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 Data Limitations 1. The Input/Output calculations were derived using multipliers from the Statistics Canada, Interprovincial Input/Output model. These multipliers provide an order-of-magnitude representation of the Provincial economy. The multipliers used were the most recent available at the time and reflected conditions in the 2007 economy. 2. The direct labour assumptions and project costs used to input to the input/output calculations were derived from the NWMO. They reflected the best assumptions available on project cost and associated direct labour force complement at the time. 3. The Input/Output results are produced at the Provincial level and therefore, to determine local effects, an allocation exercise was required. The input/output results were allocated to the Local Study Area (LSA), Regional Study Area (RSA) and outside study areas based on historic workforce data derived from an employee survey of the Western Waste Management Facility and from NWMO’s estimates of where major project expenditures might be made. 4. The calculation of municipal impacts was formulated around population projections for the LSA and RSA municipalities. The assumptions behind these population assumptions were derived from available municipal documents which, for the most part, gave estimates out to 2031. Beyond 2031 population forecasts were produced by extrapolating compound annual growth rates experienced in the study area municipalities during the period 2006 to 2031 out to 2062. 5. Once the population forecasts were derived, the impacts on municipal services were calculated using 2009 per capita service ratios. 6. Tax Assessment impacts were derived using the population projections and per capita tax assessment information derived from the 2008 Financial Information Returns for each of the study area municipalities. 7. The effects tables provided in the EIS report provide an annual average estimate of effect for each of the project phases (i.e., site preparation and construction, operation and decommissioning). Natural Variability The model describes human economic behavior. It is an extrapolation based on current economic conditions. There is inherent variability in the evolution of social and economic conditions that is likely larger on more local scales than regional scales. Model Error The economic model is a forecast model that uses available socio-economic information to anticipate likely project effects going forward. The results are order of magnitude and reflect reasonable estimates of what might happen in the future given past trends, knowledge of current local conditions and assumptions the project over its lifecycle in terms of labour requirements and expenditures for goods and services. However, the results could be influenced if social and economic conditions going forward are dramatically different than socio-economic conditions at the time of writing. Page 13 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 Uncertainty Analysis The economic model provides order-of-magnitude estimates of project effects based on current economic conditions extrapolated forward through population projections. Input/Outputs are provided on a best-estimate basis. No sensitivity results were provided. References: AECOM. 2011. Socio-economic Environment Technical Support Document. AECOM Canada Ltd. report for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization NWMO DGR-TR-2011-08 R000. Toronto, Canada. (CEAA Registry Doc# 299) CEAA/CNSC. 2009. Guidelines for the Preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Deep Geologic Repository for Low- and Intermediate-Level Radioactive Waste. (CEAA Registry Doc# 150) CNSC. 2004. Managing Radioactive Waste. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Regulatory Policy P-290. Ottawa, Canada. ITASCA. 2005. FLAC3D (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua in 3 Dimensions), Version 3.1. Minneapolis, USA. ITASCA. 2006. Universal Distinct Element Code (UDEC), Version 4.00. Minneapolis, USA. ITASCA. 2011. Long-Term Geomechanical Stability Analysis. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. report for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization NWMO DGR-TR-2011-17 R000. Toronto, Canada. (available at www.nwmo.ca/dgrgeoscientificsitecharacterization) OPG. 2011a. OPG’s Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Waste – Environmental Impact Statement. Ontario Power Generation report 00216-REP-07701-00001 R000. Toronto, Canada. (CEAA Registry Doc# 298) OPG. 2011b. OPG’s Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Waste – Preliminary Safety Report. Ontario Power Generation report 00216-SR-01320-00001 R000. Toronto, Canada. (CEAA Registry Doc# 300) OPG. 2012. OPG Letter, A. Sweetnam to S. Swanson, “Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Level Waste – Submission for the Joint Review Panel’s Technical Information Session #2”, CD# 00216-CORR-00531- 00135, August 27, 2012. (CEAA Registry Doc# 706; updated version to be posted). Peltier, W.R. 2011. Long-Term Climate Change. Nuclear Waste Management Organization report NWMO DGR-TR- 2011-14 R000. Toronto, Canada. (available at www.nwmo.ca/dgrgeoscientificsitecharacterization) Page 14 of 69
Page 2 and 3: Dr. Stella Swanson September 28, 20
Page 4 and 5: Attachment 1 to OPG letter, Albert
Page 66 and 67:
Attachment 1 to OPG letter, Albert
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?