Bruce Nuclear Generating Station#Radioisotope production project

The power plant comprises eight CANDU pressurized heavy-water reactors arranged into two plants (A and B) with four reactors each. Each reactor stands within a reinforced concrete containment. The steam generators are 12 m tall, and weigh 100 tonnes each. Each plant uses three fueling machines, shared between the four reactors, which travel in a duct cut through solid rock beneath the reactors, traversing the entire plant. The duct doubles as part of the pressure relief system, connected to the vacuum building.{{cite journal|title=Nuclear Engineering and Design – Pressure relief structures of multi-unit candu nuclear power plants |date=2 February 1987| doi=10.1016/0029-5493(87)90069-0 |volume=100 |journal=Nuclear Engineering and Design |pages=21–39|last1=Huterer |first1=J. |last2=Brown |first2=D.G. |last3=Osman |first3=M.A. |last4=Ha |first4=E.C. }} Each reactor has its own turbine generator set, with one high-pressure turbine and three low-pressure turbines driving one generator.{{cite web |title=Reporter's Guide to Bruce Power (Revision 4) |url=http://www.brucepower.com/docs/reports/corporate/A%20Reporters%20Guide%20to%20Bruce%20Power.pdf |access-date=24 March 2011 |date=Aug 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100401055949/http://www.brucepower.com/docs/reports/corporate/A%20Reporters%20Guide%20to%20Bruce%20Power.pdf |archive-date=1 April 2010}}[http://www.brucepower.com/uc/GetDocument.aspx?docid=2161] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101124084433/http://www.brucepower.com/uc/GetDocument.aspx?docid=2161|date=24 November 2010}} The turbine hall is about 400 m long at each plant and houses the four turbine generator sets. Cooling water is taken from Lake Huron. There is (originally) one control room per 4 reactors.{{Cite web |url=https://canteach.candu.org/Content%20Library/20044508.pdf |title=Nuclear Reactor Containment Design (chapter 3, module A) |last=Daams |first=Dr. Johanna |website=canteach.candu.org |access-date=28 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180629023748/https://canteach.candu.org/Content%20Library/20044508.pdf |archive-date=29 June 2018 |url-status=live }}

File:Bruce Nuclear Generating Station.jpg

Construction of Bruce A began in 1969, making it the successor to the Pickering A plant. Bruce A units were originally rated at 750 MWe net / 805 MWe gross,{{Cite web|url=http://www.candu.org/brucepower.html|title=Bruce Power fact sheet|access-date=21 March 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716085017/http://www.candu.org/brucepower.html|archive-date=16 July 2011|url-status=dead}} which was later increased to 769 MWe net / 825 MWe gross. {{As of|2017}} the Bruce A units were capable of producing up to 779 MWe net according to IESO generator data. Each reactor requires 6240 fuel bundles that weigh 22.5 kg each, or about 140 tonnes of fuel. There are 480 fuel channels per reactor, containing 13 bundles each. There is storage capacity for about 23,000 bundles. Approximately 18 bundles are discharged per reactor per day.{{cite book|last1=Pitre|first1=John|last2=Chan|first2=Peter|last3=Dastur|first3=Adi|title=Candu physics considerations for the disposition of weapons-grade plutonium|date=January 1995 |pages=1 |url=https://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/076/28076153.pdf|publisher=AECL|access-date=29 July 2017}}

The original Bruce A steam generators utilized a separate large horizontal shared steam drum (with one steam drum common to four steam generators), a design dropped in most other plants at the time. Issues related to the AECL requested design of the tube supports caused repair and delay costs, which exceeded the net worth of the builder Babcock & Wilcox Canada.{{cite web | url=http://www.nuceng.ca/canteachmirror/library/20060101.pdf | title=Evolution of CANDU Steam Generators – a Historical View | publisher=Canteach | date=19 May 2006 | access-date=26 March 2011 | author1=John M. Dyke | author2=Wm. J. Garland | name-list-style=amp | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140701045928/http://www.nuceng.ca/canteachmirror/library/20060101.pdf | archive-date=1 July 2014}}

Until they were removed in 1998, Bruce A reactors used unique booster rods to control reactivity.{{cite web|title=Bruce Nuclear Generating Station 2006 Safety Report, Revision 15|url=http://www.acee.gc.ca/050/documents_staticpost/cearref_25738/135-01.pdf|author=W. Dickie|date= June 2006}} Booster rods contained 93% uranium-235, and were inserted to overcome reactor poisoning. Bruce B and all other Ontario Hydro reactors instead use absorber rods called "adjusters" which are normally inserted and are removed to overcome xenon poisoning.

Bruce A demonstrated an "excellent" early operating history. Together with Pickering A, the eight units achieved an overall average capability factor of 83% over the initial five-year period.{{cite web|title=A Short History of the CANDU Nuclear Power System, Revision 2|url=http://canteach.candu.org/library/19930101.pdf|publisher=Canteach|access-date=25 March 2011|author=Gord L. Brooks|date=December 2002|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110723231718/http://canteach.candu.org/library/19930101.pdf|archive-date=23 July 2011}} However, by 2001, when Bruce Power took the lease, all Bruce A units were laid-up.

In 1981, Unit 1 was ranked the top reactor in the world with a 97% availability factor.{{cite web|title=About Us Bruce Power {{!}} Bruce Power|url=http://www.brucepower.com/about-us/history/|website=www.brucepower.com|access-date=19 February 2017|date=25 August 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170514015745/http://www.brucepower.com/about-us/history/|archive-date=14 May 2017|url-status=live}}

In December 1997, after about 20 years of operation, it was out of service. In 2005 (after 7 years of being idle) refurbishment started. In September 2012 (15 years out of service) it resumed operation.

In 1982, Unit 2 was temporarily shut down due to a pressure-tube leak. In 1986, a fuel channel failed while the reactor was shut down; some of the fuel elements were swept into the moderator (calandria) and were difficult to remove.{{cite web|title=Canada's Nuclear History Chronology|url=http://media.cns-snc.ca/history/canadian_nuclear_history.html#1970|publisher=Canadian Nuclear Society|access-date=31 March 2011|author=Morgan Brown|date=25 November 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110719030946/http://media.cns-snc.ca/history/canadian_nuclear_history.html#1970|archive-date=19 July 2011|url-status=live}}{{cite web|title=The Safety of Ontario's Nuclear Power Reactors (Vol 2 Appendices)|url=http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/23/075/23075997.pdf|access-date=31 March 2011|author=Ontario Nuclear Safety Review|location=Toronto, Ontario|date=29 February 1988|pages=581|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150602091334/http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/23/075/23075997.pdf|archive-date=2 June 2015|url-status=live}}

In 1986, maintenance workers accidentally left a protective lead blanket in the steam generator of Unit 2. By the time the mistake was discovered six years later, the blanket had melted, severely damaging the boiler.{{cite magazine|title=Bruce A Proves There Are Second Acts in Nuclear Power|url=http://www.powermag.com/business/Bruce-A-Proves-There-Are-Second-Acts-in-Nuclear-Power_2879.html|magazine=Power Magazine|access-date=27 March 2011|date=1 August 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111002151002/http://www.powermag.com/business/Bruce-A-Proves-There-Are-Second-Acts-in-Nuclear-Power_2879.html|archive-date=2 October 2011|url-status=live}}{{cite web|title=CANDU Flawed|work=Maclean's Magazine|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/candu-flawed/|publisher=The Canadian Encyclopedia|access-date=26 March 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171221081829/http://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/candu-flawed/|archive-date=21 December 2017|url-status=live}}{{cite web|title=The Billion Dollar "oops" at the Bruce Nuclear Station|url=http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/Blog/the-billion-dollar-oops-at-the-bruce-nuclear-/blog/33932|publisher=Greenpeace|access-date=27 March 2011|author=Keith Stewart|date=24 March 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110326234745/http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/Blog/the-billion-dollar-oops-at-the-bruce-nuclear-/blog/33932|archive-date=26 March 2011|url-status=dead}}

In October 1995, after about 18 years of operation, unit 2 was taken out of service.

In 2005 (after 9 years of being idle) refurbishment started.

In October 2012, it resumed operation.

In 1982, Unit 3 set a then world record of 494 days of continuous operation and {{as of|1984|lc=y}} Bruce A was the most reliable multi-unit station in the world.

From April 1998 onward, Bruce A3 remained idle for 6 years, returning to service in January 2004 (at which time the unit was 32 years old).{{cite web|title=PRIS – Reactor Details|url=https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=30|website=www.iaea.org|access-date=29 July 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170729184055/https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=30|archive-date=29 July 2017|url-status=live}}

Refurbishment in unit 3 began in March 2023, with the plan being to return to service in 2026.{{cite web|title=Bruce Power begins Unit 3 Major Component Replacement outage|date=2 March 2023 |url=https://www.brucepower.com/2023/03/02/bruce-power-begins-unit-3-major-component-replacement-outage/|publisher=Bruce Power|access-date=18 June 2023}}{{cite web|title=Bruce Power's Role in Ontario|url=http://14083-presscdn-0-0.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/160129_MCR_BPRoleInOntario_R000.pdf|publisher=Bruce Power|access-date=21 February 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170222111837/http://14083-presscdn-0-0.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/160129_MCR_BPRoleInOntario_R000.pdf|archive-date=22 February 2017|url-status=dead}}{{cite web|title=Re: NERA Economic Consulting's Opinion as to the Fairness of the Amended and Restated Bruce Power Refurbishment Implementation Agreement|url=http://14083-presscdn-0-0.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/NERA-Fairness-Opinion-Letter-2015-12-02.pdf|publisher=NERA Economic Consulting|access-date=21 February 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170222110651/http://14083-presscdn-0-0.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/NERA-Fairness-Opinion-Letter-2015-12-02.pdf|archive-date=22 February 2017|url-status=dead}}

In 1990, a software error in unit 4 caused a fueling-machine error, damaging a fuel channel.{{cite web | url=http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~johnson/papers/seattle_hessd/georgechris-p.pdf | title=CONTEXT AND SOFTWARE SAFETY ASSESSMENT | access-date=17 August 2014 | author1=Garrett, Chris | author2=Apostolakis, George | name-list-style=amp | pages=49 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923213139/http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~johnson/papers/seattle_hessd/georgechris-p.pdf | archive-date=23 September 2015 | url-status=live }}

In 1993, reactor power was reduced to 60% until various loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) scenarios could be addressed. Subsequently, Bruce A units returned to 89% of rated power.

