ground level, air temperature is colder, and the rain that coats outdoor structures freezes. Prolonged freezing rain, thus, adds layer upon layer of ice onto outdoor structures, thereby adding mass to these structures. Structures most at risk of collapse under these conditions are trees and power lines.
In the winter of 1998, south-eastern Ontario and south-western Quebec experienced the worst ice storm of the century. There was extensive damage and widespread collapse of power lines (power lost for weeks) due to ice build up onto wires and branches of several inches in thickness.
The impact of collapsed transmission lines is of importance to a nuclear power plant as the availability of Class IV power from other units and the grid would be affected. In the worst case scenario, the units would be isolated from each other.
2.3.2 Regional Climatology
The Bruce site is situated on the eastern shoreline of Lake Huron in west-central Ontario. The meteorology in the vicinity of Bruce A is affected by so called meso-scale/synoptic factors consisting of the general circulation of air masses and the effects of the Great Lakes, and micro-scale factors that include off-shore/on-shore winds (for coastal areas due to diurnal temperature changes), terrain, and topography.
Meso-scale/synoptic factors affect meteorology beyond about 10 km from the point of interest. Micro-scale factors affect weather within about 10 km, i.e., near the point of interest.
In the context of nuclear power plants, meteorology near the potential release point is more important. Pertinent onsite weather data at each Ontario nuclear site has been gathered since 1991. For Bruce A, this data is described below for periods covering 1997 to 2005.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 10 of 46
2.3.3 Temperature
The region has warm summers and cold winters. The mean annual temperature at the station over the period 2002 to 2005 was 7.6°C (see Table 2-7), a drop on the 1997 to 2001 period mean of 8.4°C but still above the 1994 to 1998 mean.
Mean daily temperatures fall below freezing in December through March. For the period 2002 - 2005 the coldest recorded hourly temperature measurement was -25.3 with -24.7°C as the previous periods lowest record, and the warmest recorded hourly temperature measurement was 32 with 31.2°C as the previous periods highest record.
2.3.4 Precipitation
Table 2-8 contains monthly precipitation data collected at the nearby Wiarton A Environment Canada weather station for the period 1991-2005 [5]. The table contains both mean monthly accumulation and maximum daily accumulations of both rainfall and snowfall.
Monthly total precipitation varies by a factor of about 2 over the year with the maximum occurring during winter due to prevailing north-westerly winds during this period, the station’s position relative to Lake Huron, and temperature differences between land and water. Total annual precipitation averages about 1100 mm, of which about one quarter occurs as snowfall. At Wiarton A Weather station, precipitation was recorded on 125 days of the year, with 104.6 mm as the greatest 24 hour rainfall in July and 51.4 mm the greatest 24 hour snowfall in January [6].
2.3.5 Wind
Table 2-9 provides the joint frequencies of wind speed and wind direction from hourly data collected from the 50 m onsite weather monitoring station. The data was grouped into sectors according to the 16 compass directions, N, NNE, NE, ENE, E, ESE, etc. The wind sectors indicated represent the directions from which the wind is blowing. Figure 2-4 presents the joint frequency of wind direction and wind speed data in the form of a Wind Rose (percentage of time wind is blowing from an indicated wind direction).
The prevailing winds near Bruce A are generally blowing from the southwest direction about 40% of the time. Winds of “moderate” speed (10-20 km/hr) have the highest frequency (44%) of any wind speed group.
2.3.6 Lake Effect
The proximity of the station to the lake affects the meteorology near the plant due to the so-called “lake effect” or “lake breezes”. Lake breezes result from temperature differences between land and water. An important by-product of lake breezes is the formation of the so-called Thermal Internal Boundary Layer (TIBL).
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 11 of 46
In the spring and summer, when the skies are clear and the geostrophic winds are light, a strong temperature gradient develops between the air over the land and the air over Lake Huron. This gradient begins forming in the morning as the land is heated at higher rate relative to the water due to solar radiation. The air over the land is heated more rapidly than the air over the lake. As a result, it rises and is replaced by cooler lake air, thus producing a lake breeze. The lake breeze usually has a much greater intensity than the land breeze. In the fall and winter, the lake is generally warmer than land resulting in more frequent land breezes.
In warm seasons, due to solar heating, the air over land is often 10°C, or more, warmer than that over water. When cold stable lake air flows over warmer land, the resulting upward heat flux gives rise to a Thermal Internal Boundary Layer (TIBL). This TIBL grows in depth with distance inland as the stable air is advected over land and adjusts to changes in surface roughness, heat, and moisture input. The depth of the TIBL is typically hundreds of meters and extends about 10 km inland before a new equilibrium is reached. A research study of the dispersion climatology of the Bruce area [7] indicated that the TIBL occurred about 30% of the time when the winds were on-shore.
For emission sources near the ground, pollutants emitted into the unstable boundary layer would result in higher than expected ground level concentrations during on-shore flows with a TIBL because the stable layer aloft would limit vertical diffusion.
2.3.7 Atmospheric Stability
Atmospheric stability is a measure of atmospheric turbulence. The turbulent nature of the atmosphere strongly affects the concentration of contaminants downwind of the release point. A highly turbulent atmosphere is referred to as Stability Class A and typically occurs on sunny mornings and early afternoons with minimal wind speed. A neutral atmosphere, referred to as Stability Class D, is representative of average turbulence conditions and occurs typically under cloudy, windy conditions. Stability Class F indicates high stability, typically at night under low wind conditions. All other things being equal, downwind contaminant concentrations are highest when the atmosphere is highly stable (F stability) and lowest when the atmosphere is highly unstable (A stability).
Various schemes have been developed for predicting stability class. A widely accepted method is the Sigma Theta (σθ) method [8, 9, 10]. It is based primarily on the standard deviation of continuous measurements of wind direction, but also on the time of day and wind speed. The meteorological data used to predict stability class is measured at the 10 m elevation of the on-site tower. Table 2-10 contains stability class frequency averaged over the period 2002-2005 and the previous values for 1997 to 2001.
