cnsc ccsn bruce power...bruce power frank saunders vice president -nuclear oversight and regulatory...

of 7 /7
CNSC CCSN 1111111111111111111111111 Bruce Power November 8, 2016 NK21-CORR-00531-13209 NK29-CORR-00531-13697 NK37-CORR-00531-02660 Mr. B. Torrie 5120606 Director General, Regulatory Policy Directorate Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission FILE P.O. Box 1046 280 Slater Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P5S9 Dear Mr. Torrie: REFERE A Bruce Power comments on proposed Regulations Amending Certain Regulations made under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act The purpose of this letter is to provide Bruce Power's comment on this important document. We appreciate the CNSC's willingness to seek feedback and have assembled an attached list of comments in collaboration with our industry peers and the Canadian Nuclear Association . Let me highlight a key point: While we have no objection to replacing "quality assurance" with the term "management system" in 3 (d), it is in our view that the proposed (d.1) is entirely inappropriate. Human performance is, of course, important in nuclear plant operations, but so are many factors that are included in the management system. If we are to enshrine high-level requirements for individual programs within the Regulations under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, then where do we stop? This appears to be an unwarranted effort to inappropriately raise the profile of one area above others. The Act is purposely written at a broad policy level and Regulations are, in our view, meant to contain desired outcomes relative to nuclear safety, not activities. These are better included in management system standards, such as CSA N286, or in Regulatory Documents issued by CNSC. If specific reference to human capability is to be added it should be added to the General Nuclear Safety and Control Regulations in a manner such as that indicated below: 12 (1) Every licensee shall (a) ensure the presence of a sufficient number of qualified and capable workers to carry on the licensed activity safely and in accordance with the Act, the regulations made under the Act and the licence; NK21-CORR-00531-13209 NK29-CORR-00531-13697 NK37-CORR-00531-02660 Bruce Power Frank Saunders Vice President - Nuclear Oversight and Regulatory Affairs P.O. Box 1540 BlO 4th floor W Tiverton ON NOG 2TO Telephone 519 361-5025 Facsimjle 519 361-4559 frank. [email protected]

Author: others

Post on 23-Jan-2021

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • CNSC CCSN

    1111111111111111111111111

    ~

    Bruce Power™ November 8, 2016

    NK21-CORR-00531-13209 NK29-CORR-00531-13697 NK37-CORR-00531-02660

    Mr. B. Torrie

    5120606

    Director General, Regulatory Policy Directorate Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission FILE

    DOSS!~ P.O. Box 1046 280 Slater Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P5S9

    Dear Mr. Torrie:

    REF~RAl:::OlO REFERE A

    Bruce Power comments on proposed Regulations Amending Certain Regulations made under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act

    The purpose of this letter is to provide Bruce Power's comment on this important document. We appreciate the CNSC's willingness to seek feedback and have assembled an attached list of comments in collaboration with our industry peers and the Canadian Nuclear Association.

    Let me highlight a key point: While we have no objection to replacing "quality assurance" with the term "management system" in 3 (d), it is in our view that the proposed (d.1) is entirely inappropriate. Human performance is , of course, important in nuclear plant operations, but so are many factors that are included in the management system. If we are to enshrine high-level requirements for individual programs within the Regulations under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, then where do we stop? This appears to be an unwarranted effort to inappropriately raise the profile of one area above others. The Act is purposely written at a broad policy level and Regulations are, in our view, meant to contain desired outcomes relative to nuclear safety, not activities. These are better included in management system standards, such as CSA N286, or in Regulatory Documents issued by CNSC. If specific reference to human capability is to be added it should be added to the General Nuclear Safety and Control Regulations in a manner such as that indicated below:

    12 (1) Every licensee shall

    (a) ensure the presence of a sufficient number of qualified and capable workers to carry on the licensed activity safely and in accordance with the Act, the regulations made under the Act and the licence;

    NK21-CORR-00531-13209 NK29-CORR-00531-13697 NK37-CORR-00531-02660

    Bruce Power Frank Saunders Vice President - Nuclear Oversight and Regulatory Affairs P.O. Box 1540 BlO 4th floor W Tiverton ON NOG 2TO

    Telephone 519 361-5025 Facsimjle 519 361-4559 frank. [email protected]

  • 2 Mr. B. Torrie November 8, 2016

    By inserting high-level requirements into the Regulations , the CNSC is circumventing its responsibility to produce a meaningful Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement and downplaying the effects on applicants and licensees. For instance, it allows the CNSC to insist there is no cost increase associated with a high-level requ irement like having a human performance program since it is merely "formalizing current practice." But in reality, the cost and resource implications will be significant. Once the broad requirement is inserted in the Regulations, it will drive a series of detailed conditions that CNSC will insert in future REGDOCs to flesh out its high-level expectations . For example, human performance is effectively managed through cross-functional requirements in our managed system to match the way we control work. This requirement could easily be read to require a separate Human Performance Program document that will add both cost and complexity.