In March 1998, after about 19 years of operation, unit 4 was taken out of service.{{cite web|title=PRIS – Reactor Details|url=https://www.iaea.org/pris/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=31|website=www.iaea.org|access-date=29 July 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180619062735/https://www.iaea.org/pris/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=31|archive-date=19 June 2018|url-status=live}} It returned to service in October 2003, after 6 years of being idle (at which time the unit was 31 years old).

Planned refurbishment of unit 4 to begin in 2025 (when the unit will be 53 years old).

Bruce B units, located to the south of Bruce A, are of a slightly larger capacity: 817 MW net, 840 MW gross. which is attributed to an improved steam generator design, where the steam drum is integral to each steam generator in a "light bulb" arrangement, eliminating the horizontal cross-drum.{{cite web|title=Bruce Power: Site History|url=http://www.cnwc-cctn.ca/bruce-power-site-history/|publisher=Canadian Nuclear Workers' Council (CNWC)|access-date=27 March 2011|year=2009|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110527172422/http://www.cnwc-cctn.ca/bruce-power-site-history/|archive-date=27 May 2011}}

In 1990, a nine-week "impairment" of Bruce B was created when a technician incorrectly set the calibration on radioactivity monitors. In 2007, Bruce B 7 was the top performing nuclear reactor in Ontario with 97.2% performance.{{cite web|title=CNA Nuclear Energy Booklet 2008|url=http://www.cna.ca/english/pdf/nuclearfacts/2008/CNA_Nuclear_Energy_Booklet08.pdf|publisher=Canadian Nuclear Association|access-date=27 March 2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110928025646/http://www.cna.ca/english/pdf/nuclearfacts/2008/CNA_Nuclear_Energy_Booklet08.pdf|archive-date=28 September 2011}} and in 2009, Bruce B 5 was first with 95.4% performance.{{cite web|title=CNA Nuclear Energy Booklet 2010|url=http://www.cna.ca/english/pdf/nuclearfacts/2010/CNA_Booklet_2010.pdf|publisher=Canadian Nuclear Association|access-date=27 March 2011|year=2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110706173952/http://www.cna.ca/english/pdf/nuclearfacts/2010/CNA_Booklet_2010.pdf|archive-date=6 July 2011}}

Bruce B 5

• Construction began 1 June 1978.{{cite web|title=PRIS – Reactor Details|url=https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=38|website=www.iaea.org|access-date=29 July 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180619062749/https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=38|archive-date=19 June 2018|url-status=live}}
• On 15 November 1984 it reached first criticality.
• Commercial operation began on 1 March 1985.
• Originally scheduled to be shut down in 2016 (unit would have been 31 years old).
• Planned refurbishment to begin in 2026 (unit will be 41 years old).

Bruce B 6

• Construction began 1 January 1978.{{cite web|title=PRIS – Reactor Details|url=https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=39|website=www.iaea.org|access-date=29 July 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180619062752/https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=39|archive-date=19 June 2018|url-status=live}}
• On 29 May 1984 it reached first criticality.
• Commercial operation began on 14 September 1984.
• Originally scheduled to be shut down in 2018 (unit would have been 34 years old).
• Refurbishment began in January of 2020{{cite web |title=Bruce Power MCR |url=https://www.brucepower.com/2020/01/20/bruce-power-launches-next-phase-of-life-extension-program-with-start-of-major-component-replacement-unit-6-project/?current=39 |website=www.brucepower.com |access-date=3 April 2023 |archive-date=4 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230404034809/https://www.brucepower.com/2020/01/20/bruce-power-launches-next-phase-of-life-extension-program-with-start-of-major-component-replacement-unit-6-project/?current=39 |url-status=dead }} (unit was 36 years old). Return to service took place on September 14, 2023.{{cite web |date=14 September 2023 |title=Bruce Power's renewed Unit 6 declared commercially operational on 39th anniversary of first in-service date |url=https://www.brucepower.com/2023/09/14/bruce-powers-renewed-unit-6-declared-commercially-operational-on-39th-anniversary-of-first-in-service-date/ |access-date=28 November 2024 |website=www.brucepower.com}}

Bruce B 7

• Construction began 1 May 1979.{{cite web|title=PRIS – Reactor Details|url=https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=41|website=www.iaea.org|access-date=29 July 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180619062757/https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=41|archive-date=19 June 2018|url-status=live}}
• On 7 January 1986 it reached first criticality.
• Commercial operation began on 10 April 1986.
• Originally scheduled to be shut down in 2015 (unit would have been 29 years old).
• Planned refurbishment to begin in 2028 (unit will be 42 years old).

Bruce B 8

• Construction began 1 August 1979.{{cite web|title=PRIS – Reactor Details|url=https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=42|website=www.iaea.org|access-date=29 July 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180619062727/https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=42|archive-date=19 June 2018|url-status=live}}
• On 15 February 1987 it reached first criticality.
• Commercial operation began on 22 May 1987.
• Originally scheduled to be shut down in 2019 (unit would have been 32 years old).
• Planned refurbishment to begin in 2030 (unit will be 43 years old).

The graph represents the annual electricity generation at the site (A and B combined) in GWh.{{cite web |url=https://www.brucepower.com/about-us/history/#2010s |title=History – Bruce Power |access-date=28 April 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190402011500/https://www.brucepower.com/about-us/history/#2010s |archive-date=2 April 2019 |url-status=live }}

In 2013, it was about 30% of Ontario's production.{{cite web | url=http://www.brucepower.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Annual-Review-2013_web.pdf | title=Bruce Power's 2013 Annual Review | publisher=Bruce Power | access-date=27 July 2014 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150415005256/http://www.brucepower.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Annual-Review-2013_web.pdf | archive-date=15 April 2015 | url-status=dead }}

ImageSize = width:630 height:580

PlotArea = left:50 right:20 top:25 bottom:30

TimeAxis = orientation:vertical

AlignBars = late

Colors =

id:linegrey2 value:gray(0.9)

id:linegrey value:gray(0.7)

id:cobar value:rgb(0.2,0.7,0.8)

id:cobar2 value:rgb(0.6,0.9,0.6)

DateFormat = yyyy

Period = from:0 till:50000

ScaleMajor = unit:year increment:1000 start:0 gridcolor:linegrey

ScaleMinor = unit:year increment:500 start:0 gridcolor:linegrey2

PlotData =

color:cobar width:19 align:left

bar:2001 from:0 till:24193

bar:2002 from:0 till:21021

bar:2003 from:0 till:24678

bar:2004 from:0 till:33783

bar:2005 from:0 till:33048

bar:2006 from:0 till:36601

bar:2007 from:0 till:35529

bar:2008 from:0 till:35386

bar:2009 from:0 till:34701

bar:2010 from:0 till:36180

bar:2011 from:0 till:36261

bar:2012 from:0 till:35627

bar:2013 from:0 till:45281

bar:2014 from:0 till:45675

bar:2015 from:0 till:46652

bar:2016 from:0 till:45293

bar:2017 from:0 till:49019

bar:2018 from:0 till:48392

bar:2019 from:0 till:46111

bar:2020 from:0 till:43174

bar:2021 from:0 till:42464

bar:2022 from:0 till:42619

bar:2023 from:0 till:42313

TextData=

fontsize:S pos:(20,20)

text: Bruce Nuclear Generating Station

As of the end of 2023, the total lifetime output of the facility was 1,606,926 GWh.

In 2009 total site output hit 1,002 TWh, making it the first nuclear power plant in the world to produce 1 PWh (1,000 TWh). Gravelines in France achieved the same in 2010.{{Cite web |url=https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=CA |title=IAEA PRIS Database }}

As of the end of 2020, the 8 Bruce units had produced a combined total of 1,479.59 TWh.

After Units 1–2 completed refurbishment activities and were brought back online in 2012, Bruce became the largest operating nuclear generation facility in the world by both the number of currently operational reactors and total net output capacity, having a total of 8 operational CANDU nuclear reactors with a combined output of 6,384 MW_e net (7,276 MW_e gross) when all units are online,{{cite web|title=The World's Largest Power Plants|url=http://www.industcards.com/top-100-pt-1.htm|access-date=26 March 2011|url-status=usurped|archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20121006110626/http://www.industcards.com/top-100-pt-1.htm|archive-date=6 October 2012}}{{cite web|title=Nuclear Power in Canada|url=http://www.cna.ca/curriculum/cna_can_nuc_hist/nuclear_canada-eng.asp?bc=Nuclear%20Power%20in%20Canada&pid=Nuclear%20Power%20in%20Canada|publisher=Canadian Nuclear Association|access-date=27 March 2011|year=2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110826174839/http://www.cna.ca/curriculum/cna_can_nuc_hist/nuclear_canada-eng.asp?bc=Nuclear%20Power%20in%20Canada&pid=Nuclear%20Power%20in%20Canada|archive-date=26 August 2011|url-status=dead}} surpassed now by two South-Korean plants: Kori NPP since 2019 and Hanul NPP since 2022. The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant in Japan had a larger total output capacity, but it has been out of service since 2011.{{Cite web |url=http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/10/30/national/tepco-may-ask-u-s-utility-to-inspect-kashiwazaki-kariwa-nuclear-plant |title=Japan Times: TEPCO may ask U.S. utility to inspect Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant |date=30 October 2014 |access-date=12 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170227010551/http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/10/30/national/tepco-may-ask-u-s-utility-to-inspect-kashiwazaki-kariwa-nuclear-plant |archive-date=27 February 2017 |url-status=live }}

As of 2008, the Bruce station had three double-circuit 500 kV transmission lines to feed the major load centres in southern Ontario, in addition to three double-circuit 230 kV lines serving the local area.{{cite web |url=http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=5363&SiteNodeID=305&BL_ExpandID= |title=The Need for More Transmission in Bruce Region |access-date=18 April 2008 |publisher=Ontario Power Authority }}{{Dead link|date=November 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}

These circuits are connected via two high voltage switchyards owned and operated by Hydro One.