2.3.7.1 Combined Meteorological Data
In dispersion modeling calculations, it is often required to determine joint frequency of occurrence of wind direction, wind speed and stability class. This information is provided for Bruce A in Table 2-11.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 12 of 46
2.4 CLIMATE CHANGE
The ongoing concern with climate change due to human impact on the environment requires some consideration here with respect to the effect on expected severe weather conditions for the area around the Bruce Power Site.
The temperature data gathered and discussed above indicates that the temperature during the summer months is increasing and the winter temperatures are dropping. Climate Canada suggests that Ontario could experience anywhere from 3 - 8°C average annual warming by the latter part of the 21st century [11] , leading to fewer weeks of snow, a longer growing season, less moisture in the soil, and an increase in the frequency and severity of droughts.
Increased atmospheric temperatures are expected to lead to an increase in the temperature of the water in the Great Lakes. This has a potential to impact on the ability of the lake to supply cooling water to the plant.
Bruce B water intake temperature is monitored daily and currently there is no indication of an increasing trend in these temperatures. Bruce Power will continue to monitor for any adverse trends.
2.5 HYDROLOGY
2.5.1 Lake Water
2.5.1.1 Lake Currents
Lake currents have been reported at various locations in the vicinity of Bruce, extending from south of Bruce B to north of Bruce A, since 1969. Continuous current measurements were normally taken at a depth of 8 m, usually within 2 km of shore, during the open water season from May to November. Currents were also monitored during one winter season, from December 1981 to April 1982. References [12 to 18] present the results of these current measurements, obtained from 1969 to 1986.
Results of lake current measurements taken at the 8 m depth, from 0.6 to 1.6 km offshore of Bruce Heavy Water Plant, generally during the May to November period for the twelve years between 1974 and 1986, are summarized in Table 2-12. Data from this location are considered representative for the Bruce site. Water movement in the vicinity of the Bruce site is predominantly alongshore, occurring for 68% of the time. The alongshore movement was biased to the north-east, occurring over twice as often as movement to the south-west (47 to 21% of the time, respectively). Onshore and offshore movement occurred for about 25% of the time, while calm periods averaged 7% of the time. Mean current speeds averaged 11 cm/s for the May to November period of the twelve years. The maximum speed recorded was 50 cm/s. Net transport was generally directed to the north-east each year.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 13 of 46
Results of lake current measurements taken at 8 m depth, 2.8 km offshore of Concession 10 (Bruce Township), during the winter of 1981-82, indicated that the flow pattern was similar to that observed during the spring-summer-fall period, occurring 67% of the time (44% of the time to the north-east and 23% of the time to the south-west).
Offshore and onshore movement decreased during the winter period for only 9% of the time, while calm periods increased, occurring for 24% of the time. Calm periods (speeds less than 2.5 cm/s) were more frequent during the winter, particularly during the months of February and March, due to the presence of ice cover eliminating the effect of wind stress. Mean current speed for the December 1981 to April 1982 period was 14 cm/s. Net transport was to the north-north-east.
2.5.1.2 Wave Heights
Waves as high as 1.8 m (6 ft) can be generated relatively quickly on the lake. However, the high waves are likely to break before reaching shore due to the shallowness of the water near the shore.
2.5.1.3 Water Levels
The reference point for measuring Great Lakes water levels, chart datum for Lake Huron is 176.0 m above sea level (International Great Lakes Datum, 1985). The mean water level in Lake Huron at Goderich is at an elevation of 176.4 m (International Great Lakes Datum). The approximate daily maximum and minimum mean levels have been reported at elevation 177.5 m and elevation 175.3 m, respectively. However, seiches built up by atmospheric pressure differentials across Lake Huron may cause the lake level to vary up to 0.6 m from the extreme levels reported.
2.5.2 Water Temperatures
Lake Huron temperatures were recorded at various locations in the vicinity of the Bruce site starting in 1970. Continuous temperature measurements were normally taken during the open water season from May to November. Year round temperature data were recorded at Grand Bend WSP from 1973 to 1983 and at Kincardine WSP during 1982 and 1984 to 1987. References [19 to 27] present the results of these water temperature measurements, taken from 1970.
Surface warming generally commenced in May and limited stratification existed during June. Larger temperature gradients from surface to bottom were measured during July and August and early September. Isothermal conditions usually returned by October. Upwelling and down welling episodes, resulting in temperature variations of over 10°C, were common during the summer months from July to September of most years. Maximum variations of over 15°C within a day were recorded on occasion.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 14 of 46
Figure 2-5 contains a plot of water intake channel temperatures (daily averages) for Bruce B for the period November, 2004 to October, 2005. The data are considered characteristic for Bruce A as well. As can be seen from this plot the temperature of the water coming into the plant can vary by a few degrees over a several days. The peak daily average temperature is about 24°C. This is an increase on the previous peak temperature of 22°C. As stated above, climate change could lead to further increases in lake temperatures.
2.5.2.1 Thermal Plumes
A total of 28 synoptic plume surveys were done from 1972 to 1982 to determine the extent and structure of the thermal plumes from Bruce A, Douglas Point, and the Bruce Heavy Water Plant under various meteorological and hydrological conditions [28].
During warm weather conditions (spring, summer and fall) the plumes were predominantly alongshore to the north-east. The plume from Bruce A extended up to 15 km alongshore to the north-east at the lake surface and up to 3 km offshore.
During cold weather conditions (winter), the plumes were also predominantly alongshore to the north-east. The plume from Bruce A extended more than 10 km alongshore to the north-east at the lake bottom and up to 3 km offshore. The full extent alongshore was not determined due to lake ice.
