StenoTran

1

HEARING DAY ONE:1New Brunswick Power Corporation:2Application for an amendment to the Waste Facility3Operating Licence for the Point Lepreau Solid4Radioactive Waste Management Facility5

THE CHAIRPERSON: We now move to6Hearing Day One of a two-day process on the matter7of the application for an amendment to the Waste8Facility Operating Licence for the Point Lepreau9Solid Radioactive Waste Management Facility.10

MR. LEBLANC: The Notice of Public11Hearing 2003-H-16 was published on July 17, 2003.12August 25th was the deadline set for filing by the13applicant and by CNSC staff. September 17th was14the deadline for filing of supplementary15information by the applicant and Commission staff.16

1703-H31.118Oral presentation by New Brunswick Power Inc.19

THE CHAIRPERSON: I would like to20begin the hearing today by calling on New21Brunswick Power Inc. for the oral presentation.22

This is outlined in CMD document2303-H31.24

I will turn it over to Mr. Rod25

StenoTran

2

White.1Good morning, Mr. White, and2

welcome.3MR. WHITE: Good morning, Madam4

President and Commissioners.5My name is Rod White. I am the6

Vice-President of Nuclear for New Brunswick Power.7I am joined this morning by: Mr.8

Rod Eagles, our Refurbishment Director, who will9be assisting me in the presentation this morning;10and Mr. Charles Hickman, our Manager of11Environmental Assessment.12

Also with us for supporting13services are: Mike Mersereau, our System14Specialist; Paul Thompson, Refurbishment Licence15Manager; Pamela Tume, Leading AECL Design Team;16June Connoll, our Technical Licensing Specialist;17and Dave Wilson, our Senior Technical Advisor,18Regulatory Affairs.19

The purpose of our presentation is20to request the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission21approve amendments to the waste facility operating22licences issued to New Brunswick Power and New23Brunswick Power Nuclear to allow the long-term24development of the waste facility involving25

StenoTran

3

construction and operation of additional1structures related to the planned refurbishment2and extended operation of the Point Lepreau3generating station.4

Our presentation to support this5request provides a summary of our written6submission and has been organized under three main7headings.8

First, I will start with a9discussion of the refurbishment project,10discussing the planning that has taken place, the11regulatory and public environment around the12project and how the project links to the long-term13plans for the waste facility.14

Then Mr. Rod Eagles will provide a15review of our request for licence amendment, with16an overview of the design of the proposed17structures and the information that has been18submitted to the Commission.19

Finally, I will close with some20conclusions.21

New Brunswick Power Corporation is22in the planning stages of a project to refurbish23the Point Lepreau generating station to allow it24to operate for an additional 25 to 30 years. If25

StenoTran

4

the refurbishment project proceeds, New Brunswick1Power will conduct detailed engineering and2procurement activities in advance of an 18-month3shutdown referred to as the refurbishment outage.4

The principal work involves the5replacement of key reactor components, including6fuel channels and a portion of the connecting7feeder pipes. The target date for the start of8the refurbishment outage is April 2007. New9Brunswick Power has conducted technical10evaluations required to move the outage from the11current start date of 2007 to 2008 and is in the12process of having the new start date approved13internally.14

On September 19th the New15Brunswick Power Board accepted a recommendation to16move the outage start date to April 2008.17

AECL is NB Power's general18contractor for the refurbishment project,19including those activities related to the new20structures for the solid radioactive waste21management facility.22

A predictable regulatory climate23is considered essential for all aspects of this24project, especially for establishing the scope of25

StenoTran

5

the project. NB Power has developed a licensing1framework to establish guiding principles and2expectations to define the scope of licensing3activities and thus provide predictability to all4parties.5

Consistent with this licensing6framework, NB Power has:7

(1) conducted a plant condition8assessment to establish what equipment requires9replacement or refurbishment;10

(2) conducted a detailed safety11and licensing review, including, for example,12comparison of the station to current codes and13standards used in recent plant designs;14

(3) used cost-benefit analysis to15assist in review of items to support risk informed16decision-making; and17

(4) engaged CNSC staff in all18aspects of the project.19

As the refurbishment activities20are similar to those that have been undertaken21previously, either at Point Lepreau or at other22generating stations, NB Power does not believe23that an amendment to the power reactor operating24licence is required. This is the underlying25

StenoTran

6

assumption of the licensing framework.1Consistent with its current2

operating philosophy, NB Power plans to store the3radioactive waste generated from the retube4activity and future operations in structures at5the waste facility. The intention to develop the6entire waste facility was outlined in the7environmental assessment for the solid radioactive8waste management facility modifications and in9previous environmental assessments.10

NB Power envisages developing the11entire licensed area for management of radioactive12waste with development taking place on an as-13required basis.14

The waste facility operates under15a CNSC licence that was recently renewed and is16valid until July 2009. Under this licence New17Brunswick Power has approval for:18

Phase I, comprising four low and19medium-level vaults;20

Phase II, comprising 300 used fuel21canisters and infrastructure related to these22facilities.23

An amendment to the waste24facility's operating licence is required to allow25

StenoTran

7

the addition of new structures for managing the1refurbishment project waste, as well as future low2and medium-level waste from extended operations3following refurbishment.4

The need for the amendment to the5operating licence triggered both federal and6provincial environmental assessments. As a result7of the assessment, NB Power has committed to a8follow-up program involving baseline monitoring9activities and expansion of existing operational10monitoring programs; implementation of a11construction environmental protection program; and12continued community relations activities.13

NB Power is involved in a14comprehensive communications program related to15the modifications to the waste facility, the16related environmental assessment and the17refurbishment project as a whole.18

These communication activities19were discussed in detail at the June 27, 200320environmental assessment hearing and are21summarized on the slide for your viewing.22

I will now turn the presentation23over to Mr. Rod Eagles, our Refurbishment24Director.25

StenoTran

8

MR. EAGLES: Good morning, my name1is Rod Eagles. I am the Refurbishment Project2Director.3

My portion of the presentation4will focus on the specific request for an5amendment to the operating license.6

Our formal request, dated May 23,72003, requests an amendment of the solid8radioactive waste management facility operating9licenses to authorized construction of up to four10additional Phase I vault structures, or vaults,11using existing design, in an area adjacent, and12ultimately connected to, the existing Phase I13area.14

This new area would be referred to15as Phase I Extension.16

Authorized construction of up to17an additional 300 Phase II structures, or18canisters, using existing design and in an area19adjacent to, and ultimately connected to, the20existing Phase II area.21

This new area would be referred to22as Phase II Extension.23

Authorized construction of up to24five new canister-type structures, or re-tube25

StenoTran

9

canisters, and up to two vault structures, for1management of re-tube waste, in an area referred2to as Phase III.3

NB Power requests that the4Commission give authority to a designated officer5to consider our application for authorization to6operate these new structures.7

The following slide shows the8location of these structures within the waste9facility and a more detailed drawing is included10in Figure 1 in the information submitted with this11presentation.12

This is an animated slide that we13will step through.14

The licensed waste management15facility, approximately 8 hectares in area, is16part of the Point Lepreau site, is the yellow area17on the slide. As you can see, only about 25 per18cent of the area has been developed.19

In the next animation, this slide20shows the existing facilities with the low- and21medium-levels storage area on the left, labelled22Phase I, and the used fuel storage area on the23right, labelled Phase II.24

Next animation. This area,25

StenoTran

10

labelled Phase I Extension, is where the new low-1and medium-level storage structures will be2located.3

Next animation. This area,4labelled Phase II Extension, is where the new used5fuel canisters will be located.6

In the last animation, this area7is where the new structures for the refurbishment8waste will be located.9

