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 Transfer Flux (Bq/a) 1.E+08 1.E+07 1.E+06 1.E+05 1.E+04 1.E+03 1.E+02 1.E+01 NE-RC: Total NE-RT1: Total NE-RT1: C-14 NE-RT1: Zr-93 NE-RT1: Nb-94 NE-RT1: Nb-93m Information Request and Response 1.E+00 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 Time (a) Figure 1: Radionuclide Flux to the Base of the Shafts with Instant Resaturation and Release and No Sorption (NE-RT1) Compared to Reference Case (NE-RC) (Figure 8-47 of the PSR) Table 2: Maximum Doses to an Adult for Different Contaminant Release and Transport Assumptions (Table 8-21 of the PSR) Case Brief Description Max. Calculated Dose (mSv/year) Time of Max. Calculated Dose (Ma) NE-RC Reference case (with underpressures) 2 × 10 -15 NE-RS Resaturation at closure (with underpressures) 4 × 10 -14 10 a NE-RT1 Resaturation at closure, instant release to groundwater, no 4 × 10 sorption (with underpressures) -9 10 a NE-RT2 Resaturation at closure, instant release to groundwater, no sorption (without underpressures) 5 × 10 -9 10 a Note: a. This represents the end of the calculation period. 10 a Page 19 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 Concentration (Bq/m 3 ) 1.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 1.E-07 1.E-08 1.E-09 1.E-10 1.E-11 Information Request and Response Cl-36: 5th Percentile I-129: 5th Percentile Cl-36: 50th Percentile I-129: 50th Percentile Cl-36: 95th Percentile I-129: 95th Percentile 1.E-12 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 Time (a) Natural Cl-36 in Surface Water Natural I-129 in Surface Water Figure 2: Calculated Well Water Concentrations for Cl-36 and I-129 from Probabilistic Sensitivity Calculations (NE-PC) Based on the Reference Case (Figure 8-55 of the PSR) As noted above, the sorption values and solubility limits for contaminants were set deliberately low and high, respectively. Within the uncertainties, the sorption values could also be higher and solubility limits lower than assumed. No specific calculations were made to test this potential improvement as the dose rates are already low. However, as a general observation it is noted that sorption, precipitation and solids exchange of C-14 are likely to occur to some extent due to the large amount of carbon in the repository, shaft seals and host rock. This could appreciably reduce the potential dose consequences of some disruptive scenarios such as the Severe Shaft Seal Failure Scenario. (d) Interactions of Contaminants with Organics in Cap Rock Interactions between contaminants and organic compounds in the cap rock are not explicitly considered. However, many of the argillaceous rocks included in the review of sorption values in Appendix D of QUINTESSA and GEOFIRMA (2011) are likely to include natural organics and so the impact of organics is implicitly included in the selected sorption values. While the presence of organics is likely to increase sorption due to their large surface area, it is possible that Page 20 of 69
Page 2 and 3: Dr. Stella Swanson September 28, 20
Page 4 and 5: Attachment 1 to OPG letter, Albert
Page 72 and 73:
Attachment 1 to OPG letter, Albert
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?