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-04-101 � Section 8.1, General Information and Design Description � Section 8.2, Site Preparation and Construction � Section 8.3, Operation � Section 10.1.1, Geology and Geomorphology � Section 10.1.2, Surface Water � Section 10.1.3, Groundwater OPG Responses to the Final Sub-set of IRs from Joint Review Panel IR Package #4 Information Request and Response Information Request: Provide the calculations, assumptions and confidence limits behind the estimates of maximum excavation water discharge and sump water pumping. Context: No context required OPG Response: The maximum excavation water and sump water pumping discharge estimates considered in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (OPG 2011, Section 4.7.5.4) was 5.4 L/s. Further assessment of groundwater inflows during construction has been completed incorporating new information collected from recent site investigation programs for groundwater inflows in the top 200 m during shaft sinking (see response to Information Request (IR) EIS-01-01 in OPG 2012a), and following full installation of shaft liners (see response to Undertaking TIS-11 in OPG 2012b). Calculations, assumptions and confidence limits are detailed in the referenced reports below. The other major contributor to the underground water discharge is the use of process water for equipment, construction and dust mitigation which has been reassessed. The amount of condensate that could report to main sump has also been reassessed. The groundwater inflow modeling that was recently completed (Sykes 2012) incorporates a grout curtain (or annulus) around the shafts. The grout curtain is assumed to be 3 m thick with a hydraulic conductivity of 10 -7 m/s. The estimated groundwater inflows while sinking through the top 200 m are in the range of 2 to 4 L/s (OPG 2012a). A sensitivity analysis was conducted for a grout curtain performance of 10 -6 m/s. In this case, estimated groundwater inflows were much higher. However, it would not be possible to sink the shaft with such high water inflows and therefore additional ground treatment would be applied, either from surface or by in-shaft cover grouting, until the target maximum inflow of 3 L/s was met (refer to response to IR-LPSC-01-31 in OPG 2012a for additional information about proposed ground treatment). The groundwater inflow modeling for fully-lined shafts (GOLDER 2012) shows a significant reduction in expected groundwater inflows. The expected inflow of 0.45 L/s is approximately a factor of 3 lower than the groundwater inflow estimate assumed in the development of the EIS. This inflow could be further reduced through in-shaft grouting of the Salina A and Guelph Formation horizons. The usage of process water for equipment, construction and dust mitigation during construction has been re-estimated and is now assumed to be about 20 L/s (average). This estimate is very conservative to allow for a wide variety of equipment selection and water demand criteria. The estimate has been derived using high water demand equipment (e.g., high efficiency multi-boom drilling jumbos), high utilization estimates for operating hours per day, continuous Page 1 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 water suppression during operating hours and an allowance for continuous civil construction activities (e.g., floor concrete). As well, these estimates do not take into consideration options for recirculation of process water. A small allowance has been made in the discharge water estimate to reflect potential condensation in the ventilation shaft during summer conditions. The underground dewatering system is being designed to handle a peak discharge rate to ground surface, which is conservatively assumed to be 21 L/s. The following chart shows the percentage distribution of repository dewatering during the construction phase. During operations, the only water expected to be discharged from the sumps will be the infiltration of groundwater from the shafts and ventilation shaft condensation. References: GOLDER. 2012. Underground Services (WP2-10) Underground Repository Dewatering – Preliminary Estimate of Groundwater Inflow under Normal Operating Conditions. Golder Associates Ltd. Technical Memorandum No. 1011170042-TM-G2100-0002-02 R02. (CEAA Registry Doc# 695) Page 2 of 69
Page 2 and 3: Dr. Stella Swanson September 28, 20
Page 6 and 7: Attachment 1 to OPG letter, Albert
Page 54 and 55:
Attachment 1 to OPG letter, Albert
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
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?