As you can see, an additional area10is available for future development on an "as11required" basis.12

It is these structures that are13the subject of our request for amendment.14

This slide shows the existing15vault structures on the left, and up to four of16these will be constructed as part of the Part I17Extension, on an "as required" basis.18

The construction of the existing19dry canisters are shown on the right. These are20also reinforced concrete structures and are21constructed on an "as required" basis. Currently,22we have approval for 300 of these canisters,23although only 140 are in place at this time. An24additional 300 will be added over time in the25

StenoTran

11

Phase II extension.1This slide shows the type of2

structures that will constructed in the Phase III3area, to receive waste from the refurbishment4outage.5

On the left of this slide is a6plan and profile of the vaults, the same as those7already in use in Phase I.8

A plan and profile of the three9re-tube canisters is shown on the right. These10are also reinforced concrete structures, designed11by AECL, and represent an evolution of the12existing dry storage canister design currently in13use at the facility.14

For clarity, this slide shows only15one vault and three canisters, however, we are16requesting approval of two vaults and five17canisters.18

Based on direction received from19the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission staff, a20series of technical documents have been submitted21for formal review by staff.22

These submissions reflect23information required for license under the24regulations, taking into account the fact that25

StenoTran

12

this is an enhancement to an already existing1licensed facility.2

Included in these submissions is a3list of prerequisites that would have to be met4before construction or operation of the new5structures could commence.6

This concludes my part of the7presentation and I will ask Rod White to conclude.8

Thank you.9MR. WHITE: As outlined by Mr.10

Eagles, NB Power has provided the necessary11technical information to support our formal12request for an amendment to the waste facility13operation license issued to NB Power and to NB14Power Nuclear.15

We respectfully seek the16Commission's approval of the amendment as proposed17by staff.18

This concludes our presentation19today and we are available to answer any questions20the Commission may have.21

Thank you.22THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.23

White.2425

StenoTran

13

03-H311Oral presentation by CNSC staff2

THE CHAIRPERSON: Before we3open the floor for questions, we will turn to CNSC4staff for their presentation. I will turn to Mrs.5Maloney for the oral presentation, as outlined in6CMD document 03-H31.7

Mrs. Maloney.8MS MALONEY: Good morning Madam9

Chair and members of the Commission. I am Cait10Maloney, Director General of the Directorate of11Nuclear Cycle and Facilities Regulation.12

With me today are Mahrez Ben13Belfadhel, Acting Director of the Waste and14Geoscience Division, and Francois Leduc, Project15Officer, same division.16

New Brunswick Power Corporation17has applied for an amendment of the Point Lepreau18solid radioactive waste management facility19operating license, to authorize construction of20additional waste storage structures.21

These additional structures will22be required in order meet the demand for waste23management as a result of the proposed24refurbishment of the reactor, and an additional 2525

StenoTran

14

to 30 years of operation of the station, following1the proposed refurbishment.2

We are presenting CMD 03-H31 for a3decision regarding New Brunswick Power's4application for an amendment to their waste5management facility operating license.6

I will now turn the presentation7over to M. Leduc.8

MR. LEDUC: Thank you, Madam9Maloney.10

Madame president, members of the11Commission, for the record my name is François12Leduc.13

My presentation this morning will14summarize CMD 03-H31.15

I will first provide a description16of NB Power's proposed modifications to the solid17radioactive waste management facility and give an18overview of facility operations.19

I will then provide information on20CNSC staff's review of New Brunswick Power's21application for a license amendment to authorize22construction of the additional waste storage23structures and briefly address the application of24the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for this25

StenoTran

15

project.1Next, I will follow with a2

discussion on the outstanding issues prior to the3start of the construction activities.4

Finally, I will provide staff's5conclusions on the application and make6recommendations to the Commission concerning the7license amendment.8

The Point Lepreau solid9radioactive waste management facility is located10within the exclusion zone of the Point Lepreau11nuclear generating station, approximately 1,20012metres to the northeast of the reactor building.13

The waste facility currently under14license has a total area of 8.5 hectares. It15comprises the Phase I area, with above-ground16concrete vaults for the storage of low- and17medium-level wastes, and the Phase II area with18above-ground concrete canisters for the storage of19used fuel.20

These two areas make up 25 per21cent of the total waste facility under license.22

If approved, the modifications to23the waste facility will result in the following24changes.25

StenoTran

16

A Phase I area extension,1comprising four additional rows of above-ground2concrete vaults. Those vaults are similar in3design to those presently used in the existing4Phase I area and will be constructed on an "as5required" basis.6

A Phase II area extension,7comprising 300 additional above-ground concrete8canisters. Those canisters are similar in design9to those presently used in the existing Phase II10area and will also be constructed on an "as11required" basis.12

A new Phase III area, comprising13five new above-ground cylindrical concrete14modules, called re-tube canisters, and two rows of15above-ground concrete vaults.16

The re-tube canisters are of a new17design, whereas the vaults are similar to those18presently used in the existing Phase I area.19Those structures will be constructed on an "as20required" basis as well.21

All the additional structures will22be constructed within the existing boundaries of23the solid radioactive waste management facility24currently under license.25

StenoTran

17

The drawing shown on the screen1provides an overview of the modified, solid2radioactive waste management facility that will be3regulated by the proposed amended license.4

The proposed modifications5include, the Phase I extension, in the upper left-6hand corner, with the concrete vaults shown in red7and green, and situated immediately to the right8of the existing Phase I, which is shown in blue.9

The Phase II extension, in the10upper right-hand corner, with the concrete11canisters shown in red, and situated immediately12to the right of the existing Phase II, also shown13in blue.14

In the new Phase III area, in the15lower left-hand corner, with the re-tube canisters16and concrete vaults shown in red.17

Together, the existing and18proposed areas will cover approximately sixty per19cent of the solid radioactive waste management20facility under license.21

The existing Phase I area is used22for the storage of low- to medium-level waste,23resulting from the day-to-day operations of the24Point Lepreau nuclear generating station.25

StenoTran

18

If the proposed refurbishment is1undertaken, the Phase I extension will serve the2same purpose following the refurbishment.3

The existing Phase II area is used4for the storage of dry used fuel generated at the5Point Lepreau nuclear generating station.6

The Phase II extension will serve7the same purpose following the refurbishment.8

The operations at the Phase III9area will comprise two distinct activities.10First, high activity refurbishment waste will be11stored in the re-tube canisters.12

Second, low- and medium-activity13waste, generated during the refurbishment, will be14stored in the concrete vaults.15

The proposed modifications to the16waste facility which trigger this licensing17amendment, cover construction of Phase I and Phase18II extensions, as well as a new Phase III area,19within the boundaries of the licensed solid20radioactive waste management facility, as well as21the continuation of activities authorized under22the present license.23

With their submission for the24licensing amendment, NB Power has provided25

StenoTran

19

supporting documentation for review.1CNSC staff made the determination2

that the submission provided met the informational3requirements as set out in the CNSC regulations.4

CNSC staff has reviewed NB Power's5application and supporting documentation, and has6evaluated them against applicable regulatory7requirements, codes and standards.8

Based on the information provided9by the proponent throughout the review process,10CNSC staff finds the proposed design to be11adequate, and has concluded that the construction12of the proposed facilities will be carried out in13a manner that will protect persons and the14environment, that security will be maintained, and15that the performance objectives of the proposed16facilities will be met.17

In assessing those performance18objectives, the operational characteristics of19those facilities were also taken into20consideration.21

The licensing decision currently22before the Commission is for an authorization to23construct only, and does not include the operation24of the proposed facilities.25

