Environmental Impact Statement Summary - March 2011 - Agence d ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
March 2011 Environmental Impact Statement Summary
OPG’s DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY PROJECT for Low & Intermediate Level Waste
Environmental Impact Statement Summary
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE 1
1 INTRODUCTION 2
Purpose of an EA 2
Purpose of an EIS Summary 2
Methodology for the DGR Project EA 2
2 REGULATORY APPROVALS PROCESS 5
EA Guidelines 5
Schedule of Milestones in the Regulatory Process 6
3 CONTEXT FOR THE DGR PROJECT 7
Western Waste Management Facility 9
Waste Volumes 10
LLW 10
ILW 10
Refurbishment Waste 10
Waste Characterization 10
International Experience 12
Comparison with International Programs 13
Peer Review 13
4 DESCRIPTION OF THE DGR PROJECT 14
Need for the DGR 14
History of the Bruce Nuclear Site 15
Proposed DGR Project Site 15
EA Study Areas 16
Map of EA Study Areas 17
Project Phases 18
DGR Project Works and Activities for EA Purposes 19
Surface Facilities 21
Underground Facilities 22
5 SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 23
Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Study and Independent Assessment Study 23
Geoscience Program for Project Site Characterization 23
Site-Specific Geoscientific Studies 24
Geosynthesis of Site and Regional Data 27
Existing Environment Overview 32
The Environmental Impact Statement Summary is based on the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Golder Associates Ltd., Mississauga, Ontario.
OPG’s DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY PROJECT for Low & Intermediate Level Waste
6 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND SAFETY OF THE DGR PROJECT 33
Likely Effects due to Normal DGR Project Development and Operation 34
Methodology and Criteria for Determining Significance of Residual Effects 34
Atmospheric 35
Hydrology and Water Quality 35
Aquatic 36
Terrestrial 36
Geology 37
Radiation and Radioactivity 37
Aboriginal Interests 38
Socio-Economic 38
Human Health 39
Ecological Features 39
Cumulative Environmental Effects 40
Potential Effects due to Abnormal Events (Malfunctions, Accidents and Malevolent Acts) 41
Potential Effects during DGR Development and Operation: Preclosure Safety Assessment 42
Potential Effects on the DGR during Long-Term Period: Postclosure Safety Assessment 43
7 SUMMARY OF OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 47
Potential Effects of the Environment (Natural Hazards) on the Project 47
Potential Climate Change Effects 47
8 FOLLOW-UP MONITORING PLAN 48
9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT 49
Providing the Public with Opportunities for Meaningful Participation 50
Who Did We Consult? 50
Public Participation: Key Milestones and Engagement Opportunities, 2002 to 2005:
Developing an option for the long-term management of L&ILW 51
2006 and Onward: Keeping the public informed about the DGR Project 51
Methods of Engagement 52
Engagement with Aboriginal peoples 53
Saugeen Ojibway Nation Engagement (SON) 53
Historic Saugeen Métis Community Engagement 53
Métis Nation of Ontario Engagement 54
Michigan Engagement 54
Evaluation and Feedback: Strong Local Support 54
RECURRING AREAS OF DISCUSSION WITH THE PUBLIC 55
10 CONCLUSIONS 58
Geoscience Conclusions 58
Safety Assessment Conclusions 58
EA Conclusions 58
Environmental Impact Statement Summary
PREFACE
In Canada, the owners of nuclear power plants are responsible for the
safe management of the low and intermediate level waste (L&ILW)
produced by the operation of their generating stations. Ontario Power
Generation (OPG), an Ontario-based electricity generation company
owned by the Province of Ontario, has been safely managing L&ILW at
the Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF), which is located at
the Bruce nuclear site within the Municipality of Kincardine, for almost
40 years. OPG has a proven track record in the safe and responsible
management of this waste. The WWMF was originally developed
to provide interim storage for L&ILW until such time as a long-term
management facility is available.
In 2005, OPG, with the support of the Bruce technical suitability – in this case geology that offers
County municipalities, initiated the regulatory multiple natural barriers to safely isolate and contain
approvals process for site preparation and the waste for tens of thousands of years and beyond;
construction, operation, decommissioning, and social acceptance – residents of the host
abandonment and long-term performance of a municipality are both informed and willing.
Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) for the long-term In order to move forward with the DGR Project,
management of L&ILW. The proposed site for the OPG requires a site preparation and construction
DGR is on lands located adjacent to the WWMF. The licence from the Canadian Nuclear Safety
DGR will be constructed at a nominal depth of 680 m Commission (CNSC). A requirement of the licensing
beneath the surface in low permeability limestone is that an environmental assessment (EA) of the
overlain by a 200-metre-thick cap of low permea- proposed DGR Project under the provisions of
bility shale. The capacity of the DGR is approximately the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act be
200,000 m3. The DGR will only accommodate L&ILW completed. Detailed findings of the EA completed
from OPG-owned or -operated nuclear reactors. for the DGR are presented in the Environmental
OPG is the proponent for the DGR Project. Impact Statement (EIS) and Technical Support
The DGR site was chosen because it provides Documents. (These documents can be accessed at:
two attributes that, based on international experience, www.opg.com/dgr and www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca.)
are essential for the successful development of
a long-term nuclear waste management facility:
1
OPG’s DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY PROJECT for Low & Intermediate Level Waste
1 INTRODUCTION
Purpose of an EA The steps used in the EA for the DGR Project
were generally:
An EA is a tool that provides an effective means of
integrating environmental factors into the planning and • Describe the Project for planning purposes;
decision-making processes in a manner that promotes • Characterize the existing baseline environment
sustainable development and minimizes the overall conditions;
effect of a project. The EA is an inclusive process, • Identify potential interactions between the DGR
which provides opportunities for key stakeholders, Project and the environment;
including Aboriginal peoples and members of the • Further assess the possible Project-environment
general public, to engage and participate in the interactions to determine if there are measurable
regulatory approvals process. changes to the environment – a measurable
change is a change in the environment that is real,
observable or detectable compared with existing
conditions;
Purpose of an EIS Summary • Advance measurable changes to determine
whether there is a likely environmental effect.