A mathematical model has been developed to predict the combined effect of the thermal plume from Bruce A and B and the now decommissioned Bruce Heavy Water Plant under warm and cold weather conditions [29]. The verification of this model has been carried out using synoptic surveys to determine the extent and structure of the thermal plume under different hydrometeorological conditions.
Temperatures at 2 m depth offshore of the Bruce site were recorded about 0.2 km offshore from 1973 to 1978 and 0.7 to 1 km offshore from 1979 to 1987. Surface temperatures (2 m depth) may have been influenced by the thermal plumes from Bruce A and B during operational years.
2.5.2.2 Ground Water
A reconnaissance level groundwater quality study was completed for Bruce A (and Bruce B) in 1997-1998 [30]. In general, station hydrostatigraphy consists of a variable thickness of glacial sediment overlaying a permeable semi-confined carbonate bedrock aquifer. The principal study findings in relation to groundwater flow were:
1. In the event of hypothetical sub-surface releases, the semi-confined carbonate bedrock aquifer is the most susceptible aquifer to contamination.
2. Hydraulic head distributions in the carbonate aquifer indicate that the groundwater flow systems are localized. The ultimate receptor for sub-surface releases to the groundwater flow system is Lake Huron.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 15 of 46
3. Powerhouse foundation drainage systems create localized hydraulic sinks in the groundwater flow systems. In this situation, the foundation drains act as “hydraulic traps” that would tend to prevent sub-surface contaminant releases. Water drawn into the foundation drains is discharged to Lake Huron through the CCW duct.
Earlier results of pumping tests in the powerhouse area are described in [31, 32] and a report on site hydrogeology for the Radioactive Waste Operations Site 2 is described in [33].
2.6 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY
2.6.1 Geology
Field investigations were carried out by Ontario Hydro to confirm the suitability of the site for Bruce A and the site is confirmed as suitable [34]. Subsequent investigations and observations in the area are summarized below. The ground surface in the area of the site is of low relief varying from an elevation of 610 ft to the lake level of 579 ft. The area is generally flat and swampy with low ridges of sand, gravel and beach shingle. Bedrock is exposed along the shore line except in the bay south of MacPherson’s Point. The bedrock surface occurs from an elevation of 565 ft to an elevation of 583 ft, except in the eastern part of the site where it drops to an elevation of 534 ft.
There is a bedrock depression running in a northerly direction through the western end of the Bruce A Powerhouse area. The bedrock surface falls here to about elevation 565 ft with a low of 548 ft at the south end.
Inland from the site area the ground rises fairly sharply to a gentle rolling plain. This plain appears to have been formed by an upper till which is separated from the lower till by various thickness of clay, silt, sand and gravel deposits. During the time of glacial Lake Algonquin, extensive erosion of the various soil formations took place including the lower till.
In the site area, the Lake Algonquin deposits have been eroded away by subsequent glacial Lake Nipissing, (upper water level being at an elevation of about 625 ft), exposing areas of bedrock and lower till. It was during glacial Lake Nipissing time that beach shingle, sand dunes and gravel deposits were formed along the present lake front.
The surface soil consists mainly of sand, gravel and cobbles with some organic material which is generally shallow with depths of 10 ft. The granular material is underlain by dense, impervious glacial till. The till surface is generally flat and occurs at an elevation of about 583 ft. It contains depressions filled with granular material and/or reworked till.
A shallow depth of lacustrine silt overlies the till in the north-east part of the area. The locations of borings drilled to determine foundation conditions relative to the plant are shown in Figure 2–6. Generalized geological sections through the plant area are shown in Figure 2–7.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 16 of 46
The glacial till is deposited directly on the bedrock surface over most of the area. The western part of the area has a few shear and joint planes which appear to be tight below the surface weathered rock. There is generally dense massive rock below shallow depths of fractured and weathered surface rock. Thin clay seams and clay-filled fractures occur occasionally in the upper few feet of bedrock.
Soft seams indicated by a few of the exploratory holes proved to extend over a significant part of the powerhouse foundation area. To ensure competent foundations, rock was excavated to a grade below the seam in critically loaded areas and was consolidated by pattern pressure grouting in other areas.
The cut–off trenches and the curtain grouting specified to control the inflow of water into the powerhouse excavation were effective and no significant artesian flows were observed during excavation.
2.6.2 Seismology
Earthquake magnitude is measured by the Richter Scale. The magnitude (unit of measurement = M) of an earthquake is a measure of the amount of energy released. Each earthquake has a unique magnitude assigned to it. This is based on the amplitude of seismic waves measured at a number of seismograph sites, after being corrected for distance from the earthquake. The potential impacts of earthquakes of different magnitudes can be characterized as follows:
M=1 to 3: Recorded on local seismographs, but generally not felt.
M=3 to 4: Often felt, no damage.
M=5: Felt widely, slight damage near epicenter.
M=6: Damage to poorly constructed buildings and other structures within 10’s km.
M=7: “Major” earthquake, causes serious damage up to ~100 km.
M=8: “Great” earthquake, great destruction, loss of life over several 100 km (San Francisco - 1906).
M=9: Rare great earthquake, major damage over a large region over 1,000 km (Chile - 1960).
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 17 of 46
2.6.2.1 Regional Seismicity
The historical record of earthquakes for the region around the Bruce site indicates very low seismic activity.
Over the period of 1899 to 1963, the maximum seismic event in the region has only been sufficient to generate a peak ground motion at the site equal to 1% of gravity [35]. Only two events were reported to have occurred within 100 km (62 miles) of the site. These events were reported:
1952 M = 3.6 at 72 km (45 miles) from the site 1958 M = 3.5 at 78 km (48 miles) from the site
It is apparent that the larger earthquakes in Eastern and Central North America, e.g.:
M = 8 New Madrid, Missouri in 1811 M = 7 La Malbaie, Quebec in 1925 M = 5.4 Attica, New York in 1929 M = 6.25 Timiskaming, Quebec in 1935 M = 5.6 Cornwall, Ontario and Massena, New York in 1944
were located at sufficient distances from the site such that the site was not subjected to ground vibrations at levels greater than intensity IV. The region thus can be considered as seismically stable.