In 2006, OPA had proposed increasing transmission line capacity, at a cost of between $200–600 million,{{cite web |url=http://www.cleanairalliance.org/resource/fs23.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=23 March 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110727002530/http://www.cleanairalliance.org/resource/fs23.pdf |archive-date=27 July 2011}} described as "the largest electricity transmission investment in Ontario in the last 20 years".{{cite web|title=Ontario's Long-Term Energy Plan|url=http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/sites/default/files/page/Building_our_Clean_Energy_Future.pdf|publisher=OPA|access-date=26 March 2011|year=2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140819102758/http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/sites/default/files/page/Building_our_Clean_Energy_Future.pdf|archive-date=19 August 2014|url-status=dead}} The line was completed in June 2012, several months ahead of schedule, with over 700 towers built for the 180 kilometre line to Milton. The project ranked 45th in Renew Canada's annual list.{{cite web | url=http://top100projects.ca/bruce-to-milton-transmission-line-completed-six-months-ahead-of-schedule/ | title=Bruce to Milton Transmission Line Completed Six Months Ahead of Schedule | access-date=17 August 2014 | author=McCallum, Douglas | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140819130222/http://top100projects.ca/bruce-to-milton-transmission-line-completed-six-months-ahead-of-schedule/ | archive-date=19 August 2014 | url-status=dead }}

Compared to the other major Canadian nuclear power plant built earlier, Pickering station, the Bruce reactors have higher power output, achieved by: increasing the number of fuel channels, increasing the number of bundles per channel, and a change in the fuel bundle itself.

At Bruce, the fuelling equipment is shared by the four reactors of each plant, while at Pickering each reactor had a fuelling machine.

The Bruce fuelling machine and fuel channel end fitting design (mostly by Canadian General Electric) is based on the Nuclear Power Demonstration design. The Pickering design by AECL was based on Douglas Point.{{cite web | url=https://canteach.candu.org/Info/Documents/CANDU%20Orgins%20and%20Evolution.pdf | title=CANDU ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION – PART 1 OF 5 AN OVERVIEW OF THE EARLY CANDU PROGRAM PREPARED FROM INFORMATION PROVIDED BY JOHN S. FOSTER | publisher=Canteach | date=February 2001 | access-date=27 July 2014 | author1=Foster John S. | author2=Brooks G.L. | name-list-style=amp | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140811214158/https://canteach.candu.org/Info/Documents/CANDU%20Orgins%20and%20Evolution.pdf | archive-date=11 August 2014 | url-status=live }}

The building design of the reactor differs: Bruce uses a squarish "close-in" design, in which as much of the equipment as possible is arranged outside the main containment envelope for easier access during maintenance and emergencies. The steam generators penetrate the containment. The primary coolant pumps and primary piping systems are inside the containment enclosure, but the pump motors are outside containment and the drive shaft seals form the containment boundary.{{cite web | url=https://canteach.candu.org/Content%20Library/NJC-1-3-02.pdf | title=Chernobyl – A Canadian Technical Perspective | publisher=Canteach / AECL | access-date=27 July 2014 | author1=Howieson J.Q. | author2=Snell V.G. | name-list-style=amp | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140811214152/https://canteach.candu.org/Content%20Library/NJC-1-3-02.pdf | archive-date=11 August 2014 | url-status=live }} Pickering has round domes which enclose much of the secondary cooling equipment.{{cite web|last1=Simmons|first1=R.B.V.|title=Nuclear Power Symposium Lecture No. 10: Plant Layout|url=https://canteach.candu.org/Content%20Library/19720110.pdf|publisher=Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL)|access-date=20 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170820165001/https://canteach.candu.org/Content%20Library/19720110.pdf|archive-date=20 August 2017|url-status=live}}

• The Pickering A system did not originally have a second independent shutdown system. The Bruce containment concept differs: the reactor's reactivity mechanism deck serves as a part of the containment boundary, is closer to the reactor, and more prone to damage in the event of an accident ("accidental physical disassembly"). The designers therefore foresaw the need for a second safety system to reduce the risk of an accident. Bruce received a second, fully independent Safety Shutdown System (SDS2) which uses a liquid neutron poison injection method.{{cite web | url=https://canteach.candu.org/Content%20Library/20010305.pdf | title=CANDU ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION PART 5 OF 5 THE ORIGINS & EVOLUTION OF THE SECOND SHUTDOWN SYSTEM | publisher=CANTEACH | date=February 2001 | access-date=27 July 2014 | author=Brooks G.L. | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140811213537/https://canteach.candu.org/Content%20Library/20010305.pdf | archive-date=11 August 2014 | url-status=live }}
• The Bruce system also has a high-pressure Emergency Coolant Injection System (ECIS).
• Each Bruce "4 pack" has its own Vacuum Building, while Pickering has one per eight reactors.
• At Pickering, the vacuum duct was closed by nonreturn valves, to prevent flow of the steam/air mixture from the duct to a non-accident reactor unit following a LOCA. In the Bruce concept, there is no such non-return valve; the reactor buildings are all interconnected during normal operation.
• Bruce uses single-circuit heat transport system, while Pickering had two circuits.
• The first two reactor units of Pickering A originally used Zircaloy-2 pressure tubes. All subsequent CANDU units use a zirconium – 2.5% niobium alloy.
• Bruce uses a pressurizer to maintain coolant pressure, Pickering a different system.{{vague|date=August 2017}}
• The Pickering design utilized 12 small steam generators operated in groups of three which can be individually valved out of the heat transport loop, as can the 16 pumps per reactor, with 4 being spare. At Bruce, the number of steam generators and coolant pumps was reduced to 8 and 4 respectively, without any spare pumps, thereby simplifying the piping. The Bruce system permits reactor power level to be adjusted more quickly and easily.{{cite book|last=Atomic Energy of Canada Limited|title=Canada enters the nuclear age|year=1997|publisher=McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP |isbn=978-0-7735-1601-4}}

Bruce A was projected to cost {{currency|0.9|CAD}} billion in 1969. Actual cost was $1.8 billion (in 1979 dollars).{{cite journal |title=A Journalist's guide to Nuclear Power |url=https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/23/059/23059658.pdf |access-date=3 May 2023 |website=inis.iaea.org|date=December 1988 |last1=McMaster |first1=Michele |last2=Ontario Hydro |first2=Toronto }} Adjusted for inflation, the $930 million estimate in 1979 dollars is $1.88 billion, putting Bruce A under budget.

Bruce B was projected to cost $3.929 billion in 1976. Actual cost was $5.994 billion (in 1987 dollars).{{cite web|title=Better Never Than Late|url=http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/Global/canada/report/2008/11/better-never-than-late.pdf|publisher=Greenpeace|access-date=4 April 2011|date=October 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924041042/http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/Global/canada/report/2008/11/better-never-than-late.pdf|archive-date=24 September 2015|url-status=dead}}{{Cite web |url=https://www.pembinafoundation.org/reports/appendix2.pdf |title=Appendix 2 Ontarioís Nuclear Generating Facilities: A History and Estimate of Unit Lifetimes and Refurbishment Costs |website=pembinafoundation.org |access-date=26 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170404155726/https://www.pembinafoundation.org/reports/appendix2.pdf |archive-date=4 April 2017 |url-status=dead }} Adjusted for inflation, the $3.929 billion estimate in 1987 dollars is $8.667 billion, putting Bruce B under budget.

In 2010, Bruce Power was paid approximately $60 million for contracted, but unused power.{{cite news | url=https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/bruce-power-got-millions-to-not-produce-electricity-1.555280 | title=Bruce Power got millions to not produce electricity | access-date=22 March 2011 | date=21 September 2010 | publisher=CTV News | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100928084401/http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100921/ontario-electricity-bruce-power-100921/20100921/?hub=TorontoNewHome | archive-date=28 September 2010 | url-status=live }}

On 1 January 2016, Bruce Power began receiving a single contracted price for all output from the site of {{CA$|65.73|link=yes}} per megawatt-hour (MWh).{{Cite web|url=http://www.brucepower.com/amended-agreement-secures-bruce-power-role-in-long-term-energy-plan/|title=Amended Agreement Secures Bruce Power's Role in Long-Term Energy Plan {{!}}|author=Bruce Power|website=www.brucepower.com|access-date=3 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303135352/http://www.brucepower.com/amended-agreement-secures-bruce-power-role-in-long-term-energy-plan/|archive-date=3 March 2016|url-status=live|date=3 December 2015}} This price is partially adjusted annually to account for inflation and wage growth, with additional monthly fuel cost adjustments, and it includes a small payment for Bruce's unique ability to curtail up to 2400 MW of generation (total across all eight units – up to 300 MW per individual unit) via steam bypass operation during periods of surplus generation.{{cite report|title=An Assessment of the Financial Risks of the Nuclear Refurbishment Plan|date=21 November 2017|publisher=Financial Accountability Office of Ontario|url=http://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/FAO-NR-Report-Nov-2017|access-date=27 June 2018|isbn=978-1-4868-0925-7|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180627062503/http://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/FAO-NR-Report-Nov-2017|archive-date=27 June 2018|url-status=live}}

During the course of the refurbishment of Units 3–6, the price will be raised in steps to cover individual reactor refurbishment costs, with each increase starting 12 months prior to the start of each individual refurbishment. Each increase will last only until that unit's refurbishment costs, which are fixed prior to refurbishment start, have been recovered. The average price per MWh that will be paid to Bruce Power for all electricity generated from 2016 to 2064 (covering the entire refurbishment period for Units 3–6 plus the entire expected remaining post-refurbishment lifetimes of all eight Bruce Power reactors (including the two that were already refurbished) was estimated to be approximately {{CA$|80.6}}/MWh in 2017 dollars by the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario. In contrast, the estimated average price of nuclear electricity from all three Ontario nuclear plants during that same 2016–2064 period was estimated to be {{CA$|80.7}}/MWh in 2017 dollars, the 2017–2018 unit cost of Ontario nuclear power was {{CA$|69}}/MWh, and the current price of electricity for "most residential and small business customers" was {{CA$|114.9}}/MWh (prior to the Fair Hydro Plan) or {{CA$|97.6}} (after the Fair Hydro Plan).