StenoTran

20

The authorization to operate those1facilities will be the subject of a separate2request by the proponent, and will be sought3through the Director General, Directorate of4Nuclear Cycle and Facilities Regulation.5

Should there be any significant6changes to the design of the proposed facilities,7proposed operations, or ownership, the matter will8be brought to the Commission for decision through9further public hearings, as appropriate.10

CNSC staff intends to provide a11status report on the progress of the construction12and operations at the solid radioactive waste13management facility during a public proceeding of14the Commission at the mid-point of the license15term.16

Following NB Power's proposal for17modifications to the waste facility, CNSC staff18determine that, pursuant to paragraph 5(1)(d) of19the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, a20federal environmental assessment was required21before the CNSC could consider NB Power's22application to amend its operating license23accordingly.24

CNSC staff determined that a25

StenoTran

21

screening environmental assessment of the project1was required pursuant to subsection 18(1) of the2CEAA.3

The screening report was prepared4by CNSC staff in cooperation with the New5Brunswick Department of Environment and local6government staff under a cooperative federal-7provincial environmental impact assessment, and in8accordance with the applicable requirements of9CEAA.10

Following a one-day public hearing11held on June 27, 2003, the Commission issued its12decision on August 25th, where it concluded that13the project, taking into account the appropriate14mitigation measures, is not likely to cause15significant adverse environmental effects and that16the public concerns about the project did not17warrant a reference to the Minister of the18Environment for referral to a mediator or review19panel.20

Following the Commission's21decision, the Minister, New Brunswick Department22of Environment and Local Government, issues to New23Brunswick Power a Certificate of Determination to24proceed with the project.25

StenoTran

22

NB Power has provided numerous1documents to support their request for an2amendment to the waste facility operating licence.3

The documents received generally4included sufficient information to permit CNSC5staff to conduct the necessary design reviews.6

When additional information or7clarification was requested, NB Power submitted8their responses promptly.9

NB Power is expected to produce10final versions of the following documents11acceptable to CNSC staff prior to the start of the12construction activities:13

And environmental assessment14follow-up program to verify the effectiveness of15the mitigation measures and whether the16conclusions of the environmental assessment are17being met.18

A construction environmental19protection program which includes specific20measures for the management of those environmental21aspects that have been identified in the EA.22

A construction verification plan23to ensure that plan inspections, tests and24procedures to control the quality of the25

StenoTran

23

construction work are in place.1Although the review of those2

documents is not finalized, CNSC staff is of the3opinion that the issues left to be addressed are4not of a nature that should impede the application5to amend the licence.6

CNSC staff also asked the licensee7to refine their heat transfer analysis of the8retube canister to take into consideration extreme9weather conditions. Although this analysis is10still forthcoming, the design of the retube11canisters themselves is not expected to change.12

Results of this analysis will be13provided at the Day 2 hearing.14

NB Power's application has15addressed the informational requirements for an16application in the regulations.17

From the results of the design18review, of the support documents and the19assessment of outstanding issues, CNSC staff20concludes that NB Power is qualified to carry on21the activities that the proposed licence amendment22will authorize.23

In carrying on these activities,24NB Power will make adequate provisions for the25

StenoTran

24

protection of the environment, the health and1safety of persons and the maintenance of national2security and international obligations.3

With respect to the Canadian4Environmental Assessment Act, CNSC staff has5concluded that the Commission can consider NB6Power's application to amend the licence to7authorize construction of new waste storage8facilities since those modifications are not9likely to cause significant adverse effects on the10environment.11

As indicated in the CMD, several12changes are proposed in the draft licence13amendment for the solid radioactive waste14management facility.15

These include a condition allowing16construction of the new waste facilities;17

another one addressing the18requirements to submit specific plans and programs19prior to the start of the construction activities,20and21

finally, the need to obtain22authorization to operate prior to the start of23operations.24

The description of the facility in25

StenoTran

25

Appendix A of the licence is also modified1accordingly and a follow-up program has been added2to the list of the licensing documents in Appendix3B.4

Finally, a list of construction5documents is provided in Appendix C.6

CNSC recommends the Commission7accepts staff's conclusions that the applicant is8qualified and will make adequate provisions to9protect persons and the environment and maintain10security in Canada's international obligations.11

CNSC staff also recommends the12Commission approve the issuance pursuant to13section 24(2) of the Nuclear Safety and Control14Act of the amended Point Lepreau Solid Radioactive15Waste Management Facility operating licence.16

And, finally, if the Commission17amends the licence as proposed, that the person18authorized by the Commission to provide written19approval for the operation of the modified waste20facility under condition 2.2 of the amended21licence, be the Director General, Director of22Nuclear Cycle and Facilities Regulation.23

This, Madam President, concludes24my presentation. I will now hand over to Madam25

StenoTran

26

Maloney. Thank you.1MS MALONEY: Thank you.2This concludes staff's3

presentation. We are available to answer your4questions.5

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very6much.7

The floor is now open for8questions from Commission Members.9

I just would like to remind the10members, the proponent and the staff that this is11Day 1 so if there are any issues which do require12follow up between Day 1 and Day 2 in order that13there be some clarification, I would urge everyone14to be as specific as possible in those matters so15there is a clear idea of what will be coming back16on Day 2.17

On that basis, Ms MacLachlan,18would you like to start?19

MEMBER MacLACHLAN: Thank you very20much.21

This is a question to staff: In22CMD 03-H31 you state that there were a number of23things that you were still waiting for at the time24this report was prepared.25

StenoTran

27

Has the New Brunswick Minister of1Environment and Local Government issues his2decision yet, his or her?3

MR. LEDUC: As I mentioned in the4presentation, the New Brunswick Department of5Environment has issued an authorization6certificate to proceed, but in that certificate it7is related to our licence and, as well, acceptance8by the Commission of all the necessary9documentation.10

So there is a conditional approval11by the New Brunswick department in there.12

MEMBER MacLACHLAN: Thank you.13For the EA follow-up program, when14

will this be generated and approved internally and15will it be submitted to the Commission for Day 2?16

MR. LEDUC: The follow-up program17is not expected to be submitted for the Day 2.18What we asked is that the follow-up program be19ready and accepted prior to the start of the20construction activities.21

The processing going ahead with22this follow-up program is the same as what was23done in other instances. In other words,24stakeholders will be consulted, the program will25

StenoTran

28

be proposed by NB Power for acceptance by CNSC1staff.2

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Dosman.3MEMBER DOSMAN: Thank you, Madam4

Chair. My questions are to New Brunswick Power.5I take it that New Brunswick6

Power, when this modernization is completed, will7actually have three types of waste storage8containers on-site. Am I correct on that? The9vault, the older canisters and the retubed10canisters?11

MR. EAGLES: That is correct.12MEMBER DOSMAN: The 30-foot13

diameter retubed canisters will be new to the14site. Presumably New Brunswick Power hasn't had15this type of facility before.16

MR. EAGLES: Yes, that is correct.17MEMBER DOSMAN: Presumably these18

larger containers are being purchased as a result19of the large volume of high-level radioactive20waste that will result as a result of retubing?21

MR. EAGLES: Rod Eagles.22Yes, the high-level radioactive23

waste that will be coming from in the reactor core24will in fact be stored in those new canisters and25

StenoTran

29

the design is specific to deal with the radiation1levels of that material.2

MEMBER DOSMAN: Could you explain3for me how the design, which I think consists of4seven vertical columns within the 30-foot5canister, will protect the workers and others from6radiation on-site?7