Monitoring of seismic activity in Southern Ontario has increased over the recent past to detect even very minor earth movements that would not be detectable by the population [36] so while hundreds of events are recorded, very few are noticed. These events can be categorized, in terms of strength, as follows:
• Range: 1.0 → 5.4 M • Top 25%: 2.7 → 5.4 M • Top 10%: 3.2 → 5.4 M • Top 5%: 3.5 → 5.4 M
Only four events in the southern Ontario region exceeded 4.0 M. These are described below:
1. September 25, 1998 (19:52:55): Strength: 5.4 M Epicenter: South of Lake Erie in Ohio Widely felt in Southern Ontario.
2. January 1, 2000 (11:22:57): Strength: 5.2 M Epicenter: Temiscaming region, Quebec Felt as far as North Bay and Toronto. Some reports of minor damage in epicenter region.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 18 of 46
3. January 26, 2001 (03:03:22): Strength: 4.4 M Epicenter: South of Lake Erie near Ashtabula, Ohio Widely felt in Southern Ontario.
4. October 20, 2005 (21:16:29): Strength: 4.2 M Epicenter: 12 km NE from Thornbury, Ontario. 44 km E from Owen Sound, Ontario. Felt in Owen Sound, Parry Sound and area.
Within 100 km of the Bruce site, there have been three earthquakes with magnitude between 2.5 and 4.0 M. Figure 2-8 contains a map of the southern Ontario region that depicts seismic activity over the 1992-2004 time period.
2.6.2.2 Seismic Ground Motion
From a careful study of detailed information on seismic activity in Canada, published by the Seismology Division of the Dominion Observatory in Ottawa and the National Research Council of Canada, it has been possible to establish a major parameter which defines the hypothetical maximum earthquake that can be expected at, or within effective range of Bruce A. The maximum ground acceleration determined for this earthquake is 0.08 g.
Subsequent analysis has shown that the proper maximum ground acceleration at the Bruce site is 0.05 g. All analysis was based on the more conservative 0.08 g for Bruce A, so this acceleration is retained in the Safety Report.
In accordance with customary practice, a family of smoothed spectrum curves, developed from an envelope of spectra related to certain earthquakes in California, and scaled–down to match the above mentioned ground acceleration, was selected to represent the structural response characteristics of the probable earthquake.
Consideration was given to the effects of interaction between the rock foundation and the structure in the event of an earthquake, and it was concluded that, due to the nature of the foundation, the base of the building would move with essentially the same motion as a point in the ground.
2.6.2.3 Seismic Design of Nuclear Structures
The reactor building was analyzed as a single-degree–of–freedom structure, with an estimated natural period of vibration of 0.2 s, and a damping factor of 10%. Suitable acceleration factors were determined corresponding to various levels of the superstructure.
Sloshing effects of water in the irradiated fuel bays and in the dousing tank of the vacuum building, and the relatively more flexible characteristics of the internal structure of the vacuum building, required a somewhat different analytical approach. The procedure adopted was that outlined for nuclear reactors [37].
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 19 of 46
In the analysis, the dousing tank and the internal supporting structure complex were modeled as a two–degree–of–freedom system. Damping factors of 0.5% and 5% were assumed for the oscillations of the water and the internal concrete, and the corresponding natural periods of vibration were estimated to be about 9 s and 1 s, respectively. The resulting convective and impulsive force factors were found to be 0.05 and 0.08, respectively.
2.7 REFERENCES
1. Lake Huron Commercial Fishing Summary for 2003; Upper Great Lakes Management Unit Lake Huron; Report TR-LHA-2004-1; Ministry of Natural Resources.
2. Lake Huron Commercial Fish Harvest Summary for 2004; Upper Great Lakes Management Unit Lake Huron; Report TR-LHA-2005-1; Ministry of Natural Resources.
3. Irvine, H.S. Letter to T.J. Molloy, AECB. File NK29-00531, December 11, 1973.
4. Environment Canada Atmospheric Hazards website; 2005; http://www.can-imap.ca/collections/maps/climate/thunderprov.jpg.
5. Environment Canada Climate Data Online website; 2005; http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/monthlydata_e.html.
6. Environment Canada, Canadian Climate Normals, Wiarton A, Ontario Station, November, 2005.
7. Tam Y.T, “A Preliminary Study of the Dispersion Climatology of the Bruce Area”, Ontario Hydro Research Division Report No. 86-6-K, March 5, 1986.
8. US NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) Proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.23: Meteorological Programs in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, 1980.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Guideline on Air Quality Models”, Report No. EPA-450/2-78-027R, Table 9-3, pp 9-21, 1986.
10. Oliverio, M., Updated Site Specific Atmospheric Dilution Factors For Use in Safety Analysis, NTS Report No.: N-03611.1-965074 R0, October, 1996.
11. Environment Canada, Canada Country Study, 22September1997 http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/canada-country-study/intro.html.
12. Farooqui, R., Lake Huron, Nearshore Currents in the Vicinity of Bruce Nuclear Power Development 1972-1973. Ontario Hydro Hydraulic Investigations Report (June, 1975).
13. Farooqui, Bull and others, Coastal Zone Limnological Observations in Lake Huron at Bruce Nuclear Power Development May - November, 1974. Ontario Hydro and Canada Center for Inland Waters (1976). Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 20 of 46
14. Ontario Hydro, Lake Huron, Currents in the Vicinity of Bruce NPD 1976. Report No. 77222, December 1977.
15. Farooqui, R., Lake Huron. Nearshore Currents in the Vicinity of Bruce NPD 1977 - 1979. Ontario Hydro Report No. 82393, July 1982.