During the Northeast Blackout of 2003 three Bruce B units continued running at 60% reactor power and 0% grid electrical power. They were able to do so for hours, because they had steam bypass systems designed to de-couple the reactor output from the generator electrical output. The three units were reconnected to the grid within 5 hours. Bruce A and B stations were designed to operate indefinitely while disconnected from the grid.{{cite journal|last1=Carvalho|first1=V.F.|last2=Acchione|first2=P.N.|title=Performance of Nuclear Unit Controls in Grid Emergency Situations|journal=IFAC Proceedings Volumes|date=December 1986|volume=19|issue=16|pages=161–168|doi=10.1016/S1474-6670(17)59375-1|doi-access=free}}

"Contrary to popular belief, the electrical generators of nuclear plants can follow the load demands of the electrical grid provided specific engineered systems to permit this mode of operation are included in the plant design."{{cite web |date=8 March 2011 |title=Ontario Electrical Grid and Project Requirements for Nuclear Plants |url=http://www.ospe.on.ca/resource/resmgr/doc_advocacy/2011_sub_8mar_nuclear.pdf |access-date=4 April 2011 |publisher=Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) |archive-date=13 July 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140713195144/http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.ospe.on.ca/resource/resmgr/doc_advocacy/2011_sub_8mar_nuclear.pdf |url-status=bot: unknown }} from original 13 July 2014, Retrieved 16 December 2023

Cobalt-60 (⁶⁰Co) can be produced in a CANDU reactor by using adjuster rods made primarily out of ⁵⁹Co (instead of the normal stainless steel), which is slowly transmuted into ⁶⁰Co via neutron activation (⁵⁹Co + n → ⁶⁰Co).{{cite web|title=Canadian Nuclear Worker|url=http://www.cnwc-cctn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/news_jun_2017.pdf|publisher=Canadian Nuclear Workers Council|access-date=9 August 2017|page=3|date=June 2017|quote=The following day, Bruce Power announced the completion of a Cobalt-60 harvest during the Unit 5 outage. Following the harvest, new rods of Cobalt-59 (becomes Cobalt-60 after up to two years in the reactor) were inserted in Unit five along with four rods of medical High Specific Activity Cobalt which is used to treat brain cancer.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809212717/http://www.cnwc-cctn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/news_jun_2017.pdf|archive-date=9 August 2017|url-status=live}}{{cite web|title=The Canadian Nuclear Factbook 2017|url=https://cna.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2017-Factbook-EN-WEB-FINAL.pdf|publisher=Canadian Nuclear Association|access-date=9 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809212547/https://cna.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2017-Factbook-EN-WEB-FINAL.pdf|archive-date=9 August 2017|url-status=live}} These now-intensely-radioactive cobalt-60 adjuster rods are then "harvested" (removed and replaced with fresh ⁵⁹Co adjuster rods) after one to three years of use in the reactor during a routine reactor shutdown, and are later processed into sealed ⁶⁰Co sources of varying intensities by Nordion.{{cite news|last1=Gowan|first1=Rob|title=Bruce Power to produce Cobalt-60|url=http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/2014/11/17/bruce-power-to-produce-cobalt-60|access-date=9 August 2017|work=Owen Sound Sun Times|date=17 November 2014|language=en-CA|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809211831/http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/2014/11/17/bruce-power-to-produce-cobalt-60|archive-date=9 August 2017|url-status=dead}}{{cite web|title=The Role of Nuclear: Present and Future|url=https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/RNNR/Brief/BR8708467/br-external/BrucePower-e.pdf|access-date=9 August 2017|pages=3–4|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170524131117/https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/RNNR/Brief/BR8708467/br-external/BrucePower-e.pdf|archive-date=24 May 2017|url-status=live}}{{cite web|title=Bruce Power: Canada's Largest Public-Private Partnership|url=http://www.pppcouncil.ca/web/pdf/bruce_power_case_study.pdf|access-date=9 August 2017|page=22|date=August 2015|quote=Unrelated to refurbishment, yet extremely innovative work that takes during planned maintenance outages, is the Cobalt-60 harvest. Working together, Bruce Power and Nordion provide a reliable, long-term, end-to-end Cobalt-60 supply, which fuels gamma processing operations such as irradiation facilities that sterilize single-use medical devices. Cobalt is mined like any other mineral. It's removed from the ground and processed into pure Cobalt-59 powder. Once processed into powder, it's compressed into slugs, which are coated with nickel. These slugs are then encapsulated and assembled into adjuster rods, which are used to control the reaction in Bruce Power's reactors, where the cobalt is activated by absorbing neutrons to become Cobalt-60. The rods are in the reactor for a minimum of one year and maximum of 2.5 years. Bruce Power harvests the rods during planned maintenance outages on the units. The bundles are then received by Nordion and the Cobalt-60 is removed from its encapsulation and welded into a new double-encapsulated source called C-188. It is then shipped to the sites of Nordion's customers for use in irradiators. In 2014, Bruce Power and Nordion signed an agreement for up to an additional 14 years to provide a long-term supply of Cobalt-60 that will support health care around the world. Cobalt-60 makes an invaluable contribution to the health care industry and is used to sterilize approximately 40 per cent of all single-use medical devices and equipment produced globally.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809211246/http://www.pppcouncil.ca/web/pdf/bruce_power_case_study.pdf|archive-date=9 August 2017|url-status=live}} The Bruce nuclear power plant has been producing ⁶⁰Co since the 1980s, and almost all of the world's supply of ⁶⁰Co comes from various CANDU nuclear reactors, with Bruce being the single largest supplier.{{cite web|title=Nordion and Bruce Power ensure global Cobalt-60 supply up to 2064|url=http://www.nordion.com/nordion-bruce-power-ensure-global-cobalt-60-supply-2064/|access-date=9 August 2017|date=8 November 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809212224/http://www.nordion.com/nordion-bruce-power-ensure-global-cobalt-60-supply-2064/|archive-date=9 August 2017|url-status=live}}{{cite web|title=Nuclear Power in Canada – World Nuclear Association|url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/canada-nuclear-power.aspx|website=www.world-nuclear.org|publisher=World Nuclear Association|access-date=9 August 2017|quote=As well as their use for electricity, Candu power reactors produce almost all the world's supply of the cobalt-60 radioisotope for medical and sterilization use.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809212329/http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/canada-nuclear-power.aspx|archive-date=9 August 2017|url-status=live}}{{cite news|last1=Vulcan|first1=Tom|title=Radioisotopes: A Market in Decay? {{!}} ETF.com|url=http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/2095-radioisotopes-a-market-in-decay?nopaging=1|access-date=9 August 2017|work=etf.com|date=19 April 2010|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809213648/http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/2095-radioisotopes-a-market-in-decay?nopaging=1|archive-date=9 August 2017|url-status=live}}{{cite news|title=Canadian companies collaborate to secure isotope supplies|url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Canadian-companies-collaborate-to-secure-isotope-supplies-0811168.html|access-date=9 August 2017|work=world-nuclear-news.org|publisher=World Nuclear News|date=8 November 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809213514/http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Canadian-companies-collaborate-to-secure-isotope-supplies-0811168.html|archive-date=9 August 2017|url-status=live}}{{cite web|title=Clean Nuclear Power {{!}} Safe Hospitals|url=http://www.cleannuclearpowersafehospitals.com/|website=www.cleannuclearpowersafehospitals.com|access-date=9 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170725030308/http://www.cleannuclearpowersafehospitals.com/|archive-date=25 July 2017|url-status=live}} {{As of|2007}}, Bruce supplied over 40% of the world's ⁶⁰Co. This rose to over 50% by 2016, with Pickering supplying approximately another 20% of global demand. In 2016, Bruce extended their contract with Nordion for the continued supply of ⁶⁰Co to cover the entire projected post-refurbishment life of the Bruce reactors, which are expected to operate until 2064.