MR. EAGLES: Rod Eagles.8The design of the cylindrical9

concrete retubed canisters will have a supporting10structure inside in which seven vertical pipes11will be supported to allow the placement of the12radioactive waste inside of those vertical pipes.13There is an air space between those pipes and the141.2 metre thick concrete walls, reinforced15concrete wall that allows the appropriate cooling16of the waste that is being stored, and then of17course the appropriate cover one top. So that the18radioactive, I guess sort of the dose rate19designed for the exterior surface of the concrete20canisters would be 25 •Sv/h.21

MEMBER DOSMAN: So is New22Brunswick Power confident that this structure, if23the integrity is maintained, will adequately24protect workers on the site?25

StenoTran

30

MR. EAGLES: Rod Eagles.1Yes, we are confident that the2

structure will protect the workers on the site.3The design, 25 •Sv/h contact at outside surface,4is similar to design of the existing spent fuel5canisters which are stored in the Phase II area.6

MEMBER DOSMAN: If I may, on this7line of questions, Madam Chair.8

I see from the information that9AECL will be the general contractor for the10creation of these canisters.11

Have these types of canisters been12used at any other sites in Canada to your13knowledge? Do we have any experience with them or14will this be a new innovation in handling nuclear15waste in Canada?16

MR. EAGLES: Rod Eagles again.17I would categorize this as an18

evolution of existing design, including the used19fuel storage canisters and the Canstor that is20used for used fuel storage at other locations.21The specific design is new to this location.22

MEMBER DOSMAN: If I may, could23you perhaps describe the issue around heat flux24and the further calculations that I take it need25

StenoTran

31

to be conducted in the prediction of the integrity1of these canisters?2

MR. EAGLES: It is Rod Eagles.3There was a question that arose4

during review of technical documents between5ourselves and CNSC staff. We believe the design6has been done in accordance with the appropriate7codes, but have agreed with CNSC staff to8undertake the review of how, under high and low9temperatures the transfer of heat from the storage10pipes within the retube canisters, that may affect11the integrity.12

So the work that has been planned,13as was indicated by CNSC staff, will be undertaken14between now and the Day 2 hearing.15

MEMBER DOSMAN: I'm sorry to16monopolize, but I have one last question. This is17for CNSC staff.18

May I inquire: Is CNSC staff19satisfied with this process and sufficiently20confident that the calculations will be those that21are expected for the integrity of the structure?22

MR. BELFADHEL: For the record, my23name is Mahrez Ben Belfadhel, Acting Director of24the Waste and Geoscience Division.25

StenoTran

32

Maybe I should put everything into1context.2

The heat transfer analysis that3was done by NB Power of course was done to verify4the structural integrity of the containers under5the thermal stresses that are caused by the6difference in temperature between the inside and7the outside of the canisters.8

During their review, CNSC staff9raised the issue that -- actually, the gradient10temperatures that were used during the analysis by11NB Power were determined using a steady-state12condition where when you lower the temperature13outside the container you wait a certain time and14then you establish the steady state condition.15

So CNSC staff raised the issue16that maybe higher gradient will be developed17between the time you lower the temperature and the18steady-station conditions. We asked NB Power to19validate the gradient that they have used and to20check that these higher gradients will not have an21impact on the integrity of the canisters.22

Now from the initial feedback we23got from NB Power, we believe that the new24analysis will not have any impact on the design of25

StenoTran

33

the canister, and even if there is an impact the1changes in the design will be minimal. That is2why we consider that this issue does not influence3this licensing amendment.4

We will provide a full update on5this issue on Day 2.6

MEMBER DOSMAN: Thank you very7much.8

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Graham.9MEMBER GRAHAM: Thank you.10Just to follow upon Dr. Dosman's11

questions, I guess first to CNSC: In the heat12transfer and the integrity of the design, this13facility is probably the only one that is14susceptible to and very close to salt water and15salt air compared to other nuclear facilities. In16this integrity and design are you taking that into17consideration as far as corrosion and so on?18

MR. BELFADHEL: Ben Belfadhel.19I will ask Mr. Daniel Paquette to20

comment on this.21MR. PAQUETTE: For the record,22

Daniel Paquette, Specialist for the Engineering23Assessment Division.24

As for the structural integrity of25

StenoTran

34

the concrete structure, it has been addressed and1the structural analysis that has been performed is2based on the conditions that were defined in the3safety report.4

In the safety report it is very5well defined that meteorological temperature6changes as well as the salty air present, which7also includes all the different loads as far as8wind loads, seismic earthquakes and all other9possible normal or abnormal loads.10

Therefore, yes, it has been11reviewed and analyzed and CNSC staff believes that12the structures will perform their performance13requirement for the 50 years design length.14

Thank you.15MEMBER GRAHAM: Thank you.16A question to NB Power with regard17

to the site itself and the inspection of the18existing canisters and the canisters that you have19under construction right now.20

You load those canister on-site.21They are not loaded in the building and brought22out, they are loaded on-site I believe.23

Is that right?24MR. EAGLES: Rod Eagles.25

StenoTran

35

Yes, that is correct.1MEMBER GRAHAM: Ongoing2

inspection. When we look at other nuclear3facilities and their storage, some are in4buildings, some are not, and ongoing inspection of5those canisters.6

Could you give us a brief overview7of your inspection and how often you do8inspection, and so on, of existing canisters?9

MR. WHITE: Mike Mersereau will10answer that question.11

MR. MERSEREAU: For the record, I12am Mike Mersereau, Systems Specialist for the13Solid Radioactive Waste Management Facility.14

NB Power does inspections twice a15year on the canisters and on the vault structures16and on the facility in general.17

We also have CNSC down anywhere18from one to four times a year. They are entitled19to come down four times a year if they want. They20do compliance inspections with us so we also look21at it at those times.22

As a systems specialist I, myself,23go up from time to time and just take a wander24around and look and see how things are going up25

StenoTran

36

there, but formally we inspect them twice a year.1MEMBER GRAHAM: Thank you.2I forget, the canisters in Phase3

I, are they on a concrete slab?4MR. WHITE: Yes, they are.5MEMBER GRAHAM: Because we are6

going from three different phases and I know some7of them it is out a little ways, but what is the8method of drainage around the property in case of9a spill, and so on? What type of drainage ditches10are there and where is the collection of even11rainwater runoff, and so on?12

MR. WHITE: I will ask Mike to13answer that, please.14

MR. MERSEREAU: For the record,15Mike Mersereau.16

The areas in direct contact with17any of the structures are all paved, the ground18level. All of that is channelled to a series of19runoff ditches. Those ditches are then collected20together and the water goes out through a partial21flume monitoring structure.22

The partial flume records volumes23of flow and there are automatic samplers tied to24the partial flume that takes samples based on time25

StenoTran

37

or on volume of flow.1MEMBER GRAHAM: Thank you, Madam2

Chair.3THE CHAIRPERSON: I wonder if we4

could just clarify the wording of "the staff are5entitled to come out four times a year" versus6what the inspection --7

What is the actual? Could we8perhaps have a different verb there?9

MR. WHITE: I would say from our10point of view, the staff, through licence, can11come any time they wish.12

MS MALONEY: And staff would13accept that interpretation.14--- Laughter15

MR. MERSEREAU: My apologies on16that. They are entitled to come any time they17want to of course. We typically see them one to18four times a year on compliance inspections.19

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.20Dr. Giroux.21MEMBER GIROUX: A few questions22

following up on the two previous series of23questions.24

On this last question of the25

StenoTran

38

drainage, we have heard the answer from Mr.1Mersereau, what happens there? You say you have2monitors in the partial flume and where does the3water go from there and what do you do if your4monitors indicate that there is a level of5contamination which might not be acceptable?6