16. Lawler, D.W., Lake Huron. Nearshore Currents in the Vicinity of Bruce NPD 1981 - 1982. Ontario Hydro, Report No. 84045, February 1994.
17. Bohm, E.U., Lake Huron. Nearshore Currents in the Vicinity of Bruce NPD 1983 - 1984. Ontario Hydro, Report No. 85301, October 1985.
18. Bohm, E.U., Lake Huron. Nearshore Currents in the Vicinity of Bruce NPD 1985 - 1986. Ontario Hydro, Report No. 87149, June 1987.
19. Ontario Hydro, Hydrologic Investigations, Lake Huron Water Temperature at Bruce NPD 1972 - 1973. September 1974.
20. Ontario Hydro, Lake Huron Bruce NPD Water Temperatures - 1974. June, 1976.
21. Ontario Hydro, Lake Huron Water Temperature in the Vicinity of Bruce NPD 1975 - 1976. Report No. 79088.
22. Ontario Hydro, Lake Huron Water Temperatures in the Vicinity of Bruce NPD 1977- 1978. Report No. 81493.
23. Ontario Hydro, Lake Huron Water Temperatures in the Vicinity of Bruce Nuclear Power Development, 1979 - 1980. Report No. 82259.
24. Bohm, E.U., Lake Huron, Water Temperatures in the Vicinity of Bruce NPD 1981 to 1983. Ontario Hydro, Report No. 84415, October, 1984.
25. Burchat, W.L., Lake Huron, Water Temperatures in the Vicinity of Bruce NPD 1984 and 1985. Ontario Hydro, Report No. 86180, August, 1986.
26. Lawler, D.W., Lake Huron, Water Temperatures in the Vicinity of Bruce NPD 1986 and 1987. Ontario Hydro, Report No. 89008, July, 1989.
27. Irbe, G.J., Great Lakes Surface Water Temperature Climatology, Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service Climatological Studies Number 43.
28. Metcalfe, R.P., and R. Farooqui, Lake Huron Bruce NPD Thermal Plume Study, Field Investigations 1981 - 1982. Ontario Hydro, Report No. 83336, August, 1983.
29. Raithby, G.D., Predictions of Thermal Plumes at the Bruce Nuclear Power Development, Thermal Science, Waterloo Ont. Report to Hydraulic Studies and Development Department, Ontario Hydro, 1984.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 21 of 46
30. Vorauer, A., Johnston, H.M., and Jensen, M.R., Reconnaissance Level Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program Bruce Nuclear Power Development Generating Stations Bruce 1-4 and Bruce 5-8. Ontario Hydro Technologies Report: 6292-0011997-RA-0001-R00, May, 1998.
31. Hydrology Consultants Limited, Bruce B Generating Station, Hydrogeologic Investigation. Ontario Hydro Report No. 75013, January, 1975.
32. CANDU Owners Group: Numerical Simulation of a Shallow Ground Water Flow System Southwestern Ontario Reference Site, 1995 December, M.R. Jensen, Prof. J.F. Sykes, R.J. Heystee, P.D. Steven-Guille.
33. Ontario Hydro, Hydrogeologic Investigations of the Bruce NPD Radioactive Waste Operations, Site 2. Report No. 80270, August, 1980.
34. Ontario Hydro, Bruce A Generating Station Geotechnical Site Evaluation (MacPherson Point area), Report 181–8, December 18, 1969.
35. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Bruce Generating Station Site Seismic Risk Analysis. Earth Physics Branch, Report No. 80107.
36. Southern Ontario Seismic Network, www.gp.uwo.ca, November, 2005.
37. United States Atomic Energy Commission, Publication No. TID 7024, Part 6, Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes.
38. Ontario Airports Map; Ontario Ministry of Transportation; 1995.
39. Adapted from Statistics Canada, special tabulation prepared for Bruce Power, 2001 Census of Agriculture, request # 3628. Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics Canada. Users are forbidden to copy the data and redisseminate them, in an original or modified form, without the express permission of Statistics Canada. Information on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can be obtained from Statistics Canada’s Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at http://www.statcan.ca and its toll –free access number 1-800-263-1136.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 22 of 46
Table 2-1 Population of Municipalities in the Vicinity of Bruce A
Pre-Amalgamation Township 2004 2001 1996 Municipalities Kincardine Kincardine (Town) 12,000 11,029 11,908 Kincardine (Township) Tiverton (Village) Bruce (Township) Saugeen Shores Port Elgin (Town) 11,997 11,388 12,084 Southampton (Town) Saugeen (Township) Saugeen 29 (Indian 1559 677 638 Reserve) Arran-Elderslie Paisley (Village) N/A * 6,577 6,851 Arran (Township) Elderslie (Township) Chesley (Town) Huron-Kinloss Lucknow (Village) N/A * 6,224 6,284 Huron (Township) Kinloss (Township) Brockton Walkerton (Town) N/A * 9,658 10,163 Brant (Township) Greenock (Township) South Bruce Teeswater (Village) 6,036 6,063 6,248 Culross (Township) South Bruce Peninsula Amabel (Township) N/A 8,090 8,004 Total Population within ~ 40 km N/A 59,706 62,180
* Data for these municipalities is not available for this issue of the report.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 23 of 46
Table 2-2 Population Distribution within 100 km Radius of Bruce A