Bruce also began producing High Specific Activity (HSA) ⁶⁰Co in 2016, which is designed for highly specialized medical uses such as cancer treatment and had been primarily produced at the NRU reactor for the past 60+ years (which was originally scheduled to be shut down in 2016, but will be kept online until 31 March 2018 due to the general worldwide lack of sufficient replacement medical isotope production capacity for several critical isotopes such as molybdenum-99).{{cite news|title=Reprieve for Canadian isotope reactor|url=http://world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Reprieve-for-Canadian-isotope-reactor-0902158.html|access-date=9 August 2017|work=world-nuclear-news.org|publisher=World Nuclear News|date=9 February 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170630232526/http://world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Reprieve-for-Canadian-isotope-reactor-0902158.html|archive-date=30 June 2017|url-status=live}}{{cite news|title=Canadian companies join up for medical isotope development|url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Canadian-companies-join-up-for-medical-isotope-development-2910158.html|access-date=9 August 2017|work=world-nuclear-news.org|publisher=World Nuclear News|date=29 October 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809213709/http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Canadian-companies-join-up-for-medical-isotope-development-2910158.html|archive-date=9 August 2017|url-status=live}}{{cite news|last1=Jones|first1=Kristie|title=Partnership ensures stable supply of medical grade cobalt|url=http://hospitalnews.com/partnership-ensures-stable-supply-medical-grade-cobalt/|access-date=9 August 2017|work=hospitalnews.com|publisher=Hospital News|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809212640/http://hospitalnews.com/partnership-ensures-stable-supply-medical-grade-cobalt/|archive-date=9 August 2017|url-status=live}}{{cite journal|last1=Brown|first1=C|title=Will new isotope sources be ready in time?|journal=CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal |date=1 March 2016|volume=188|issue=4|pages=252|doi=10.1503/cmaj.109-5224|pmid=26811359|pmc=4771533}}{{cite news|last1=Kveton|first1=Adam|title=Nordion to get cancer-treating isotope from Bruce Power {{!}} OttawaCommunityNews.com|url=https://www.ottawacommunitynews.com/news-story/6112238-nordion-to-get-cancer-treating-isotope-from-bruce-power/|access-date=9 August 2017|work=OttawaCommunityNews.com|publisher=Kanata Kourier-Standard|date=16 November 2015|language=en-CA|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809212000/https://www.ottawacommunitynews.com/news-story/6112238-nordion-to-get-cancer-treating-isotope-from-bruce-power/|archive-date=9 August 2017|url-status=live}} As the NRU produces over two-thirds of the world's HSA ⁶⁰Co, Bruce's ability to supply HSA ⁶⁰Co will become critical to help fill the immense production gap left by the NRU once it is decommissioned in 2018.{{cite web|author1=Nordion|title=A Billion Curies and Counting: 50 years of Canadian nuclear innovation in healthcare|url=https://www.cns-snc.ca/media/uploads/CNS%20Ottawa%20Presentation%202016.pdf|publisher=Canadian Nuclear Society|access-date=9 August 2017|page=30,35|date=1 February 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809213351/https://www.cns-snc.ca/media/uploads/CNS%20Ottawa%20Presentation%202016.pdf|archive-date=9 August 2017|url-status=live}} OPG and Bruce Power are collaborating on an effort to expand ⁶⁰Co production to the Bruce A and Darlington reactors in order to fully cover Pickering's production (which will end when the plant is decommissioned in 2024) in addition to the inevitable gaps in ⁶⁰Co production capacity that will be caused by the upcoming refurbishments of six of Bruce's reactors (Units A 3–4 & Units B 5–8), as well as all four of Darlington's reactors. They are also working on expanding the production of HSA ⁶⁰Co to more reactors.{{cite web|title=OPG's Update to Municipal Councils in Bruce County Q2 – 2017|url=http://www.brockton.ca/en/our-services/resources/Council/2017-06-26_June_26_2017/3.1-Lise-Morton-Ontario-Power-Generation---OPGs-Update-to-Municipal-Councils-in-Bruce-County.pdf|publisher=Ontario Power Generation|access-date=9 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809211500/http://www.brockton.ca/en/our-services/resources/Council/2017-06-26_June_26_2017/3.1-Lise-Morton-Ontario-Power-Generation---OPGs-Update-to-Municipal-Councils-in-Bruce-County.pdf|archive-date=9 August 2017|url-status=dead}}

In 2017, Bruce Power became the first Canadian recipient of a Top Innovative Practice (TIP) award from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) for its ongoing work with Nordion to produce cobalt-60.{{cite news|title=Bruce Power wins Innovation Award|url=http://www.kincardinenews.com/2017/05/25/bruce-power-first-canadian-company-to-win-innovation-award-at-the-nuclear-energy-institutes-nuclear-energy-assembly|access-date=9 August 2017|work=Kincardine News|date=25 May 2017|language=en-CA|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809213349/http://www.kincardinenews.com/2017/05/25/bruce-power-first-canadian-company-to-win-innovation-award-at-the-nuclear-energy-institutes-nuclear-energy-assembly|archive-date=9 August 2017|url-status=dead}}{{cite web|title=Top Innovative Practice Awards 2017|url=https://www.nei.org/News-Media/Speeches/Top-Innovative-Practice-Awards-2017|publisher=Nuclear Energy Institute|access-date=20 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170820162353/https://www.nei.org/News-Media/Speeches/Top-Innovative-Practice-Awards-2017|archive-date=20 August 2017|url-status=live}}

Bruce Power is working with Framatome to develop the capability to "produce shorter half-life radioisotopes (such as molybdenum-99, lutetium-177 and iridium-192)" using Areva's proprietary technology for the on-line production of radioisotopes in heavy water reactors.{{cite web|title=Bruce Power and AREVA NP Expand Agreement for Commercialization of Radioisotope Production – AREVA NP – AREVA Group|url=http://us.areva.com/EN/home-3975/areva-np-bruce-power-and-areva-np-expand-agreement-for-commercialization-of-radioisotope-production.html|website=us.areva.com|access-date=9 August 2017|date=8 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809212808/http://us.areva.com/EN/home-3975/areva-np-bruce-power-and-areva-np-expand-agreement-for-commercialization-of-radioisotope-production.html|archive-date=9 August 2017|url-status=dead}}{{cite news|title=Bruce Power, Areva NP join for isotope production|url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Bruce-Power-Areva-NP-cooperate-on-isotope-production-0908174.html|access-date=9 August 2017|work=world-nuclear-news.org|publisher=World Nuclear News|date=9 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809212821/http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Bruce-Power-Areva-NP-cooperate-on-isotope-production-0908174.html|archive-date=9 August 2017|url-status=live}} Areva will design and supply the system for installation in the existing Bruce units.

In June 2018, Bruce Power and ITG (a subsidiary of Isotopen Technologien München (ITM)) announced the start of a joint effort to explore producing lutetium-177 in Bruce's reactors, with ITG planned to manage the development, processing, and distribution of lutetium-177.{{cite news|title=Bruce Power and ITM to supply cancer therapy isotope|url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Bruce-Power-and-ITM-to-supply-cancer-therapy-isotope-2906187.html|access-date=30 June 2018|work=world-nuclear-news.org|date=29 June 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180630080733/http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Bruce-Power-and-ITM-to-supply-cancer-therapy-isotope-2906187.html|archive-date=30 June 2018|url-status=live}} The initial Isotope Production System (IPS), producing Lu-177, came online in January 2022.{{cite news |title=Bruce Power Ready For Lu-177 Production |url=https://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2022/01/27/bruce-power-ready-for-lutetium_2d00_177-production-012803#.YfLvAC-B1rR |access-date=27 January 2022 |work=Nuclear Street |date=27 January 2022}}

File:Bruce A Turbine Hall December 2002.JPG

Retubing of Bruce A units was planned in 1992, but deferred, as Ontario Hydro had a surplus of generation at the time.

In late 2005, Bruce Power and the Government of Ontario committed to return units 1 and 2 to service, to help meet increasing energy demand in the province of Ontario.{{cite news|url=http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2005/10/17/c1757.html?lang=_e.html |title=Government and Bruce Power Reach Agreement to Restart Nuclear Units |date=17 October 2005 |access-date=18 April 2008 |publisher=Canadian Ministry of Energy |location=Queen's Park, Ontario |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100225203323/http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2005/10/17/c1757.html?lang=_e.html |archive-date=25 February 2010 }} The project was originally estimated to cost $4.25 billion.{{cite news |url=http://www.transcanada.com/news/2005_news/2005_10_17.html |title=TransCanada to Invest in $4.25 Billion Bruce Power Restart and Increase Its Interest in Bruce A |date=17 October 2005 |access-date=18 April 2008 |publisher=Marketwire |location=Calgary, Alberta |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080513234021/http://www.transcanada.com/news/2005_news/2005_10_17.html |archive-date=13 May 2008 |url-status=dead}} It was determined that while units 1 & 2 could have been restarted without refurbishment, it was economically advantageous to do so, since refurbishment would have been soon required. The goal is to keep units 1 & 2 in service until 2043, 66 years after original commissioning.

The refurbishment required pressure tube and calandria tube replacement, steam generator replacement, shutdown System 2 (SDS2) enhancement, an upgrade of turbine control systems, replacing original analog controls with a DCS{{cite book | title= 2009 IEEE International Conference on Electro/Information Technology| chapter= Turbine control system upgrade for Bruce Nuclear plant units 1 and 2| date= 2009| doi=10.1109/EIT.2009.5189655 | s2cid=23955905 | last1= Gray| first1= Steven Frank| last2= Basu| first2= Samir| pages= 429–436| isbn= 978-1-4244-3354-4}} and significant other work and maintenance (for example, replacement of 30 transformers containing PCBs).{{citation needed|date=August 2017}}

A new fuel bundle design (Low Void Reactivity Fuel, LVRF) was considered, using slightly enriched 1% U-235 fuel pellets, within a CANFLEX 43-element bundle compared to the existing 37-element bundle.

