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-04-149 � Section 7.1, Purpose and Need for the Project Information Request and Response would return the water management to construction discharge requirements and would therefore not require any additional capability than what is proposed. Regarding surface water, the proposed ditching system and stormwater management pond are sufficient to accommodate such an expansion. Reference: 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- 00531-00138, September 6, 2012. (CEAA Registry Doc# 725) Information Request: Provide information regarding the predicted margin of safety to be achieved by the DGR project relative to existing facilities for the storage of low and intermediate radioactive waste. Provide information concerning the safety hazards associated with operations at the Western Waste Management Facility that may compromise the health and safety of the public, workers and the environment. Context: Section 1.2.1 of the EIS, page 1-2 states that: “The DGR Project is proposed because… it provides a greater margin of safety than the existing facilities...”; and “…it provides a long-term management method for waste streams .. and (it) will do so in the absence of institutional controls.” Little information regarding the “margin of safety” of existing facilities (i.e., WWMF) and/or safety hazards existing at the WWMF is provided to validate why the DGR is necessary other than that, through underground placement, no institutional controls may be required to maintain safe material management. OPG Response: 1) DGR Margin of Safety Related to Existing Facilities The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (OPG 2011, Section 1.2.1) for the DGR project lists a number of reasons why the DGR project is being proposed. One of the reasons is that: “it provides a greater margin of safety than the existing facilities.” In this case, the existing facilities being referred to are the facilities at the Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF). The intent of this statement was to capture the fact that: a) once all the waste in interim storage at the WWMF is emplaced in the DGR, and the DGR is sealed, there will virtually be no radioactive releases from the waste to the surface environment, hence virtually no worker or public radioactive doses or environmental impact; and Page 49 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-04-150 � Section 8.7, Malfunctions, Accidents and Malevolent Acts � Section 12, Accidents, Malfunctions and Malevolent Acts Information Request and Response b) by emplacing the wastes deep underground they will not be subject to potential extreme natural (seismic events excluded) or human-caused events that could challenge safety. The intent of the statement was not to reflect a quantitatively-predicted difference in the margins of safety between the two facilities. 2) Safety Hazards Associated with the Western Waste Management Facility The WWMF is a facility licensed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) for the interim management of radioactive waste, and has been operating since the 1970s. The potential safety hazards from operation of the WWMF are well understood and managed and include radiological hazards and, in the case of workers, additional nonradiological or industrial hazards. Radiological hazards are associated with direct radiation and the release of radionuclides, both from normal operations or from accident conditions. The assessment of hazards associated with the operation of the WWMF is contained in its Safety Report. WWMF operating experience is that it has operated safely, and with releases and public doses well within regulatory limits. Operating experience is reported quarterly to the CNSC. Reference: OPG. 2011. OPG’s Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Waste – Environmental Impact Statement 00216-REP-07701-00001 R000. Toronto, Canada. (CEAA Registry Doc# 298) Information Request: Provide information relating to the design of closure walls, including specific dimensions, physical location with respect to access and exhaust drifts, and bearing capacity characteristics, that will be used to resist pressure effects from gas generation or potential gas explosions. Context: End walls will be placed on the access drift sides or rooms as each is completed in order to restrict entry by personnel. When groups of rooms are filled, “closure walls (will be) constructed in the access and exhaust ventilation tunnels to fully isolate this group of rooms … (and) In the very unlikely event that explosive gases build up behind the closure walls and an explosion occurs, the air blast from the explosion would be contained by the closure walls.” (p. 4-62) The design of these walls has not been well described in terms of dimensions, concrete thicknesses to be used, keying of walls into the rock pillars, use of contact seal grouting materials as with shaft concrete bulkheads to be used – all of which provide pressure resistance or bearing capacity in the case of room-generated pressures. Page 50 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 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?