What is the mitigation there?7MR. MERSEREAU: Mike Mersereau, NB8

Power.9We have a series of -- basically10

there are two partial flumes, one for each of the11phases that are currently in use. There are12samplers on those and we retrieve samples from13them on a weekly basis.14

We have contingency actions that15we would take in the event of a spill of material.16We would take immediate steps to clean the17materials up and prevent it from getting into any18of the runoff water.19

Leakage, if it develops from the20structures would probably occur over time and21would be picked up in these weekly samples. Based22on what we find in those, we would take mitigation23steps to repair the leaks in the structures.24

MEMBER GIROUX: Thank you.25

StenoTran

39

The other one refers to the1discussion on the heat transfer analysis. We have2heard the concerns about the gradients and all3that. I would like to have a feeling for a4numerical importance.5

We know about the outside6temperatures must be in the minus 20 or 30 or7something, but what are the temperatures inside8the canisters? What sort of numbers do you have9there?10

There is heat generated by the11parts?12

MR. EAGLES: It is Rod Eagles.13I will ask Pamela Tume to answer14

that question, Design from AECL15MS TUME: Pamela Tume, for the16

record, AECL.17The ambient temperature inside the18

structure is below 65 degrees centigrade, which is19suitable for the types of concrete that we are20using.21

MEMBER GIROUX: So it doesn't go22above 65. Thank you.23

Further questions for NB Power.24You mentioned that in the event of refurbishment -25

StenoTran

40

- and that is what we are talking about now -- you1would be replacing the lower portion of the feeder2pipes. I would like to have that put in the3context of the several discussions we have been4having about the longevity of feeder pipes and5cracking and stress corrosion and all that.6

Why do you replace only a portion7and not all of them?8

MR. WHITE: Rod White.9The feeder thinning issue that10

exists in Lepreau feeders is predominantly11believed to be in the lower portion of the feeders12and predominantly within the first nine feet of13the outlet from the pressure tube channel.14

The cracking problem that has been15exhibited in feeders at Lepreau has all been on16the first bend outlet from the fuel channel, so17those items will all be replaced as part of18refurbishment.19

The question of where we cut the20feeders in terms of what we replace and what we21don't was an outstanding issue with regards to the22work that AECL is doing for us on an engineering23basis. Part of that work required them to do a24more thorough analysis of the upper parts of the25

StenoTran

41

feeders to better understand the condition in the1upper portions of the feeders.2

The amount of data that exists on3upper feeders is fairly limited at this stage in4time and we have done a pragmatic analysis of that5information with what we have from Lepreau and6what we have from Gentilly. We have a little bit7of recent data from Wolsong.8

We put that together and it9indicates that there may be some potential areas10in the upper feeders that we should be looking11more closely at.12

During this current outage in13Lepreau and subsequent outage, we will be doing14more inspection work on the upper feeders to15confirm the information that we have and to16understand whether there is more work to do in17that particular area or not and, if so, which18particular feeders in that area may need to be19addressed.20

So that is part of the work that21we have contracted with our general contractor22AECL to do as part of analysis work for us.23

MEMBER GIROUX: Very well. Thank24you.25

StenoTran

42

I have a further question for1staff.2

In your document -- and I am3referring to page 7 -- you give two design dose4rates for the doses outside the structures. When5you are talking about the canisters you are6talking about 25 •Sv on contact, and for the7vaults you are talking about 25 •Sv one metre from8the surface.9

If I am reading this correctly,10what is the reason for the difference? You are11less demanding, if I understand correctly, for the12vaults at one metre from the surface than you are13for the canisters.14

The related question is: What15would be the dose rate at the surface of the16vaults?17

MR. BELFADHEL: Ben Belfadhel. I18will ask Mr. Leduc to answer the question.19

MR. LEDUC: François Leduc, for20the record.21

Those values were established at22the time that the design was performed for the23vaults way back in the early 1980s and the new24values came up for the canisters later on.25

StenoTran

43

Having said that, during our1inspection of the vault structures, the dose rate2that we get on contact is much, much lower than3the 25 •Sv/h. So in fact those structures do4perform effectively.5

MEMBER GIROUX: I understand that,6but you are still satisfied to today that 25 •Sv7at one metre from the surface is a satisfactory8design, or limit for design, whereas you are not9satisfied for the canisters.10

I'm not talking about the11standards.12

MR. LEDUC: François Leduc, for13the record.14

Yes, indeed we are satisfied of15those values.16

MEMBER GIROUX: But you still17require or you agree that it should be 25 •Sv on18contact for the canisters so is there a more19serious concern for the canisters than there is20for the vaults?21

MR. LEDUC: François Leduc.22Well, canisters are facilities23

that have used fuel inside of them, so in fact24because of the high activity of those wastes we25

StenoTran

44

have established 25 •Sv/h on contact on those1structures.2

MEMBER GIROUX: I think I3understand your decision process, but I'm not sure4I understand the result.5

Theoretically, concerning the6vaults you might have a field which is 50 or 757•Sv on contact. And you would accept that,8because you don't have any specifications on9contact.10

MS MALONEY: It is Cait Maloney11here.12

I think the point is the standards13for some of the older containers were set one way.14We looked at worker dose experience from that and15are satisfied that the standards in place are16affording enough protection for the workers.17

THE CHAIRPERSON: Just to confirm,18Dr. Giroux, would you like further investigation19of this for Day 2? Should staff look into it20further?21

MEMBER GIROUX: If staff or NB22Power have anything to add for Day 2, I would be23interested to hear it. But I would not make a24specific request.25

StenoTran

45

My conclusion is that you have two1different standards or expectations for contact2and two different types of containers. I3understand your argument that the one was4established 20 years ago, and it is satisfactory;5that these are low level waste and all that, and6this I understand.7

The contrast between the two seen8in 2003, I do not entirely understand it.9

MS MALONEY: If I may paraphrase,10I think it would be appropriate for us to come11back to explain if there is a difference based,12say, on perceived risk or on risk from the13containers, yes. Thank you.14

THE CHAIRPERSON: I would add, to15ensure whether the containers are older or newer,16that there is a level of safety maintained overall17and that we have a margin that is appropriately in18line with ALARA.19

MS MALONEY: I certainly want to20emphasize that already. It is the second order of21information that we will get for you.22

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.23Dr. Barnes.24MEMBER BARNES: I wonder if I25

StenoTran

46

could have a few questions on canisters too.1On this diagram of the canisters2

that you showed us, could you explain the nature3of the flooring, the foot pad here, the thickness4of the concrete, the structure on which that5concrete is poured, and so on.6

MR. EAGLES: This is Rod Eagles,7for the record.8

I will ask our designer at AECL,9Pamela Tume, to answer the question.10

MR. MERSEREAU: Mike Mersereau,11System Specialist for the waste facility.12

Typically what happens is, as you13see there, the base pad for that is poured on a14mud slab of concrete, which in turn rests on15bedrock or engineered fill.16

The base slab is typically in the17order of a metre to a metre and a half thick.18That will vary, of course, to a certain extent but19that is typically the thickness of the base pad.20

MEMBER BARNES: The canisters21essentially sit directly on that concrete pad. Is22that right?23

MR. MERSEREAU: Yes, that is24correct.25

StenoTran

47

MEMBER BARNES: I raised the1thought at the meeting we had in Saint John2whether the tests that had been undertaken to3withstand wind forces, particularly hurricanes,4which are rare but nevertheless do occur in that5area, whether a development of a sort of forest of6these silos, a high concentration, may not in7their geometry increase wind speeds.8

Therefore, was the testing done on9the basis of a single structure, or had there been10any potential modelling or wind tunnel tests to11give us assurance that this particular kind of12high density configuration might not be prone to13additional stresses during a major hurricane?14