In 2006 and 2007, the restart project was judged to be the largest infrastructure project in Canada by ReNew Canada magazine.{{cite web|url=http://www.top100projects.ca/index/view.html |title=ReNew Canada – The Top 100 |access-date=18 April 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080321085953/http://www.top100projects.ca/index/view.html |archive-date=21 March 2008 |url-status=dead}} In April 2007, the auditor general reviewed the refurbishment deal{{cite web|title=The Bruce Power Refurbishment Agreement|url=http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_en/brucespecial_en.pdf|access-date=27 March 2011|author=Office of the Auditor General of Ontario|date=5 April 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110527154837/http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_en/brucespecial_en.pdf|archive-date=27 May 2011}} In August 2007, estimated cost for the project had grown to $5.25 billion when Bruce Power decided to replace all 480 fuel channels in Unit 4, which will extend its working life to 2036, in line with the other 3 units of Bruce A.{{cite news|url=http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/070829/0296204.html |title=TransCanada Announces Expanded Unit 4 Refurbishment on Bruce A Restart Project |date=29 August 2007 |access-date=18 April 2008 |publisher=Marketwire |location=Calgary, Alberta }}{{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} In 2008, due to difficulties developing the necessary robotics, the estimated cost of restarting Units 1 and 2 rose between $400 and $700 million.{{cite news |url=https://www.thestar.com/article/415772 |title=Reactor repairs confirmed over budget |date=18 April 2008 |access-date=18 April 2008 |newspaper=The Toronto Star |author=Tyler Hamilton}} As of 2008, the project remained on schedule.{{cite news|url=http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gIasEEKZ6vUcQqLYp38liK7r1uAg |title=Bruce Power two-unit restart cost estimate rises to between $3.1 B and $3.4 B |date=17 April 2008 |access-date=18 April 2008 |publisher=The Canadian Press |location=Toronto, Ontario }}{{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}{{cite news|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24180619/ |title=TransCanada Provides Update on Bruce A Units 1 and 2 Restart Project |date=17 April 2008 |access-date=18 April 2008 |publisher=Marketwire |location=Calgary, Alberta }}{{dead link|date=August 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}

In January 2010, up to 217 workers were potentially exposed to radiation during the refurbishment.{{cite web |url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/26960282/Bruce-Power |title=Bruce Power |publisher=Scribd.com |access-date=8 September 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160108174906/http://www.scribd.com/doc/26960282/Bruce-Power |archive-date=8 January 2016 |url-status=live }} 27 workers may have received 5 mSv, a level well below the level that can affect human health. Only one lab in Canada (at Chalk River) was qualified to do the testing. Bruce Power had to seek permission to use alternative labs.{{cite web|url=http://www.brucepower.com/uc/GetDocument.aspx?docid=2974 |access-date=21 March 2011 }}{{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}{{cite news|title=Bruce Nuclear radiation incident shows safety gap|url=https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/bruce-nuclear-radiation-incident-shows-safety-gap-1.484845|access-date=24 March 2011|newspaper=CTV News|date=18 February 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110727123020/http://regina.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100218/nuke_leak_100118?hub=TorontoNewHome|archive-date=27 July 2011|url-status=live}}

In 2010, a plan to transport decommissioned, low-level radioactive steam generators to Sweden via the Great Lakes caused controversy.{{cite news | url=https://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/834724--critics-slam-proposal-to-ship-nuclear-waste-through-lake-ontario | location=Toronto | work=The Star | first=Brett | last=Popplewell | title=Critics slam proposal to ship nuclear waste through Lake Ontario | date=11 July 2010 | access-date=25 August 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121023193652/http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/834724--critics-slam-proposal-to-ship-nuclear-waste-through-lake-ontario | archive-date=23 October 2012 | url-status=live }} The CNSC approved the plan in February 2011.{{cite web|title=Bruce Power granted licence to transport steam generators|url=http://www.brucepower.com/pagecontent.aspx?navuid=1212&dtuid=84366|access-date=26 March 2011|date=4 February 2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061113142730/http://www.brucepower.com/pagecontent.aspx?navuid=1212|archive-date=13 November 2006}}

As of January 2011, fuel channel installation in Unit 2 was complete.{{cite web |url=http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2011/01/26/bruce-power-_1320_-bruce-a-unit-2-completes-installation-of-480-new-fuel-channels.aspx |title=Bruce Power – Bruce A Unit 2 Completes Installation of 480 New Fuel Channels – Nuclear Power Industry News – Nuclear Power Industry News – Nuclear Street – Nuclear Power Portal |publisher=Nuclear Street |date=26 January 2011 |access-date=22 March 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110720091808/http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2011/01/26/bruce-power-_1320_-bruce-a-unit-2-completes-installation-of-480-new-fuel-channels.aspx |archive-date=20 July 2011 |url-status=live }} The CNSC gave the operator the green light to restart Unit 2 on 16 March 2012.{{cite news |title=Bruce Power gets nod to restart Ontario reactor |agency=Reuters |work=Edmonton Journal |location=Edmonton |url=https://edmontonjournal.com/technology/Bruce+Power+gets+restart+Ontario+reactor/6315089/story.html |archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20190321164153/https://edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/nhl/cult-of-hockey/story-of-the-oilers-hanging-out-hands-in-pockets-shirts-not-tucked-in-goals-against |url-status=dead |archive-date=21 March 2019 |date=16 March 2012 |access-date=19 March 2012 }} However, the reactor was shut down the next day after a leak was discovered in the moderator system.{{cite news |title=Leak discovered at nuclear plant |author=QMI Agency |work=London Free Press |location=London, Ontario |url=https://lfpress.com/news/canada/2012/03/19/19522081.html |date=19 March 2012 |access-date=19 March 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160108174906/http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2012/03/19/19522081.html |archive-date=8 January 2016 |url-status=live }}

In 2011, refurbishment of Unit 1 and 2, scheduled to be complete 2009, was predicted for 2012. In 2011, the cost had totaled $3.8 billion; the final cost was expected to be $4.8 billion. The original 2005 estimate was $2.75 billion.{{cite web|url=http://www.globalnews.ca/story.html?id=3873817 |access-date=21 March 2011 }}{{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}

In September 2012, Unit 1 began generating power again.{{cite news |url=http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2063089 |title=Bruce 1 generates power for the first time in 15 years |publisher=Nuclear Engineering International |date=24 September 2012 |access-date=8 October 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130130041846/http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2063089 |archive-date=30 January 2013}}

On 16 October 2012, Unit 2 was connected to the provincial electricity grid for the first time in 17 years.[http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/bruce-power-unit-sends-power-to-ontario-grid-for-1st-time-in-17-years-1.999359 Bruce Power unit sends power to Ontario grid for 1st time in 17 years] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160108174906/http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/bruce-power-unit-sends-power-to-ontario-grid-for-1st-time-in-17-years-1.999359 |date=8 January 2016 }} The Canadian Press, 17 October 2012

In 2013, final costs were estimated at $4.8 billion, up from an original estimate of $2.75 billion, and the project ran "far behind" schedule.{{cite news | url=https://www.thestar.com/business/2013/01/20/darlington_nuclear_refit_will_have_two_outside_overseers.html | title=Darlington nuclear refit will have two outside overseers | newspaper=Toronto Star | date=20 January 2013 | access-date=24 March 2013 | author=Spears John | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304061908/http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/01/20/darlington_nuclear_refit_will_have_two_outside_overseers.html | archive-date=4 March 2016 | url-status=live }}

In October 2013, under the Ontario Long Term Energy Plan (LTEP) 2013, Ontario announced plans to refurbish six reactors at the Bruce plant beginning with Bruce A4 in 2016. Other units would follow at intervals. Bruce Power estimated the cost at about $2 billion per unit, or $12 billion for six. The price of the power from these units was expected to be in the range of ~$60–$70 per MWh.{{cite web | url=http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/docs/LTEP_2013_English_WEB.pdf | title=Achieving Balance: Ontario's Long-Term Energy Plan | publisher=Ontario Government | access-date=27 July 2014 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140325201216/http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/docs/LTEP_2013_English_WEB.pdf | archive-date=25 March 2014}}{{cite web | url=http://www.brucepower.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/BrucePower_LTEP_Brief.pdf | title=Long-Term Energy Plan Brief October 2013 | publisher=Bruce Power | access-date=27 July 2014 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150415022646/http://www.brucepower.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/BrucePower_LTEP_Brief.pdf | archive-date=15 April 2015 | url-status=live }}

In 2016, Bruce Power started a $13 billion refurbishment program for "major component replacement on Units 3–8 in 2020, starting in Unit 6".{{cite news |last=Learment |first=Frances |date=28 February 2017 |title=Bright future for Saugeen Shores |url=http://www.shorelinebeacon.com/2017/02/28/bright-future-for-saugeen-shores |work=Shoreline Beacon |location=Southampton, Ontario |access-date=8 March 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170309062659/http://www.shorelinebeacon.com/2017/02/28/bright-future-for-saugeen-shores |archive-date=9 March 2017 |url-status=dead}} According to Bruce Power, this multi-year plan "will generate between 1,500 and 2,500 jobs on site annually – and 18,000 across Ontario directly and indirectly – while injecting up to $4 billion annually into Ontario's economy".{{cite web |url=http://www.brucepower.com/bruce-powers-unit-1-sets-new-post-refurbishment-long-run-record/ |title=Unit 1 sets new post-refurbishment long run record |author= |date=14 April 2016 |website=Bruce Power |access-date=8 March 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170309064903/http://www.brucepower.com/bruce-powers-unit-1-sets-new-post-refurbishment-long-run-record/ |archive-date=9 March 2017 |url-status=dead }}

Renew Canada rated the project as the biggest infrastructure upgrade in Canada for 2017.{{Cite web |url=https://top100projects.ca/2017filters/ |title=Top 100 Canada's Biggest Infrastructure Projects |access-date=28 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180629074154/https://top100projects.ca/2017filters/ |archive-date=29 June 2018 |url-status=live }}

• In January of 2020, Unit 6 went down for refurbishment. It returned to service on 8 September 2023 when it re-synchronized to the Ontario power grid. It was announced that Bruce 6 had completed its refurbishment ahead of schedule and on-budget.{{cite web | url=https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Bruce-6-back-on-the-grid-after-refurbishment | title=Bruce 6 back on the grid after refurbishment : Corporate - World Nuclear News }}
• In March of 2023, Unit 3 went down for refurbishment.{{cite web|url=https://www.brucepower.com/2023/03/02/bruce-power-begins-unit-3-major-component-replacement-outage/|title=Bruce Power begins Unit 3 MCR|date=2 March 2023 |access-date=3 April 2023}}

The Bruce station area is the site of OPG's Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF). The WWMF stores the low-level waste and intermediate level nuclear waste from operating its 20 nuclear reactors, including those leased to Bruce Power. As of 2009, there were 11 low level storage buildings.{{cite web|url=http://www.opg.com/power/nuclear/waste/pdf/WasteBrochure11.pdf|title=Western Waste Management Facility|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110612045118/http://www.opg.com/power/nuclear/waste/pdf/WasteBrochure11.pdf|archive-date=12 June 2011|publisher=Ontario Power Generation|url-status=dead}}

The WWMF provides dry nuclear fuel storage for the Bruce reactors. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization was mandated in 2002 by the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act to submit a proposal for the long-term management, which was submitted to the Minister of Natural Resources in November 2005 and approved by the government in June 2007.[http://www.opg.com/generating-power/nuclear/nuclear-waste-management/Pages/types-of-waste.aspx Nuclear Waste Management. Types of Waste: Long-term management of used fuel] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170613210045/http://www.opg.com/generating-power/nuclear/nuclear-waste-management/Pages/types-of-waste.aspx |date=13 June 2017 }} Ontario Power Generation Inc., 2017, retrieved 30 May 2017 {{As of|May 2017}} it is seeking a separate site in Canada for a permanent repository for the used fuel from all of Canada's nuclear reactors.

