Ontario Power Generation's Response to the Joint Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Attachment 1 to OPG letter, Albert Sweetnam to Dr. Stella Swanson, “Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Level Waste – Submission of Responses to the Final Sub-set of Package #4 Information Requests”, CD#: 00216-CORR-00531-00143. IR# EIS Guidelines Section Information Request and Response - T2GGM - AMBER Radiation dose modelling - MicroShield - MicroSkyshine - MCNP - Non Human Biota Environmental Assessment - AERMOD - Cadna/A In addition, the following two models were also important to the long-term safety conclusions of the EIS (OPG 2011a) and PSR (OPG 2011b): UTGSM for glaciation, and UDEC for emplacement room stability. Finally, the socio-economic assessment made use of an economic model to predict the economic effects, both adverse and beneficial, of the project. For completeness, a discussion of the basis for confidence in these numerical models is included below. University of Toronto Glacial Systems Model (GSM) The University of Toronto (UofT) Glacial Systems Model (GSM) is described by Peltier (2011). The current version (ICE-5G (VM2 L90)) incorporates many recent advances in numerical ice sheet modeling. The model is supported by approximately 15 peer-reviewed publications in the leading journals of the field (e.g., Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, Geophysical Research Letters, Geophysics Journal International, Annual Reviews in Earth and Planetary Science, Reviews of Geophysics, Quaternary Science Review, Climate Dynamics). In terms of verification, it has been subject to detailed inter-comparison with other models in the context of the European Ice Sheet Modelling INiTiative project (EISMINT). Competing models include those by Huybrechts (Germany), Ritz (France), Payne (UK), Hughs (USA), Marshall and Clark (Canada). Among these models, the UofT GSM is the only model: i) in which specific approaches are employed to allow rigorous attention to the problem of model uniqueness; ii) that is coupled to an accurate representation of the glacial isostatic adjustment process; and iii) for which rigorous analyses have been performed to demonstrate the ability of the model to accurately compute the evolution of the permafrost and subsurface temperature regimes associated with the evolution of continental scale ice cover over a complete glacialinterglacial cycle. The selection and relative quality of GSM predicted ice-sheet histories is based, in part, on demonstration of acceptable fits to observational constraints that include: i) the entire relative sea level database for North America; ii) the height of the marine limit at site located on the Hudson Bay perimeter; iii) observation of present day rates of uplift; iv) the independently published time dependent retreat isochrones for the ice-sheet chronology. The GSM numerical Page 11 of 69
Attachment 1 to OPG letter, Albert Sweetnam to Dr. Stella Swanson, “Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Level Waste – Submission of Responses to the Final Sub-set of Package #4 Information Requests”, CD#: 00216-CORR-00531-00143. IR# EIS Guidelines Section Information Request and Response simulations are consider the best available to establish reasoned external boundary conditions for surface perturbation forcing by glacial events. UDEC (Emplacement Room Stability) UDEC stands for Universal Distinct Element Code. It is a widely used, explicit, two dimensional code for advanced geotechnical analysis of rock and structural response and design in geotechnical, civil, petroleum and mining engineering. UDEC has 1172 users in 59 different countries and was developed and has been commercially available since 1984. UDEC was qualified in 2002 by U.S. DOE for use on its Yucca Mountain project for geological disposal of high-level nuclear waste. The code has also been applied by a number of other international nuclear waste management programs, including Switzerland (NAGRA), Finland (Posiva) and Sweden (SKB). The code has been applied at underground research laboratories in Switzerland (i.e., Grimsel, Mt. Terri) and Germany (Gorleben). The analysis of the long-term stability of DGR emplacement room caverns was carried out extensively using UDEC Version 4.01 (ITASCA 2006) and FLAC3D Version 3.1 (ITASCA 2005). The application of the codes for the OPG’s L&ILW DGR is described by ITASCA (2011). The FLAC3D code is described as part of information associated with the JRP Technical Information Session #2 materials and will not described in detail here. These codes were selected to model the behaviour of the emplacement room and development of the damage zone at room-and-pillar scale and at panel scale. Like the DGR shaft seal analysis, scenarios were considered when the repository is subject to perturbations such as glaciation, seismic events, gas generation from corrosion of waste packages and conservative combinations of these loading scenarios to provide insight into rock mass behavior for a time frame of 1,000,000 years. For the purpose of the OPG’s L&ILW DGR, the approach for application of the code involved: i) the use of accredited laboratory data used to develop rock mass parameters for the analysis; ii) conservative assumptions on long-term rock strength; iii) calibration of material parameters against laboratory test results using Voronoi block model; iv) conservative bounding cases as described above; and v) conservative 2D pillar-scale analysis as compared to more realistic 3D panel-scale analysis. Confidence in UDEC results is based on the following approach to model application, parameter selection and bounding conservatisms: i) conservative constitutive models, ii) assumed low long-term material strength (i.e., 40% UCS); iii) input parameters calibrated to laboratory results using Voronoi Block model; iv) in-situ stresses were calibrated to observed borehole behaviour; v) conservative 2-D analyses; vi) assumed maximum glacial and seismic loading, and vii) combined loading cases considered. Economic Model The economic model used for the assessment of the DGR Project was a purpose-built Input/Output Allocation Model. The timeframe addressed by the modelling was from 2012 to 2062. All documents relevant to the Economic Modeling are cited in Appendix E of the Socio-economic Environment Technical Support Document (AECOM 2011). Page 12 of 69
Page 2 and 3: Dr. Stella Swanson September 28, 20
Page 4 and 5: Attachment 1 to OPG letter, Albert
Page 64 and 65:
Attachment 1 to OPG letter, Albert
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Title: OPG’s Deep Geologic Reposi
Page 76 and 77:
Table of Contents CLOSURE WALL CAPA
Page 78 and 79:
Figure 1: Access tunnel geometry. C
Page 80 and 81:
CLOSURE WALL CAPACITY and are the s
Page 82 and 83:
CLOSURE WALL CAPACITY The shear str
Page 84 and 85:
(H-a) = 4.25 m Figure 5: Return air
Page 86 and 87:
Golder Associates Ltd. 6700 Century
Page 88 and 89:
Title: Potential Inflows through Cr
Page 90 and 91:
Serge Clement 1011170042-TM-G2100-0
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
APPENDIX A Derivation of Conversion
Page 102 and 103:
External radius of liner =
Page 104 and 105:
ATTACHMENT 2 Attachment to OPG lett
Page 106 and 107:
8. Letter from A. Sweetnam to S. Sw
Page 108 and 109:
OPG’s L&ILW Deep Geologic Reposit
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242:
show all

Ontario Power Generation's Response to the Joint Review

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?