Projected Radial 2001 Census Population for Distance(km) Population 20151 0-4 89 93 4-8 1,048 1,093 8-16 2,232 2,328 16-24 16,359 17,060 24-32 8,980 9,365 32-40 8,206 8,557 40-60 73,848 77,011 60-80 60,918 63,527 80-100 64,813 67,589 Total 236,493 246,622
Note:
1. A 0.3% per annum increase has been assumed.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 24 of 46
Table 2-3 Summary of Agricultural and Livestock Food Production Data (2001) within Specific Radii of Bruce Site (See Reference 39)
Agricultural Production in Acres
Radius Range 0-4 4-16 16 – 24 24 – 32 32 – 40 40 – 60 60 – 80 80-100 (in km) Vegetable and food crops 1 2 farms 2 farms 2 Leafy vegetables 0 reporting 1 reporting 17 8 30 18 Exposed Produce
Berries and tree 8 farms fruit 0 38 reporting 24 78 122 368 194 Other above ground vegetables 0 8 4 5 10 147 243 138 Protected Produce 1 farm 1 farm Potatoes 0 reporting 28 reporting 49 449 124 12 Other root vegetables 0 11 4 21 124 28 320 70 Beans/pods 0 10,472 15,554 16,504 14,984 54,489 68,613 105,754 Wheat and other grains 0 16,071 31,127 29,278 37,630 186,793 245,865 295,986 3 farms 2 farms Other crops 0 18 reporting reporting 38 147 339 598
Livestock and Dairy Production in Heads
Radius Range 0-4 4-16 16 – 24 24 – 32 32 – 40 40 – 60 60 – 80 80-100 (in km) Poultry 0 33,744 54,139 95,823 225,236 468,902 2,357,645 2,828,756 Eggs 0 836 10,990 52,110 13,873 255,442 914,718 1,309,184 Sheep 0 4,684 5,836 2,565 2,411 15,888 26,031 15,902 Beef cattle 0 4,505 10,984 5,495 14,413 81,174 77,013 63,269 Milk cattle 0 896 2,214 1,883 1,727 13,299 17,121 28,517 Calves 0 1,821 3,770 2,987 5,113 29,470 36,614 35,699 Pigs 0 7,581 8,109 10,346 20,019 139,816 240,986 395,574 Horses and ponies 0 168 327 173 573 1,945 2,739 2,456 Other livestock 0 899 1,310 4,638 758 18,573 12,204 25,285
Note 1: Where there are small numbers of farms listed in a sector, the production rate cannot be provided for commercial reasons, and the number of farms is reported in the table instead. Note 2: A small area of land may have more than one user, or not be of commercial value, may be listed as an exception to Note 1 above.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 25 of 46
Table 2-4 Summary of Agricultural and Livestock Food Production Data (2001) by Sector within 100 km of Bruce Site (See Reference 39)
Agricultural Production in Acres
Compass N, NNE, NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S, SSW Direction NNW Vegetable and food crop Leafy 2 farms vegetables reported 11 11 11 20 16 8 22 Exposed Produce
Berries and 2 farms tree fruit reported 67 141 178 62 112 132 144 Other above ground vegetables 51 15 66 64 66 215 63 16 Protected Produce 3 farms Potatoes reported 15 27 344 175 180 19 1 Other root vegetables 3 20 12 16 131 69 299 26 Beans/pods 831 3,393 18,855 27,633 42,996 69,184 79,537 43,940 Wheat and other grains 20,276 36,259 121,640 123,456 162,648 168,446 137,836 72,189 Other crops 86 156 319 186 126 87 35 177
Livestock and Dairy Production in Heads
Compass N, NNE, NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S, SSW Direction NNW Poultry 663 34,800 64,440 459,994 1,347,476 1,107,359 2,156,760 892,753 Eggs 20,995 2,369 49,960 824,075 192,410 384,832 749,384 333,128 Sheep 400 6,398 12,453 14,806 7,740 21,153 7,328 3,039 Beef cattle 11,256 15,470 56,378 43,721 45,281 42,419 29,419 12,909 Milk cattle 0 1,619 6,358 7,591 17,827 17,584 10,067 4,611 Calves 4,404 6,327 24,577 17,602 21,585 23,003 13,239 4,737 Pigs 64 2,313 22,416 40,324 167,258 283,362 221,499 85,195 Horses and ponies 287 488 1,697 1,350 1,653 1,821 791 294 Other livestock 169 4,051 8,153 9,924 7,026 11,336 13,589 9,419
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 26 of 46
Table 2-5 Airports Surrounding the Bruce Site
Distance to BP Runway Width1 Length1 Name km Mi Type (Feet) (feet) Kincardine 14 9 Asphalt 75 3871 Port Elgin 23 14 Asphalt 175 3800 Saugeen Municipal 45 28 Asphalt 75 3933 (Hanover) Wingham 52 33 Asphalt 75 4000 Wiarton/Keppel 58 36 Asphalt 150 4921 Goderich 65 41 Asphalt 100 4930 Owen Sound 69 43 Asphalt 75 3932 London National 148 93 Asphalt 200 8800
Note:
1. Details obtained from Reference [38].
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 27 of 46
Table 2-6 Use Estimates for Inverhuron and MacGregor Point Parks
Inverhuron Park MacGregor Point Park Year Visitor Days Visitor Days Camper Days 1992 22,920 68,851 52,640 1993 34,494 87,974 61,532 1994 43,817 89,467 67,214 1995 - 106,443 82,990 1996 - 105,080 81,582 1997 28,818 105,240 82,892 1998 34,239 121,691 96,527 1999 32,886 116,672 93,287 2000 26,782 - - 2001 35,605 135,187 104,526 2002 49,253 134,275 104,754 2003 38,463 160,150 135,134 2004 37,811 167,671 140,058
Note:
1. The data from 1992 to 2004 were obtained from the Ministry of Natural Resources. 2005 data was not available for this issue of the report.