In 2013, OPG proposed to construct a Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) for long-term storage of low-and-intermediate level waste on lands adjacent to WWMF. The proposed DGR would be about 680 metres below surface.{{cite web |url=http://www.opg.com/generating-power/nuclear/nuclear-waste-management/Deep-Geologic-Repository/Pages/Deep-Geologic-Repository.aspx |title=Ontario Power Generation: Power Generation: Nuclear Waste Management |publisher=Opg.com |date=n.d. |access-date=30 May 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170615152308/http://www.opg.com/generating-power/nuclear/nuclear-waste-management/Deep-Geologic-Repository/Pages/Deep-Geologic-Repository.aspx |archive-date=15 June 2017 |url-status=live }}

In 2007, the Ontario Power Authority had recommended in a plan submitted to the Ontario Energy Board, to build a new nuclear power station consisting of at least two reactors.{{cite news |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/power-plan-calls-for-ontario-to-spend-26-5b-on-nuclear-plants-1.634231 |title=Power plan calls for Ontario to spend $26.5B on nuclear plants |date=29 August 2007 |access-date=18 April 2008 |publisher=CBC News |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080420171923/http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/08/29/ontario-nuclear.html |archive-date=20 April 2008 |url-status=live }} The leading candidate was AECL's Advanced CANDU Reactor.{{cite news |url=https://www.thestar.com/article/414160 |title=Queen's Park prepares for 'power' play |date=14 April 2008 |access-date=18 April 2008 |author=David Olive |newspaper=Toronto Star |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121013064439/http://www.thestar.com/article/414160 |archive-date=13 October 2012 |url-status=live }} Since 2008, environmental assessments have been underway both at Bruce and at Ontario Power Generation's Darlington Nuclear Generating Station.{{cite news |url=https://www.thestar.com/article/412700 |title=GE-Hitachi won't bid for reactor |date=8 April 2008 |access-date=18 April 2008 |newspaper=Toronto Star |author=Tyler Hamilton |quote=The government plans to pick a winning technology by the end of the year. It also will decide by that time whether the plant will be located in Clarington or Bruce County, and whether the plant's operator will be Ontario Power Generation or Bruce Power.}} In 2009, Bruce Power withdrew its application to the CNSC for the Bruce C plant.{{cite web|title=Withdrawal of Application... [Letter]|url=http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/readingroom/newbuilds/withdrawnapplications/bruce_tiverton/docs/Bruce_Power_Withdrawl.pdf|publisher=CNSC|access-date=26 March 2011|author=Frank Saunders|date=23 July 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110718184449/http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/readingroom/newbuilds/withdrawnapplications/bruce_tiverton/docs/Bruce_Power_Withdrawl.pdf|archive-date=18 July 2011|url-status=live}}{{cite web |author=steveheiser |url=http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2009/07/24/bruce-power-will-focus-on-additional-refurbishments-at-bruce-a-and-bruce-b-1014.aspx |title=Bruce Power Will Focus on Additional Refurbishments at Bruce A And Bruce B |publisher=Nuclear Street |date=24 July 2009 |access-date=22 March 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110720091750/http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2009/07/24/bruce-power-will-focus-on-additional-refurbishments-at-bruce-a-and-bruce-b-1014.aspx |archive-date=20 July 2011 |url-status=live }}

In July 2023, Ontario Minister of Energy Todd Smith announced an intent to build 4.8 GW of new nuclear on the Bruce site, effectively re-starting the plans for Bruce C.{{cite web |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ontario-new-nuclear-build-1.6897701 |title=Ontario starts pre-development work for new, large-scale nuclear plant |date= 5 July 2023 |website= CBC News |access-date= 5 July 2023 |quote=There's room alongside (units) Bruce A and Bruce B, potentially, for a Bruce C and that's what this pre-development work is intended to begin today.}} It would be the first large-scale nuclear build in Canada for more than three decades, to prepare for increasing electricity demand in the long term.{{Cite web |title=Province gives new life to possibility of a Bruce "C" at Bruce Nuclear site in Kincardine |url=https://www.kincardinerecord.com/story.php?id=15046 |access-date=2023-09-18 |website=Kincardine Record}}

• On 26 October 2016, Bruce Power announced an uprate from 6,384 MWe to 6,400 MWe.{{cite web |author=Bruce Power |url= https://www.brucepower.com/6400-megawatts/ |title=Bruce Power announces new peak output of 6,400 megawatts |publisher=Bruce Power |date=26 October 2016 |access-date=20 November 2019|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170714055338/https://www.brucepower.com/6400-megawatts/ |archive-date= 14 July 2017 }}
• On 11 July 2019, Bruce Power announced another uprate to the facility, adding 22 MW of output to Unit 3, bringing overall site output to 6,430 MWe.{{cite web |author=Bruce Power |url=https://www.brucepower.com/bruce-power-increases-output-though-innovation-and-efficiency/ |title=Bruce Power increases output through innovation and efficiency |publisher=Bruce Power |date=11 July 2019 |access-date=20 November 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200111234849/https://www.brucepower.com/bruce-power-increases-output-though-innovation-and-efficiency/ |archive-date=11 January 2020 |url-status=dead }}
• The March 2019,Bruce Power Major Component Replacement Project: Economic Impact Analysis indicates a target capacity of 7,000 MWe by mid-2033.{{cite web |url= https://occ.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019.03-OCC-Bruce-Power-Report-Final_Digital.pdf |title=Bruce Power Major Component Replacement Project: Economic Impact Analysis |publisher=Ontario Chamber of Commerce |date=March 2019 |access-date=20 November 2019}}
• On 14 October 2021, Bruce Power announced an uprate to 6,550 MWe.{{cite web |author=Bruce Power |url= https://www.brucepower.com/2021/10/14/bruce-power-announces-increased-power-output-and-isotope-harvest-milestones-as-a-part-of-made-in-ontario-economic-recovery-plan/ |title=Bruce Power announces increased output and isotope harvest milestones |publisher=Bruce Power |date=14 October 2021 |access-date=14 October 2021 }}
• On 23 March 2022, Bruce Power announced an uprate to Unit 1 to 821 MWe {{cite web |author=Bruce Power |url= https://www.brucepower.com/2022/03/23/innovation-allows-unit-1-to-provide-more-carbon-free-electricity-to-ontarios-grid/ |title=Innovation allows Unit 1 to provide more carbon-free electricity to Ontario's grid |publisher=Bruce Power |date=23 March 2022 |access-date=24 March 2022 }}
• On 6 May 2022, Bruce Power announced an uprate to Unit 2 to 823MWe, adding 39MW of capacity to the 784MWe it was producing previously.{{cite web |author=Bruce Power |url= https://www.brucepower.com/2022/05/06/unit-2-sets-record-run-ahead-of-planned-maintenance-outage/ |title=Unit 2 sets record run ahead of planned maintenance outage |publisher=Bruce Power |date=28 July 2022 |access-date=28 July 2022 }}

File:NPP Bruce A.jpg

There are more than 56 kilometres of roads on site, and at least 25 major structures. The site has its own fire department, laundry and medical centre.

Encompassed by the Bruce site is the shut-down Douglas Point reactor, an earlier version of the CANDU design. Construction began in 1960; was operational in 1967; and was shut down in 1984. The present Bruce reactors each are roughly 4 times the capacity of the 200 MW Douglas Point unit.

The Bruce Heavy Water Plant (BHWP) also occupied the site. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited contracted the Lummus Company of Canada Limited in 1969 to design and construct the first phase of the plant, while Ontario Hydro was responsible for commissioning and operating.{{cite book|title=Abstract for "Separation of Hydrogen Isotopes"|volume=68|pages=27–39|publisher=American Chemical Society|doi=10.1021/bk-1978-0068.ch002|chapter=Bruce Heavy Water Plant Performance|series=ACS Symposium Series|year=1978|last1=Davidson|first1=G. D.|isbn=978-0-8412-0420-1}}

It was planned to consist of four sub-plants, A through D:

• A was in production in 1973, shutdown in 1984, and demolished in 1993;
• B was in production in 1979, partially shutdown in 1993, completely closed in 1997, and subsequently demolished;
• C was cancelled, and never built;
• D was 70% completed when cancelled, and subsequently demolished in 1995.

During its lifetime, BHWP produced 16,000 tonnes of reactor grade heavy water. Capacity of each sub-plant was planned to be 800 tonnes/annum. The plant size was approximately 960 m by 750 m. The heavy water was 99.75% pure.