    Once again, we appreciate the opportunity comment on this draft document. If you require further information or have any questions regarding this submission, please contact Mr. Maury Burton, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, at (519) 361-2673 extension 15291 , or [email protected]

    Yours truly,

    t Frank Saunders Vice President Nuclear Oversight and Regulatory Affairs Bruce Power cc: CNSC Bruce Site Office (Letter only)

    Mr. K. Lafreniere, CNSC Ottawa Ms. K. Owen-Whitred, CNSC Ottawa

    Attach.

    NK21-CORR-00531-13209 NK29-CORR-00531-13697 NK37-CORR-00531-02660

  • # Document Section/ Excerpt

    1. 3 (d} and 3 (d.1}

    2. One for One Rule

    Bruce Power comments on proposed Regulations Amending Certain Regulations made under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act

    Industry Issue Suggested Change (if applicable) Major Comment/ Impact on Industry, if major comment Request for

    Clarification 1

    Industry has no objection to replacing "quality If specific reference to human capability MAJOR By inserting high-level requirements into the assurance" with the term 11management system" in is to be added, it should be to the Regulations, the CNSC is circumventing its 3 (d) . However, it is in our view that the proposed General Nuclear Safety and Control responsibility to produce a meaningful Regulatory (d.1) is entirely inappropriate. Human Performance Regulations in a manner such as that Impact Analysis Statement and downplaying the is, of course, important in nuclear plant operations, indicated below: effects on applicants and licensees. For instance, it but so are many factors that are included in the allows the CNSC to insist there is no cost increase management system. If we are to enshrine high- 12 (1) Every licensee shall associated with a high-level requirement like having level requirements for individual programs within (a) ensure the presence of a sufficient a human performance program since it is merely the Regulations under the Nuclear Safety and number of qualified and capable

    11formalizing current practice." But in reality, the cost Control Act, then where do we stop? This appears workers to carry on the licensed activity and resource implications will be significant. Once to be an unwarranted effort to inappropriately raise safely and in accordance with the Act, the broad requirement is inserted in the Regulations

    the profile of one area above others. The Act is the regulations made under the Act and it will drive a series of detailed conditions that CNSC purposely written at a broad policy level and the licence; will insert in future REGDOCs to flesh out its high-Regulations are, in our view, meant to contain level expectations. For example, human performance desired outcomes relative to nuclear safety, not is effectively managed through cross-functional activities. These are better included in management requirements in our managed system to match the system standards, such as CSA N286, or in way we control work. This requirement could easily Regulatory Documents issued by CNSC. be read to require a separate Human Performance

    Program document that will add both cost and complexity.

    It is stated that, "The proposed Regulations do not The CNSC and government need to take MAJOR While the industry has supported the increase the administrative costs of licensees or proper account of the impacts of these implementation of Periodic Safety Review (PSR)

    applicants." This is not a true statement. proposed changes. It is incorrect to say there was some anticipation that there would be Implementation of Periodic Safety Reviews is a that these are in place or have been some balance in the regulatory framework to significant administrative cost to licensees in the done in the past, therefore; there is no account for the additional work being undertaken by order of multiple millions of dollars. cost to the licensees. This is untrue as licensees. This has not occurred. As a result,

    It is also expected that the CNSC intends to use the there will be significant costs to the implementation results in significant addition licensees. administrative costs to licensees.

    requirement for an expanded Human Performance Program. It appears that there has been no If the CNSC intends to implement new requirement

    NK21-CORR-00531-13209 I NK29-CORR-00531-13697 I NK37-CORR-00531-02660 Page 1of5

  • # Document Section/ Excerpt

    3. General

    4. Radiation Protection Regulations (RPR)

    5. RPR 15(6)

    Bruce Power comments on proposed Regulations Amending Certain Regulations

    made under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act

    Industry Issue Suggested Change (if applicable) Major Comment/ Impact on Industry, if major comment Request for

    Clarification 1

    consideration of the cost of the changes to the for a Human Performance Program, there will be regulations in the Regulatory Impact Analysis significant additional administrative costs to the Statement as required as part of the Cabinet licensees which should be taken into account. Directive on Regulatory Management. Licensees are also concerned that this high level

    wording in relation to fitness for duty will leave this clause open to union grievances and court challenges that will also impose additional administrative costs on the licensees.

    Industry needs a transition period to implement MAJOR Some Licensees will be in violation of the changes the changes proposed proposed. They will need time to implement the

    changes.

    The dose limits prescribed by subsections (2), (3) Industry would appreciate more Request for and (4) and sections 13 and 14 may be exceeded by guidance to be provided. Clarification a person who acts voluntarily to save or protect human life. Industry needs to know that a licensee will not be penalized if volunteers in saving or protecting a human life exceed the limits in section 13 and 14

    Industry had requested the requirement for Revise to MAJOR First priority for the licensee must be to manage the "immediate" notification to the Commission of dose "as soon as practical notify emergency situation in order to minimize impact on limits being exceeded to be changed to "as soon as Commission/I the public, workers or the environment. Wording of practical notify Commission" . Intent was not to a Regulation should not imply that attention be distract in managing an emergency. We put it as a distracted from this. clarification, but it now appears a Category B

    Emergency plans include timely notification of violation in considering an AMP. stakeholders.