2. The difference between camper days and visitor days represents day use visitors to MacGregor Park.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 28 of 46
Table 2-7 Atmospheric Temperature (2002-2005)
Month Minimum Hourly Maximum Mean Monthly (°C) Hourly (°C) (°C)
January -21.3 16.7 -6.5
February -21.2 8.2 -4.7
March -25.3 20.1 -0.4
April -8.3 26.4 5.5
May -1.2 26.8 10.6
June 4.7 31.6 17.5
July 7.9 29.7 19.0
August 9.7 32.0 18.9
September 1.5 26.9 17.0
October 0.3 22.8 10.6
November -11.2 18.6 4.0
December -19.1 11.1 -0.5
Year -25.3 32.0 7.6
Note:
1. Measurements at 10 m elevation of 50 m Bruce site Met Tower.
2. Minimum or maximum hourly temperatures represent the coldest or warmest hours for that month over the 5 year period.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 29 of 46
Table 2-8 Precipitation (Canadian Normals)
Wiarton A, Ontario Environment Canada Station [Latitude: 44o45’; Longitude: 81o6’ Elevation: 222.20 m]
Mean Maximum Maximum Mean Mean Monthly Month Monthly Daily Rainfall Daily Snowfall Precipitation Snowfall (cm) Rainfall (mm) (mm) (cm) (mm)
January 21.8 32 125.2 51.4 105.3
February 20.7 48 74.3 30.7 68
March 36.6 36.1 46.4 45.5 73.4
April 54.9 45.3 15.3 26.8 68.1
May 74.3 48.8 1.1 14.5 75.3
June 74.4 67.8 0 0 74.4
July 71.2 104.6 0 0 71.2
August 85.2 73.4 0 0 85.2
September 104.3 88.6 0 0.2 104.3
October 86.9 69.3 4.4 23.6 91
November 77.7 46 47.7 32.5 115.6
December 32.4 45.5 112.1 38.4 109.5
Year 740.4 426.6 1041.3
Note:
1. Rainfall, snowfall and precipitation amounts given in the tables represent the average accumulation for a given month or year.
2. The water equivalent of snowfall is computed by dividing the measured amount by ten.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 30 of 46
Table 2-9 Wind Frequencies (%) According to Direction and Speed (2002-2005)
Wind Wind Speed (km/hr) Sector 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 Total N 2.02 3.38 1.1 0.05 0 0 6.55 NNE 2.38 3.22 0.52 0.05 0 0 6.17 NE 2.15 1.7 0.37 0 0 0 4.22 ENE 2.74 1.75 0.07 0 0 0 4.56 E 3.16 1.03 0.02 0 0 0 4.21 ESE 2.25 0.99 0.05 0 0 0 3.29 SE 2.73 1.77 0.2 0 0 0 4.7 SSE 4.23 2.29 0.38 0 0 0 6.9 S 6.04 3.66 0.59 0 0 0 10.29 SSW 4.14 4.16 1.54 0.07 0 0 9.91 SW 2.19 5.56 1.43 0.33 0 0 9.51 WSW 1.41 3.53 1.86 0.3 0.01 0 7.11 W 1.17 2.44 1.31 0.15 0 0 5.07 WNW 1.18 2.4 1.43 0.24 0.02 0 5.27 NW 1.4 2.63 1.02 0.21 0.03 0 5.29 NNW 2.34 3.37 1.1 0.12 0 0 6.93 Total 41.53 43.88 12.99 1.52 0.06 0 99.98
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 31 of 46
Table 2-10 Frequency of Occurrence (%) of Atmospheric Stability Class
Period A B C D E F 2002-2005 5.5 7.5 24.3 43.5 9.8 9.4 1997-2001 5.6 6.9 22.8 46.2 9.3 9.1
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 32 of 46
Table 2-11 Joint Frequency of Occurrence of Stability Class, Wind Direction and Wind Speed (2002-2005)
Stability Class A
Wind Wind Speed (km/hr) Direction 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 >60 Total N 0.48 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0.62 NNE 0.36 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0.45 NE 0.26 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0.34 ENE 0.17 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 ENE 0.25 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0.28 ESE 0.23 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 SE 0.19 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0.22 SSE 0.18 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0.23 S 0.18 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 SSW 0.19 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 SW 0.23 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0.32 WSW 0.21 0.11 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.33 W 0.3 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0.36 WNW 0.27 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 0.38 NW 0.39 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0.45 NNW 0.54 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 0.65 TOTAL 4.43 1.09 0.01 0 0 0 0 5.53
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 33 of 46
Table 2-11 (Continued) Joint Frequency of Occurrence of Stability Class, Wind Direction and Wind Speed (2002-2005)
Stability Class B
Wind Wind Speed (km/ hr) Direction 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 >60 Total N 0.32 0.38 0.02 0 0 0 0 0.72 NNE 0.33 0.43 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.77 NE 0.22 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 ENE 0.15 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0.27 ENE 0.22 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.32 ESE 0.17 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0.32 SE 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 SSE 0.16 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0.28 S 0.16 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 SSW 0.13 0.27 0.02 0 0 0 0 0.42 SW 0.19 0.3 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.5 WSW 0.24 0.28 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.53 W 0.21 0.34 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.56 WNW 0.2 0.17 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.38 NW 0.16 0.26 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.43 NNW 0.52 0.38 0.02 0 0 0 0 0.92 TOTAL 3.58 3.76 0.12 0 0 0 0 7.46
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 34 of 46
Table 2-11 (Continued) Joint Frequency of Occurrence of Stability Class, Wind Direction and Wind Speed (2002-2005)
Stability Class C
Wind Wind Speed (km/ hr) Direction 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 >60 Total N 0.24 1.11 0.44 0.02 0 0 0 1.81 NNE 0.4 1.65 0.2 0.02 0 0 0 2.27 NE 0.26 0.65 0.12 0 0 0 0 1.03 ENE 0.17 0.55 0.04 0 0 0 0 0.76 ENE 0.3 0.43 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.74 ESE 0.2 0.31 0.02 0 0 0 0 0.53 SE 0.34 0.54 0.09 0 0 0 0 0.97 SSE 0.35 0.63 0.18 0 0 0 0 1.16 S 0.45 0.78 0.29 0 0 0 0 1.52 SSW 0.35 1.24 0.68 0.02 0 0 0 2.29 SW 0.27 3.03 0.5 0.03 0 0 0 3.83 WSW 0.21 1.13 0.26 0.01 0 0 0 1.61 W 0.16 0.78 0.35 0.02 0 0 0 1.31 WNW 0.14 0.72 0.42 0.07 0 0 0 1.35 NW 0.11 0.82 0.3 0.03 0.02 0 0 1.28 NNW 0.35 1.2 0.29 0.04 0 0 0 1.88 TOTAL 4.3 15.57 4.19 0.26 0.02 0 0 24.34