MR. WHITE: I will ask Rod Eagles15to address that, please.16

MR. EAGLES: A point of17clarification.18

First of all, the canisters are in19fact integral with the base slab, just for20clarification.21

Following the hearing in Saint22John, at which the question on the impact of high23wind velocities, we have asked our designer AECL24to review the design in that specific context and25

StenoTran

48

have been able to confirm that with the structural1orientation of the multiple cylinders, the size of2those cylinders, the lay of the terrain and the3wind velocities there, in fact the existing design4more than compensates for any wind loads that5would occur as a result of very high wind loads.6

In fact, the actual stresses were7dominated by the seismic loading.8

MEMBER BARNES: The results of9that have been shared with staff?10

MR. EAGLES: Yes, the results of11that have been shared with staff.12

MEMBER BARNES: I assume staff13have no problem with them.14

MR. BELFADHEL: Ben Belfadhel.15We agree with the assessment.16MEMBER BARNES: A comment to17

staff.18You are requiring as conditions of19

the licence the submission of a construction20verification plan, the construction environmental21protection program. Should I have expected to22receive these or be able to see them prior to Day232?24

I assume these are going to come25

StenoTran

49

after Day 2. I think that comment was made1before.2

Given the nature of this licensing3process, I assume these are rather key documents.4I wonder why they are not available for Day 2; and5if not, what is the problem in not providing them6for Day 2?7

MR. BELFADHEL: Ben Belfadhel, for8the record.9

The intention is not to provide10them prior to Day 2. With respect to these11programs, our current understanding is they will12be provided prior to the construction.13

Concerning the construction14verification plan, the proponent provided with the15submission a comprehensive set of technical16details and specifications describing how the17construction work will be done.18

However, the submission did not19include a sufficient level of details on how the20construction work will be monitored and21controlled.22

The submission included the23commitment that such a plan will be provided prior24to the construction. We agreed with NB Power that25

StenoTran

50

such a plan can be submitted at a later date and1that will not affect the licensing amendment.2

This is because the construction3work involved is straightforward and that the4elements in the verification plan are elements5that are standard and common to most construction6projects.7

These are the reasons for the8construction verification plan.9

I would like to add, too, that if10the construction is authorized, CNSC staff will be11conducting compliance verification inspections12during the construction to ensure that the13facilities are constructed according to the14design.15

MEMBER BARNES: Could New16Brunswick Power give us some comment on the mode17of transportation of particularly the retubing18material and the coal material to the third phase,19particularly in the large canisters.20

This is presumably processes that21haven't really been done on this scale before.22Could you give us some indication as to any23anticipated special safety issues and retraining24issues or training issues for people involved in25

StenoTran

51

that transportation?1MR. EAGLES: Rod Eagles.2The material that we will be3

transporting is of, I would say, two natures.4One is the high level waste, which5

requires appropriate shielding for that waste to6be transferred, and that is similar in nature to7activities which we conduct regularly at the8station in the transfer of used fuel.9

So I would say that we have good10experience with the kinds of transfers that will11be conducted on that high level waste going into12the retubed canisters.13

Certainly the canisters are14different in design, and the transportation flasks15are somewhat different than are currently used.16We have incorporated human factors, engineering17into the works for designing of the canisters and18the transfer mechanisms that will take the19material from the station up the roadway to the20location of the solid waste management facility,21approximately 1,200 metres northeast of the22reactor building.23

I think that using the experience24that we have with the human factors plan to put in25

StenoTran

52

place, we would anticipate no significant1challenges in carrying out that work using the2ALARA principles of keeping the minimum exposure3to workers in mind.4

MEMBER BARNES: Perhaps I can have5two follow-up questions to points I think raised6by Yves Giroux.7

To the representative from AECL:8You mentioned that temperatures would not normally9exceed 65 degrees.10

Was that in the Phase III11canisters, the large canisters?12

MS TUME: Pamela Tume, AECL.13Yes, that is correct.14MEMBER BARNES: Separately to New15

Brunswick Power: The issue of the runoff, I think16it was asked where it goes. As I recall, it goes17into the Bay of Fundy, any drainage from this18area. Correct?19

You said that there will be20samplers. There will be weekly samples taken.21

It wasn't clear to me, if there22was a serious contamination problem, whether you23had the capacity to have some interim or temporary24ponds to capture any contaminated water.25

StenoTran

53

Do the ditches and streams simply1run off directly into the Bay of Fundy? Do you2have a means of essentially stopping any3contamination going into the Bay of Fundy as4opposed to trying to stop the contamination5itself?6

MR. WHITE: Mike Mersereau will7answer.8

MR. MERSEREAU: Mike Mersereau,9for the record.10

As the facility exists right now,11there are no holding ponds or anything like that12built into it. The mitigation measures we would13take would depend on the extent and severity of14any contamination incident.15

Certainly we could erect temporary16holding structures if we needed to.17

MEMBER BARNES: That might be18shutting the door after the horse has gone,19perhaps.20

I wonder if for Day 2 we could ask21staff and New Brunswick Power to consider this22issue a little bit more.23

THE CHAIRPERSON: Is that an24agreement?25

StenoTran

54

MS MALONEY: From staff, yes.1THE CHAIRPERSON: From New2

Brunswick?3MR. WHITE: Yes, we will address4

that issue.5THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.6MR. WHITE: We would also comment7

that as part of the environmental monitoring8program we had committed to sampling the9surrounding water flow on the land to determine10the preconstruction environment so that in our11monitoring program we would be able to12discriminate any differences.13

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. McDill?14MEMBER McDILL: Thank you.15I am going to go back to the heat16

transfer analysis for a couple of short questions.17Is it merely a thermal analysis18

that is going to be done? And if the thermal19analysis shows results that you don't like, you20will then do a coupled thermal stress analysis?21

Or is it going to be a thermal22stress analysis from the get-go?23

MR. EAGLES: Rod Eagles, for the24record.25

StenoTran

55

Yes, it is a thermal analysis. As1you point out, if there are considerations which2we believe require the stress analysis to be3redone, then that would be undertaken as well.4

MEMBER McDILL: And you are using5some sort of standard industry codes for these6analyses?7

ME. EAGLES: AECL, our designer,8is conducting design work within the appropriate9codes, yes, and we are satisfied that they are10doing so.11

MEMBER McDILL: I'm sorry, I don't12mean industry codes. I mean numerical modelling13codes.14

Maybe AECL wants to answer.15MR. EAGLES: I would ask Pamela16

Tume to comment.17MS TUME: The thermal analysis is18

done using a model, commonly called CATHENA. The19stress analysis I believe will be done using a20software package called Star Dyne.21

MEMBER McDILL: Thank you.22My other question relates to the23

layout plan, the preliminary site layout plan. I24have a couple of questions, and perhaps you can25

StenoTran

56

tell me if they are significant or not.1I notice that in the first set of2

vaults they are all separated by a minimum of 203feet and 35 in the centre. In the new vaults, the4centre line is repositioned, I will say toward the5top of the page for the sake of argument, and the6minimum distance between the two centre vaults is7now ten feet.8

Is there some significance to both9the shift in the centre line positions in terms of10grading or drainage and the minimum spacing of ten11feet?12

It is getting to the point where13you can't get a truck between the two without a14very skilled driver.15

MR. EAGLES: Rod Eagles.16You are correct. We don't intend17

to have vehicle traffic between those centre two18storage structures. The new design is intended to19economize on the space that was available, and the20loading of the structures could take place from21the two wider pathways, the 30-foot wide pathways22located between the first and second and between23the second and third of the vault structures.24

