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 continuous, explain how minimum retention times (described as 24 hours) will be achieved. � Outline the specific water quality criteria that are intended to be met based on the list of parameters that are of most likely concern (e.g. salinity, metals, TSS, explosives residues, etc.). Identification of the water quality criteria will be essential for determining the adequacy of proposed stormwater management measures. � Explain how the need for treatment will be monitored, and how treatment will be undertaken prior to discharge. Will treatment be undertaken on a batch basis? If not, explain how the treatment system will be operated to meet effluent criteria with a continuous flow? � Provide details on how the stormwater management system will be operated during storm events and in between storm events. For example, will the flow gate (identified in the last paragraph of Section 6.2.4.8 of the Preliminary Safety Report) be manually closed during storm events? Is the flow gate the same thing as the weir? � Provide design information for the intermediate settling pond (identified only in Drawing H333000-WP404-10- 042-0001) and explain its intended purpose. � Explain what water treatment is being referred to in the 3rd paragraph of EIS Section 4.4.1.5. Is it the two stormceptors and the intermediate settling pond? Will the stormceptors and the intermediate settling pond be used for the duration of the DGR operation? � How will the proponent or contractor determine when the temporary water treatment plant (EIS Section 4.7.5.4) should be used to remove excess oil, grease and grit before discharge into the drainage network? � Describe the maintenance program that will be used to ensure that stormwater pondsettling, retention capacity, and drainage networks will continue to operate as designed. Considering the potential flooding risk posed by the Probable Maximum Precipitation event (see Maximum Flooding Hazard Assessment document), and the fact that the culverts in the Unnamed Drainage Ditch (2nd paragraph, Section 6.3.4.3) are partially blocked with sediment and aquatic plants, there does appear to be a need for a formal maintenance program during the site preparation/construction and operating phase. Where storm water ponds are planned, sediment handling should be taken into account, with respect to accumulation and frequency of removal, and considerations of disposal. Such frequency can be reduced by oversizing sediment storage in the pond. Context: The overall design and operation is not well described. The information in the various EIS documents, and the response to previous IRs, is sparse and scattered such that it is difficult to understand how this system will be designed and operated. A separate stand-alone document should be provided. Furthermore, strictly speaking this is not a stormwater management system in the conventional sense, since it will receive contaminated water from the following sources: Page 33 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 � seepage water from the repository � construction process water � runoff and seepage from waste rock Additional information is required to understand what potential effects this system will have on downstream water quality and aquatic biota. OPG Response: The response below is structured such that the twelve sections correspond to the twelve major bullets in the Information Request. The design information presented in this response has been prepared in support of the environmental assessment. The stormwater management system design will require Ontario Ministry of the Environmental (MOE) approval through the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) process and thus may be modified should there be additional requirements imposed by the MOE. 1. Minimum, Maximum and Average Flows Estimates of average annual flows through the stormwater management system from all sources during DGR site preparation/construction and operation were presented in slides 51 to 53 of the presentation to the JRP Technical Information Session on July 18, 2012 (OPG 2012a). These are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1: Average Annual Water Inflows to the Stormwater Management Pond in L/s Infiltration from groundwater (repository dewatering/seepage) DGR Site Preparation/ Construction Process water 21 * DGR Operation 0.45 0.45 Runoff from waste rock piles (stormwater) 1.4 0.77 Runoff from other areas (stormwater) 2.8 3.4 Total average annual inflow 26 6.1 Note: *It is expected that process water will be pumped from underground at a peak flow rate of 21 L/s. However for purposes of designing the SWMP it has been conservatively assumed that process water flow is constant at 21 L/s. 1.5 Page 34 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?