The production of a single kilogram of heavy water required 340 tonnes of feed water.{{cite web|title=Heavy Water Production|url=http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/heavy.htm|publisher=Federation of American Scientists|access-date=27 March 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110405024941/http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/heavy.htm|archive-date=5 April 2011|url-status=live}}

Steam from Bruce A could be diverted to the Bruce Bulk Steam System (BBSS) to provide energy for the production of heavy water (750 MW thermal), to heat buildings within the development (15 MW th), or to provide energy (72 MW th) for the adjacent Bruce Energy Centre (BEC). The BEC supported industries such as greenhouses and plastic manufacturers. As one of the largest bulk steam systems in the world, this system could produce 5,350 MW of medium-pressure process steam, and had over 6 km of piping.{{cite book|title=Small and Medium Reactors: Development Status and Application Aspects|url=http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/38/027/38027904.pdf|publisher=IAEA|access-date=27 March 2011|author=Jürgen Kupitz|date=March–April 2000|volume=5 |pages=497–534|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150602133110/http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/38/027/38027904.pdf|archive-date=2 June 2015|url-status=live}}{{rp|15–16}} It was demolished by the end of 2006. Because of the requirement to provide steam, the Bruce A turbines were undersized relative to the reactor power.{{dead link|date=May 2017}}{{cite web|title=Nuclear heat applications: World overview|url=http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull264/26404781821.pdf|publisher=IAEA|access-date=27 March 2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120905051839/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull264/26404781821.pdf|archive-date=5 September 2012}}{{cite web|title=Introduction to CANDU processes|url=http://canteach.candu.org/library/20042624.pdf|access-date=27 March 2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110723231854/http://canteach.candu.org/library/20042624.pdf|archive-date=23 July 2011}}{{cite document|title=Bruce Energy Centre Discussion Paper|publisher=Municipality of Kincardine|author=Meridian Planning Consultants|date=June 2005}}

OPG owns the nearby 288 ha Inverhuron Provincial Park on Lake Huron, bordering Inverhuron, 14 km north-east of Kincardine, which is not part of the Bruce site proper, and leases it to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. As a condition of the operating licence for Bruce Nuclear, OPG retained a 914 m radius exclusion zone in the northwest corner of the park. After operating over 25 years the park campground was phased out in 1976, because of safety concerns related to the heavy water production. When heavy water was no longer produced, the park campground was allowed to re-open in 2000 on the same spot.{{cite web|title=Inverhuron Draft Vegetation Management Plan|url=http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/17000/272597.pdf|publisher=Queen's Printer for Ontario|author=Ontario Ministry Natural Resources (OMNR)|access-date=4 April 2011|year=2007|pages=42|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120925231736/http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/17000/272597.pdf|archive-date=25 September 2012|url-status=live}}{{rp|7}}

The heated water released back into Lake Huron by the plant prevents the surrounding shoreline from freezing over during winter and attracts an inordinate concentration of lake fish, which in turn attracts droves of bald eagles wintering in the area. Numbers peak around late February to early March and it is not uncommon for visitors{{who|date=March 2025}} to observe several dozen eagles in and around the general vicinity of the plant at any given time{{when|date=March 2025}} during these months.{{cite news | first=Jennifer | last=Schleich | url=http://www.thewhig.com/2011/04/06/nuclear-plant-calls-in-hawks-to-scare-off-nesting-gulls | title=Nuclear plant calls in hawks to scare off nesting gulls | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130801020233/http://www.thewhig.com/2011/04/06/nuclear-plant-calls-in-hawks-to-scare-off-nesting-gulls |archivedate=1 August 2013 | work=The Whig | date=6 April 2011}}Rob Gowan [http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/2013/01/13/eagles-create-stir Eagles create stir] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130118063117/http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/2013/01/13/eagles-create-stir |date=18 January 2013 }}, Owen Sound Sun Times, 13 January 2013

File:Bruce Nuclear Generating Station From Plane.jpg

In 1977, three Greenpeace activists canoed into the site to demonstrate the lack of security.{{cite web |url=http://www.sierraclub.ca/en/users/john-bennett |title=John Bennett | Sierra Club Canada |publisher=Sierraclub.ca |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110225020155/http://www.sierraclub.ca/en/users/john-bennett |archive-date=25 February 2011}}{{cite web |url=http://www.digitaltermpapers.com/c7551.htm |title=Greenpeace History |publisher=Digitaltermpapers.com |access-date=9 October 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120415012159/http://www.digitaltermpapers.com/c7551.htm |archive-date=15 April 2012 |url-status=live }}

On 23 September 2001, the plant suffered another PR blow when a man whose boat capsized on Lake Huron near the Bruce complex squeezed through a gate, entered an office building and phoned for help—all undetected.{{cite news|title=Nuke foes fight expansion of Canadian plant|url=http://www.friendsofbruce.ca/DetroitPressNucWaste.pdf|access-date=4 April 2011|newspaper=The Detroit News|date=24 July 2002|author=Tony Manolatos|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110725051612/http://www.friendsofbruce.ca/DetroitPressNucWaste.pdf|archive-date=25 July 2011|url-status=live}}{{cite web|title=Ontario Hansard – 10-October2001|url=http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardECAT/37-2/L048A-4.htm|access-date=4 April 2011|date=10 October 2001|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110817162734/http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardECAT/37-2/L048A-4.htm|archive-date=17 August 2011|url-status=live}}

Before the 2001 September 11 attacks, mandate of the security team was to delay attackers for 17 minutes, until local police could respond. Reliance was on passive measures such as fencing and locks.

The "transformed" post-9/11 security team is described as being larger than the police force of the city of Kingston, i.e. equivalent to the force of a city of 100,000. Force members are permitted to carry firearms, and have powers of arrest. The force possesses armoured vehicles, water craft, and the plant is now triple-fenced.{{cite web |url=http://forums.blueline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=9535&start=15 |title=Blue Line Forums • View topic – nuclear plant security |publisher=Forums.blueline.ca |access-date=23 March 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111007211913/http://forums.blueline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=9535&start=15 |archive-date=7 October 2011 |url-status=live }}

In May 2008, the Bruce Nuclear Response Team (NRT) won the U.S. National SWAT Championship (USNSC), defeating 29 other teams from 4 countries, the first time a Canadian team won an international SWAT event. They won again in 2009, 2010, and 2011.{{cite web |url=http://www.98thebeach.ca/news_item.php?NewsID=3911 |title=98 The Beach News |publisher=98thebeach.ca |access-date=23 March 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110724150426/http://www.98thebeach.ca/news_item.php?NewsID=3911 |archive-date=24 July 2011 |url-status=live }}[http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/pdfs/LETTER_FROM_PM_AUG_2008.pdf] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110926230016/http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/pdfs/LETTER_FROM_PM_AUG_2008.pdf|date=26 September 2011}}{{cite web|title=US National SWAT Championship|url=http://www.nationalswatchampionships.com/results.php|access-date=24 March 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101126155206/http://nationalswatchampionships.com/results.php|archive-date=26 November 2010|url-status=dead}}{{cite web|title=US National SWAT Championship|url=http://www.brucepower.com/4762/news/bruce-power-team-wins-u-s-national-swat-championship-2/|access-date=7 November 2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111107003032/http://www.brucepower.com/4762/news/bruce-power-team-wins-u-s-national-swat-championship-2/|archive-date=7 November 2011}}{{cite web|title=Nanticoke Nuclear Power Plant Project Environmental Assessment Fact Sheet 6: Security and Safety|url=http://www.brucepower.com/docs/reports/corporate/Nanticoke%20Fact%20Sheets.pdf|publisher=Bruce Power|access-date=4 April 2011|date=November 2008}}{{dead link|date=September 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}

After 9/11, tours of the plant area were discontinued, although there is a visitor centre outside of the site.

According to the Bruce County emergency plan, "The Municipality of Kincardine will coordinate the emergency response concerns of a nuclear emergency situation resulting from an accident at the Bruce Power Site in the Municipality of Kincardine".{{cite web|title=COUNTY OF BRUCE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN|url=http://www.brucecounty.on.ca/download_file2.php?uid=187|access-date=24 March 2011|page=1.2.3|year=2004|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101222094936/http://www.brucecounty.on.ca/download_file2.php?uid=187|archive-date=22 December 2010|url-status=dead}} Kincardine is required to maintain a warning system within 3 km of the plant, and has a network of 10 warning stations equipped with sirens and strobes.{{cite web|title=Municipality of Kincardine Public Alerting System|url=http://kincardine.net/public_docs/documents/Inverhuron%20Park%20siren%20info%202005%20-%20web%20info1.pdf|access-date=25 March 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110819110531/http://kincardine.net/public_docs/documents/Inverhuron%20Park%20siren%20info%202005%20-%20web%20info1.pdf|archive-date=19 August 2011|url-status=dead}}

A variety of radiation monitoring measures are in place. Milk samples from local farms are collected weekly. Drinking water at treatment plants in Kincardine and Southampton is sampled twice daily, and tested weekly. Ground water is sampled from several surface water, shallow and deep well locations. Aquatic sediment and fish are analysed, as well as livestock feed, honey, eggs, fruits and vegetables.{{cite web|title=Annual Summary & Assessment of Environmental Radiological Data for 2009|url=http://www.brucepower.com/uc/GetDocument.aspx?docid=3106|publisher=Bruce Power|access-date=26 March 2011|date=30 April 2010}}{{dead link|date=September 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}

The Bruce Generating Station consist of 8 operational reactors.

{{mw-datatable}}

{{stack|{{Portal|Ontario|Energy|Nuclear technology}}}}

• Nuclear power in Canada
• Darlington Nuclear Generating Station
• Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
• List of largest power stations in Canada
• List of largest power stations
• Huron Wind

{{reflist}}

• Parr, Joy (2010). Sensing Changes: Technologies, Environments, and the Everyday, 1953–2003. Vancouver: UBC Press.

• [http://www.brucepower.com/ Bruce Power – plant operator]
• [http://www.opg.com/ Ontario Power Generation (OPG) – site owner, operates WWMF]
• [http://www.ieso.ca/ Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) – Ontario's ISO]
• [http://www.nwmo.ca/ Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO)]
• [http://www.aecl.ca/ Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) – involved with design, owns Douglas Point]
• [http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/ Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) – federal regulator]
• [http://www.kincardine.net/ Kincardine – host municipality] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181125154719/http://www.kincardine.net/ |date=25 November 2018 }}

{{Nuclear power in Canada}}

{{Electricity generation}}

Category:Nuclear power stations in Ontario

Category:Ontario Power Generation

Category:Ontario electricity policy

Category:OMERS

Category:Buildings and structures in Bruce County

Category:Nuclear power stations using CANDU reactors

Category:Nuclear power stations with proposed reactors

Category:Public–private partnership projects in Canada

Category:1977 establishments in Ontario

Category:Energy infrastructure completed in 1977