So the requirement for a wide25

StenoTran

57

alleyway between the second and third structure1was not required there.2

MEMBER McDILL: And the centre3line shift upwards?4

MR. EAGLES: This sort of shift in5the footprint upwards or to the west was6accommodated to take advantage of the lay of the7land and to minimize the construction activity8required to put down the new footprint.9

MEMBER McDILL: If there happened10to be -- and I am assuming the design is such that11this would be extremely unlikely. But if you had12to make repairs on the walls in the narrow gap, do13you have confidence that you could accomplish that14without traffic?15

MR. EAGLES: Yes, I have16confidence that the structures themselves won't17require repairs within the lifetime that they were18designed for; but that with the use of large19cranes access to the area could be undertaken20without too much difficulty.21

MEMBER McDILL: Thank you.22THE CHAIRPERSON: I have two23

questions.24First, I note that New Brunswick25

StenoTran

58

Power requests that the Commission give authority1to a designated officer to consider the2application for authorization to operate the new3structures following construction, and I note that4staff agrees with this.5

Could you put the arguments before6the Commission in terms of the pros and cons of7this designated officer designation? What was the8thinking behind it in terms of what we could9consider as pros and cons?10

MR. WHITE: Today we operate11facilities that of course are very similar to12these, exactly the same in the case of the first13two phases and in Phase III very similar to that.14So we have in place standard operating procedures15for the normal operation of these kinds of16facilities.17

When you start new operations, of18course you are going through the transition from19completion of construction to putting into place20the first operation of a new facility, and there21is normally an outstanding item list that you are22reviewing to see where the construction23completions are, what the punch list is for24completing certain items, which ones may impact25

StenoTran

59

any early operations and which ones are incidental1to that but do need to be tidied up as part of2contracts, and those kinds of things.3

So it is appropriate to have a4review at that stage, to make sure that within the5context of the good operating procedures we have6in place, any outstanding punch items don't impact7upon those. Or if they did, does that require8completion before putting into operation or does9it require modification to any of your operating10procedures to deal with those kinds of issues?11

That is the kind of issue that we12would normally deal with staff on and advise them13as to where we are, and their inspection programs14would then coincide with our inspection programs15to see any outstanding items and come to agreement16on which ones should be addressed prior to being17put into operation or which ones might require18different operational procedures or slightly19modified procedures.20

We saw the request as being a21fairly routine one; that we are dealing with staff22on an ongoing basis. It is a good verification23check at the end of the process to say that we24just wouldn't go ahead until we have completed25

StenoTran

60

that process.1THE CHAIRPERSON: Any comments2

from staff on that?3MS MALONEY: It's Cait Maloney.4I believe staff's position is5

along the same lines. The whole issue is before6the Commission at the moment, the whole project.7We would see this as a final check before moving8to a phase within this amendment.9

It is the type of thing we have10done before. Staff, of course, if they do have11concerns, would not exercise the delegated12authority and would come back to the Commission.13

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.14My second question is to New15

Brunswick Power.16My understanding -- and please17

correct me if I am wrong, if I am out of date --18is that the Electricity Act has not yet been19proclaimed.20

Is that correct?21MR. WHITE: That is correct.22THE CHAIRPERSON: For the record,23

I do note that the recommendation from the staff24is to continue to move the two licences in25

StenoTran

61

parallel.1Is that correct?2MS MALONEY: That is correct.3THE CHAIRPERSON: My third4

question is: Although it is in the documents, it5isn't emphasized in terms of the oral presentation6the timeline that we are talking about.7

Knowing that there are still some8approvals at a government level needed to go9forward, Mr. White, understanding that, but the10timelines that you are now looking at in terms of11the construction for the phases -- and this is12just for the oral record. What are the timelines13that you are looking at right now for the14construction of the various phases?15

MR. WHITE: I will let Rod Eagles16talk to those timelines.17

MR. EAGLES: In the supporting18documentation that we provided we have outlined19the time schedule for construction of vaults and20site clearing in light of the 2007 outage schedule21that Mr. White mentioned earlier was the approved22one at the time we submitted this.23

As discussed, there may be a24change to that to 2008. If that in fact did25

StenoTran

62

occur, then the dates that are listed in this1table would be altered by one year as well.2

For simplification, the site3clearing and grading operations would take place4in one summer construction period, and that would5be 2005, given an outage in 2007.6

For the construction of actual7structures -- and they would be completed in the8next summer construction period of 2006 -- again9if the delay of outage occurred to 2008, as was10accepted by our board of directors, the dates11would shift by one year.12

In terms of the Phase II13extension, the use of Phase II that exists today14would continue on and the Phase II extension would15not likely require structures to be constructed16there until some time late in the 2000-and-teens,17I should say, before 2020.18

MR. WHITE: I would make19reference, for the Commission, to the fact that20under the authorization that we have from the21provincial authority, commencement of the22undertaking must occur within three years of the23date of determination.24

As we have moved the refurbishment25

StenoTran

63

date out to 2008, and Mr. Eagles suggested that1each of these dates would move out one year, we2would also need to address whether we start3construction on these facilities prior to the4expiration of that three-year authorization.5

THE CHAIRPERSON: That is helpful,6Mr. White.7

As you probably gathered, one of8my questions I suppose is an understanding, as the9public and the intervenors read the proceedings10from today and for Day 2, that the licensing11process is a very finite event before the12Commission. The obligations on the proponent and13on the staff, in terms of the quality of the14compliance and monitoring process, continues.15

So the finite nature of the16licensing event cannot be separated, when you are17planning for such long periods of time, from the18ongoing types of compliance and improvements that19are done just as a course.20

That was my thought. I don't know21if you have any comment on that.22

MR. WHITE: I should probably23leave it with your thought.24

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very25

StenoTran

64

much.1Any further questions?2Mr. Graham.3MEMBER GRAHAM: I just have one4

question on Day 2. Perhaps it is here, but I5haven't been able to distinguish it.6

In Phase III you are going to7require transfer flasks or some sort of container8to transfer from the existing facility out to the9Phase III, I believe, to transfer those tubes and10so on?11

Will there be some sort of flasks12similar to what there is in Phase I and II?13

First of all, is that correct?14Will there have to be a transfer flask of some15sort?16

MR. WHITE: I will comment and Mr.17Eagles can give you details.18

Yes, there are transfer flasks.19The transfer process is covered under the power20reactor operating licence. It isn't directly21covered under this licence. So the transfer from22the facility station to the waste site is covered23under that licence.24

Yes, there are special flasks and25

StenoTran

65

there will be special training requirements around1the handling of that material, which is similar2but somewhat different than the normal transports3that we have from the operating facility.4

MEMBER GRAHAM: My question was5going to be, then -- and I am not sure whether it6falls under this licence or under the existing7operating licence of the plant.8

The design of those flasks is they9are going to fit into the containers or the10canisters on Phase III. Will we be able to have a11look at that and be able to review those also on12Day 2, or is that part of the operating licence of13the plant?14

Maybe I should ask CNSC for15clarification.16

MS MALONEY: It is Cait Maloney.17I believe that falls under the18

operations licence. However, if you wish, it19could certainly be included as background in the20Day 2 presentation.21

MEMBER GRAHAM: I guess what I22really was looking for was to see how those23canisters were going to be handled when they got24out on the site and how they were going to be25

StenoTran

66

deposited, and so on, and how they can be1accessed; if there ever is a problem with any of2them, how you can access them to get them out of3the storage, and so on.4

The whole type of storage in Phase5III is new. How we address that, if there ever6was a leak or a problem, it would be nice to know7what those canisters are like and how they could8be accessed.9

