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 EIS-04-124 � Section 8.1, General Information and Design Information Request and Response References: OPG. 2010. Reference Low and Intermediate Level Waste Inventory for the Deep Geologic Repository. Ontario Power Generation report 00216-REP-03902-00003-R003. Toronto, Canada. (CEAA Registry Doc# 300) OPG. 2011. 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) Information Request: Explain the absence of waste containers as a possible remobilization barrier in the design of the proposed DGR. Context: In the EIS Guidelines Section 8.1, page 33, it is stated that information should be provided in the EIS on: “The design of the waste containers/packages, their performance and longevity with respect to their containment function, including reference to international experience if available and applicable. Because of the uncertainty associated with very long-term predictions of repository performance, the use of an additional barrier would be consistent with the application of the precautionary principle. Waste containers have been utilized as barriers in other international waste repositories. OPG Response: The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (OPG 2011a, Sections 3.4.10, 4.5.1 and 4.8.2.1) provides information in response to Section 8.1 of the EIS Guidelines (CEAA/CNSC 2009), specifically, information related to the purpose of waste containers, their expected longevity and a comparison with international practice. OPG’s response to Information Request (IR) EIS-04-152 (OPG 2012) provides additional information on the integrity of waste containers, and OPG’s response to IR-EIS-04-122 (OPG 2012) provides information on the role of waste containers and their potential for retrieval after emplacement. The long-term performance of the repository does not depend on the containers providing a containment function in the long term. That is, even with conservatively taking no credit for the containers, the postclosure safety assessment (OPG 2011b, Chapter 8) results indicate that public doses in the long-term are expected to be essentially zero. OPG does not envisage a scenario where waste retrieval will be necessary, but wastes will be retrievable as described in the response to IR-EIS-04-122. Page 31 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 EIS-04-130 � Section 8.1, General Information and Design Description � Section 11.2, Mitigation Measures � Section 11.4.2, Surface Water � Section 11.4.3, Groundwater Information Request and Response References: 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) 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 of Responses to a Sub-set of Package #4 Information Requests”, CD# 00216-CORR-00531- 00134, August 27, 2012. (CEAA Registry Doc# 704) Information Request: Provide additional information regarding the design and operation of the stormwater management system. At a minimum, include the following: � Minimum, maximum, and average flows through the stormwater system from all sources during the site preparation/construction phase, the operating phase, and the post-closure phase: � stormwater � repository de-watering (seepage) � process water from construction (see Section 4.7.4.3) � any other source � Basic design parameters (e.g. flows, volumes, retention times, return periods). Hydrological modelling will be required to support these estimates and to ensure appropriate sizing of the stormwater management system. Consistent with advice that EChas provided to OPG for other projects, additional storage capacity should be built into the design to account for the potential impacts (and associated uncertainty) of a changing climate on extreme rainfall intensity over the lifetime of the Project (see proposed IR#1-21 for additional detail). � Justification for the design storm event selected (i.e. 6 hour, 25 mm precipitation). � Clarify whether seepage water from the repository will be pumped continuously or periodically. � Clarify whether stormwater is intended to discharge continuously or through periodic batch release. If Page 32 of 69
Page 2 and 3: Dr. Stella Swanson September 28, 20
Page 4 and 5: 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?