    NK21-CORR-00531-13209 I NK29-CORR-00531-13697 I NK37-CORR-00531-02660 Page 2 of 5

  • # Document Section/ Excerpt

    6. RPR 15 (7)

    7. Class I Nuclear Facilities Regulations

    - - - -

    Bruce Power comments on proposed Regulations Amending Certain Regulations made under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act

    Industry Issue Suggested Change (if applicable) Major Comment/ Impact on Industry, if major comment Request for

    Clarification 1

    CNSC proposes the following Regulatory text: "A Revise to: MAJOR As worded, the guidance places unreasonable licensee shall not request that a pregnant woman "A licensee shall not request that a restrictions in assigning tasks related to emergency participate in the control of an emergency." pregnant woman participate in the control that are performed in a radiological

    control of an emergency where she may environment that has already been accepted as receive a dose greater than 4 mSv." allowable during normal operations. For example,

    we have staff who would be in a low- to non-radiological environment providing general direction, such as a Site Management Centre.

    Fitness for duty- Class 1 facilities vs. High Security Request for Sites clarification

    The scope of draft REG DOC 2.2.4 implies that a formal Fitness for Duty program would be expected/required only for those licensees defined as 'high-security sites' within the Nuclear Security Regulations.

    The proposed change to the Class I regulations would require a description of the proposed human performance program for a licence which specifically includes the measures to be taken to ensure worker fitness for duty.

    This could lead to the incorrect assumption that all Class I licensees would require a Fitness for Duty Program in line with REGDOC 2.2.4 once published. If the regulation is promulgated as is, it would be important that Class I facilities NOT classified as a 'high-security site' communicate with the CNSC to understand the expectations in this regard upon applyinq for a licence or licence renewal.

    NK21-CORR-00531-13209 I NK29-CORR-00531-13697 I NK37-CORR-00531-02660 Page 3 of 5

  • # Document Section/ Excerpt

    8. Class I Nuclear Facilities Regulations 4 paragraph 3(d)

    Uranium mines and mills 6 paragraph 3(b)

    9 . Class I Nuclear Facilities Regulations

    8.01 (1) & (2)

    10. General

    11. Administrativ e Monetary Penalties (AMP) Regulations Items 24, 24.1, 24.2

    Bruce Power comments on proposed Regulations Amending Certain Regulations

    made under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act

    Industry Issue Suggested Change (if applicable) Major Comment/ Impact on Industry, if major comment Request for

    Clarification 1

    Safety culture is firmly embedded in nuclear Revise as follows: MAJOR This could result in over emphasis on safety culture industry standards on Management System such as (d) the proposed management system in the management system over other important CSA N286 and the IAEA GS-R-3. There is no need to for the activity to be licensed. requirements and principles. single it out in the Regulation as it is just a part of the management system. Although safety culture is an important part of the management system, it is just one of many important topics that need to be covered and should not be emphasised in the regulations over top of other management system requirements or principles. Industry notes that the inclusion of safety culture was not included in

    previous discussion papers

    This defin ition will result in the requirement for Suggest deletion of this clause as the MAJOR Having this requirement embedded in Regulation periodic safety reviews (PSR) for very small reactors. requirement for can be included as a could result in making very small commercial This wou ld not be economical as PSR is an licence condition under Section 24(5) of reactors uneconomical. The PSR process can be expensive administrative cost. the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. implemented through licence requirements under

    Section 24(5) of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

    Proposals are new - no previous publ ic Request for

    consultation. clarification

    Industry notes that the AMPs use different language Include the phrase "who a licensee MAJOR It is important that when considering application of than the new RPR Section 15 wording. requests to participate" an AMP that there is alignment with the actual

    requirement in the Act or Regulations. This will avoid confusion .

    NK21-CORR-00531-13209 / NK29-CORR-00531-13697 / NK37-CORR-00531-02660 Page 4 of 5

  • # Document Section/ Excerpt

    12. AMP Regulations Item 24.4

    Bruce Power comments on proposed Regulations Amending Certain Regulations made under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act

    Industry Issue Suggested Change (if applicable) Major Comment/ Impact on Industry, if major comment Request for

    Clarification 1

    Implies an AMP could be imposed if licensee delays Revise to MAJOR Licensees should not be penalized for ensuring notification in lieu of managing emergency. See "as soon as practical notify emergency management is performed. Emergency note on RPR 15.6. Commissionn procedures have time limits for ensuring prompt

    notification of authorities.

    NK21-CORR-00531-13209 I NK29-CORR-00531-13697 I NK37-CORR-00531-02660 Page 5 of 5