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 35 of 46
Table 2-11 (Continued) Joint Frequency of Occurrence of Stability Class, Wind Direction and Wind Speed (2002-2005)
Stability Class D
Wind Wind Speed (km/ hr) Direction 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 >60 Total N 0.22 1.69 0.63 0.03 0 0 0 2.57 NNE 0.23 1.01 0.31 0.03 0 0 0 1.58 NE 0.33 0.84 0.25 0 0 0 0 1.42 ENE 0.79 1.03 0.03 0 0 0 0 1.85 ENE 0.76 0.46 0 0 0 0 0 1.22 ESE 0.29 0.5 0.03 0 0 0 0 0.82 SE 0.52 0.97 0.11 0 0 0 0 1.6 SSE 1.73 1.49 0.2 0 0 0 0 3.42 S 2.71 2.69 0.29 0 0 0 0 5.69 SSW 1.65 2.53 0.84 0.05 0 0 0 5.07 SW 0.56 2.09 0.92 0.3 0 0 0 3.87 WSW 0.28 1.95 1.58 0.28 0.01 0 0 4.1 W 0.13 1.2 0.95 0.13 0 0 0 2.41 WNW 0.13 1.36 1 0.16 0.02 0 0 2.67 NW 0.15 1.45 0.71 0.18 0 0 0 2.49 NNW 0.18 1.62 0.8 0.08 0 0 0 2.68 TOTAL 10.66 22.88 8.65 1.24 0.03 0 0 43.46
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 36 of 46
Table 2-11 (Continued) Joint Frequency of Occurrence of Stability Class, Wind Direction and Wind Speed (2002-2005)
Stability Class E
Wind Wind Speed (km/hr) Direction 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 >60 Total N 0.24 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 NNE 0.42 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0.45 NE 0.56 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0.58 ENE 0.78 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 ENE 0.89 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 ESE 0.6 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0.61 SE 0.76 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0.78 SSE 1.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.03 S 1.56 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 1.58 SSW 0.96 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 1.02 SW 0.4 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0.46 WSW 0.12 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 W 0.13 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0.18 WNW 0.2 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0.24 NW 0.29 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 NNW 0.31 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0.37 TOTAL 9.25 0.55 0 0 0 0 0 9.8
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 37 of 46
Table 2-11 (Continued) Joint Frequency of Occurrence of Stability Class, Wind Direction and Wind Speed (2002-2005)
Stability Class F
Wind Wind Speed (km/hr) Direction 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 >60 Total N 0.52 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0.53 NNE 0.64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.64 NE 0.52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.52 ENE 0.67 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0.68 ENE 0.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.75 ESE 0.77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.77 SE 0.73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.73 SSE 0.78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.78 S 0.99 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 1 SSW 0.85 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0.86 SW 0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.53 WSW 0.36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.36 W 0.25 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0.26 WNW 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 NW 0.29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 NNW 0.44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.44 TOTAL 9.34 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 9.39
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 38 of 46
Table 2-12 Summary of Lake Currents 1974-1986
Lake currents recorded at 8 m depth, 0.6-1.6 km offshore of Bruce (generally May to November)
Frequency Distribution by Direction Current speed (percent of time) Net Transport (cm/s) Year Direction “to” by quadrants NE SW SE NW Net Direction Calm Longshore Mean* Max. ±45 ±45 ±45 ±45 Speed “to” 1974 48.9 23.5 12.9 9.0 5.7 72.4 8.2 36 1.8 NE
1975 47.4 12.2 26.3 6.2 7.9 59.6 9.3 33 4.0 E
1976 43.4 22.0 20.7 2.3 11.6 65.4 13.6 38 4.7 E
1981 33.5 30.5 19.4 13.0 3.6 64.0 13.1 47 1.4 ENE
1982 49.2 21.1 17.2 5.2 7.3 70.3 11.0 43 5.2 NE
1983 40.1 26.0 15.0 12.1 6.8 66.1 8.9 36 2.5 NE
1984 62.3 14.5 9.9 8.9 4.4 76.8 15.0 50 8.8 NNE
1986 52.0 17.2 11.2 9.2 10.4 69.2 11.1 37 5.0 NE
Weighted 46.9 21.0 16.5 8.5 7.1 67.9 11.3 Average
a. Indicates mean current speed excluding calm periods.
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 39 of 46
Figure 2-1 Map Showing New Amalgamated Townships within ~ 40 km of Bruce A
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 40 of 46
Figure 2-2 2001 Census Population Distribution within 100 km Radius of Bruce A
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 41 of 46
Distance N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW (km) 0-4 0 0 0 10 0 5 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4-8 0 0 112 16 56 54 40 751 59 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 8-16 0 0 46 233 138 193 168 345 343 862 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 2-3 2015 Projected Population Distribution within 100 km of Bruce A
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 42 of 46
Figure 2-4 Wind Rose (1997-2005)
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 43 of 46
Figure 2-5 Bruce B Water Intake Daily Temperature (2004-2005)
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 44 of 46
Figure 2-6 Building Layout and Drill Hole Locations
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 45 of 46
Figure 2-7 Drill Hole Data Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45
BRUCE A SAFETY REPORT PART 1 Plant and Site Description
Document Number: Revision: Freeze Date: NK21-SR-01320-00001 003 15JUN2006 SECTION 2 Site Description Page 46 of 46
Figure 2-8 Southern Ontario Seismicity Map for 1992-2004
Master PDF Created: 22Jun2006 7:45