If it is possible, Madam Chair, to10get that for Day 2 -- and it doesn't infringe on11the operating licence but is part of this12licensing.13

THE CHAIRPERSON: However, if the14information is available right now, we should do15it right now.16

MR. WHITE: I would ask our17designer Pamela Tume to make some initial comments18on that to see if that answers Mr. Graham's19questions.20

MS TUME: Pamela Tume, AECL.21The containers themselves are22

integral to the processes of retubing, and they23are specifically designed to interface with the24tooling for contamination and radiation protection25

StenoTran

67

control.1The containers have specially2

designed flasks that again are integral with the3tooling and the containers. The flasks themselves4are handled with a grapple system, which is5interfaced with the container. The grapples are a6conventional type of design that we commonly use7on a Canstor type of module.8

The containers are transferred via9cranes that are qualified to industrial standards.10There is nothing special there.11

Once it is removed from in this12case a flatbed truck, which is basically the13transfer mechanism, it is handled using a gantry14crane, which normally is the same specification of15the gantry crane used in the current Phase II for16dry storage.17

I guess that is my basic summary.18MEMBER GRAHAM: My question then19

would be: The design of these canisters, if they20are not the same as the other, will they withstand21an accident of dropping them onto one-and-a-half22metre thick reinforced concrete from the top of a23gantry crane? Will the design of them withstand24an accident like that before they get into a25

StenoTran

68

canister?1Is the design different from that2

of the canisters in Phase I and Phase II?3MS TUME: The design of the4

containers and the flasking system is such that if5a drop were to occur, the flask would retain its6integrity.7

In other words, the flask itself8would not break open. You would not have a9radiological spill. That is the design intent.10

Our administrative controls would11be in place in the event that a contingency would12occur where that did not happen.13

In follow-up to this we are also14looking at a qualification program to ensure that15we don't have any tolerancing problems. There are16further analyses that we are going to do on drop17incidents to complete that package.18

MEMBER GRAHAM: I have one other19question.20

There will be more than one21canister in each vault in Phase III. Is that22right?23

MS TUME: There are three,24provisionally up to five, retubed canisters in the25

StenoTran

69

Phase III area, and there are approximately seven1compartments, typically vaults, if you want to2define them as such.3

Can you repeat the rest of the4question?5

MEMBER GRAHAM: In other words,6you have access for 35: seven by five. Seven7compartments per vault and five vaults. Is that8correct?9

MS TUME: There are seven main10storage cylinders per retubed canister, and there11are up to five retubed canisters.12

MEMBER GRAHAM: Access to any one13of the five canisters if there was a leak or if14there was a problem, is that access available if15down the road, 10 or 15 years time, you had to get16at one of those canisters? Do you have to remove17two or three in front?18

How is the access to those19canisters if one of them is at the back, as the20saying is? Are they easily accessible or not?21

MS TUME: Pamela Tume again.22The canisters themselves are set23

up such that you can manoeuvre vehicles around24them if you wanted to do inspection and25

StenoTran

70

maintenance activities. Retrievability of the1materials within the canisters is assured by2ensuring that the gantry crane system that we use3for the Phase III area is the same as what is4currently in Phase II.5

MEMBER GRAHAM: Those canisters6that hold the tubing, and so on, are of concrete7design or of metal design? Not design, I mean of8metal fabrication or of concrete fabrication?9

MS TUME: The retubed canister in10itself is a concrete cylinder with an air cavity.11The cylinders inside them are a metallic12construction, if you want to say it that way,13galvanized carbon steel as an example.14

The access to them if you had to15mitigate the containers, or mitigate the cylinders16would be possible, it would just require planning17as part of the contingencies as part of our18inspection and maintenance program.19

THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms MacLachlan.20MEMBER MacLACHLAN: Thank you.21

This is a question for staff, just clarification.22In your CMD on page 15, the third23

recommendation, you have agreed:24"...that a Designated25

StenoTran

71

Office will consider NB1Power's application for2an authorization to3operate..."4

That is reflected in paragraph 2.25in the draft licence. Again, it is a reference to6"a Designated Officer".7

Then in your slide presentation8today you requested that authorization to operate9be provided by the Director General, Directorate10of Nuclear Cycle and Facilities Regulation.11

Could you clarify whether or not12your original request has been amended to refer to13a specific designated officer?14

MS MALONEY: It is Cait Maloney15here.16

The requests are consistent in17that the designated officer would be myself at18this stage. I think it just added a bit of19precision to the request.20

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Barnes.21MEMBER BARNES: Two quick22

questions to staff.23In the CEPP, the Construction24

Environmental Protection Program, does that25

StenoTran

72

include the issues that were raised at the Saint1John meeting dealing with archaeological survey2investigations and First Nations concerns?3

MR. BELFADHEL: Ben Belfadhel. I4will ask Mr. Leduc to answer the question.5

MR. LEDUC: François Leduc, for6the record.7

Yes, indeed it does include those8issues.9

MEMBER BARNES: Secondly, perhaps10as a request, Madam Chair, if it is not11inappropriate for Day 2, I did ask for information12on the potential for a temporary holding pond for13water flowing away. I think it might be helpful14to also have information of a relatively general15nature on the ditch system that is planned around16this fairly large facility now and also the17surrounding monitoring wells.18

I think you had indicated before19that you had quite a number of these in relative20to the region of groundwater flow, but I think it21would be helpful to have that information in Day222.23

THE CHAIRPERSON: Again, if it24isn't available now.25

StenoTran

73

Is it available now?1MR. EAGLES: Rod Eagles.2In the supporting information we3

have included the site layout drawing which has in4that areas that are indicated to be ditches that5would then control the drainage. The location of6partial flumes is also indicated there.7

If there is further information,8we could provide that as well.9

MEMBER BARNES: I agree that was10there. It wasn't very clear how that connected to11other ditches and streams that would take the12potential effluent away from the site.13

MR. EAGLES: Okay. Thank you for14the clarification.15

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Giroux has a16question.17

MEMBER GIROUX: One question only.18Following up on Mr. Graham's19

questioning about the transport and the flasks for20the Phase III, presumably at the end of Phase III21you won't need the flask any more, but I think it22would be contaminated on the inside and, if so,23how do you clean it and how do you get rid of it?24

MR. EAGLES: Rod Eagles.25

StenoTran

74

The transfer mechanisms that will1be used of course will become part, then, of2contingency plans that would be maintained at the3station to retrieve material from these canisters4should there be a requirement to do so. So normal5decontamination procedures would be applied to the6equipment and the equipment would be maintained at7the station.8

I might add for clarification that9the design description for the waste transfer10containers and mechanisms was in fact submitted as11part of the information that we have provided to12CNSC staff.13

MR. WHITE: Just in helping round14out that question we might ask our designed to15talk about the actual containers that the waste16material is in that are being transported within17the flask.18

Pamela Tume.19MS TUME: Pamela Tume, AECL.20The containers themselves are21

separate cylindrical -- I don't know how to say22it. They are cylindrical containers that are23handled within a given flask, but a flask may be24used multiple times. So that, in effect, each25

StenoTran

75

container is a waste package and the flask is used1periodically over and over in order to facilitate2transfer.3

The decontamination of those4flasks would be part of the normal decontamination5practices of the station. So there is nothing6different from what they normally have on dry7storage.8

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very9much.10

MR. LEBLANC: This hearing is to11be continued on the 26th of November 2003 here in12the CNSC offices.13

The public is invited to14participate either by oral presentation or written15submission on hearing Day 2. Persons who wish to16intervene on that day must file submissions by17October 27, 2003.18

The hearing is now adjourned to19November 26, 2003.20