The intent of this EIS Summary is to provide the public (Effects are assessed as either beneficial or
with a broad overview of the information found in the adverse. An adverse effect is defined as a
detailed submissions that have been made to the “non-trivial change.” Adverse effects were advanced
Joint Review Panel. This EIS Summary is provided for consideration of possible mitigation measures
for information purposes only and is not intended to to eliminate or reduce the effects. Beneficial effects
replace, add to or assist in interpreting the detailed are not considered further. The remaining effects
submissions. are residual adverse effects. Residual effects are
This EIS Summary describes the DGR Project, also assessed to determine if they combine with
provides an overview of the EA process and the results other projects to produce cumulative effects); and
of the assessment. It also describes the geoscience • Assess whether the residual adverse effects
investigations, safety assessment and communica- present after mitigation are significant.
tions that were completed in support of the regulatory
approvals process. Follow-up monitoring programs are proposed to verify
the predictions made in the assessment, to confirm
whether mitigation measures are effective and to allow
provisions for change.
Methodology for the DGR Project EA Possible effects on the environment as a result of
the DGR Project were looked at in conjunction with
An EA for the proposed DGR was undertaken by the the effects of other projects, which overlap in time or
Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), location, to see if there were any potential cumulative
on behalf of OPG, to assess potential effects of the effects.
project and, where necessary, identify mitigation EA studies were conducted by a team of technical
measures and follow-up monitoring programs. experts, and the EA results are supported by a large
A thorough, traceable, step-wise assessment framework of technical and scientific documentation,
process was applied to identify the potential environ- which includes the EIS and supporting documents.
mental effects (including cumulative effects) of all Throughout the EA process, the project team
phases (site preparation and construction, operations, provided the community and interested stakeholders
decommissioning, and abandonment and long-term with opportunities to become informed on the status
performance) of the DGR Project. of the studies, provide input to the EA and obtain
answers to their questions. OPG sought to ensure
that interested Aboriginal peoples had the opportunity
to become informed of and to participate in the EA
process for the DGR Project.
2
Environmental Impact Statement Summary
The EA for the DGR Project assessed many potential effects of the proposed project on varied components of the environment
including tourism, the terrestrial environment and socio-economic effects.
3
OPG’s DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY PROJECT for Low & Intermediate Level Waste
EIS Report Structure
Technical Support
Documents
Atmospheric Environment
Air Quality, Noise Levels,
DGR EA
Meteorology, Climate, Light Follow-up
Monitoring
Hydrology and Surface Program
Water Quality
Surface Water Quality, Surface
Water Quantity and Flow
Postclosure
Safety
Geology
Assessment Soil Quality, Ground Water
Preliminary Quality, Groundwater Flow Environmental
Safety Report Impact
Aquatic Environment Statement
Aquatic Vegetation, Fish
Geosynthesis Species, Aquatic Invertebrates
Terrestrial Environment
Terrestrial Vegetation, Birds,
Mammals, Amphibians
EIS
Socio-Economic Environment
Population, Employment, Summary
Business Activity, Tourism,
Housing and Property Values,
Municipal Finance, Municipal
Infrastructure and Services
Aboriginal Interests
Aboriginal Communities,
Native Aboriginal Heritage and
Cultural Resources, Traditional
Use of Lands
Radiation and Radioactivity
Radioactivity in Air, Water,
Soil, Vegetation, Aquatic and
Terrestrial Biota, Dose to
Humans and Non-human Biota
Malfunctions, Accidents and
Malevolent Acts
Effects on all the above due to
accidental or upset conditions
or malevolent acts
4
Environmental Impact Statement Summary
2 REGULATORY APPROVALS PROCESS
The EA process for the DGR Project was initiated with the submission
of a Project Description by OPG to the CNSC on December 2, 2005.
The site preparation and construction licence application for the DGR
was submitted by OPG to the CNSC on August 13, 2007. An EA of the
proposed DGR Project is required under the provisions of the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act because the proponent will require a licence
from the CNSC to allow the project to proceed. CNSC is the Responsible
Authority pursuant to the Act; however, the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency (CEAA) also has statutory responsibilities.
EA Guidelines environmental field work and effects assessment
and communications work programs in support of
The CNSC issued draft guidelines for a compre- the EA are reflected in the EIS which, along with the
hensive study EA of the DGR Project, which were Preliminary Safety Report (PSR), was submitted to
the subject of a public hearing held in Kincardine the Joint Review Panel.
in October, 2006. Following the hearing, CNSC The submission package will be subject to a
commission members recommended to the federal public review. On completion of the public review,
Minister of the Environment that given the public if the Joint Review Panel determines that the
concerns, the first-of-a-kind nature of the facility, information provided fully addresses the guidelines,
the possibility of adverse environmental effects and the Joint Review Panel will convene a public hearing
concerns regarding the ability of a comprehensive to hear comments about the submission from
study to address all the questions raised, the DGR individuals and groups. The Panel will then make a
Project be referred to a review panel. recommendation to the Minister of the Environment
The Minister of the Environment referred the on the acceptability of the EIS. The Minister will
EA for the DGR Project to a Joint Review Panel on take the Panel recommendation/report to Cabinet
June 29, 2007. Draft guidelines for the preparation for a final decision. If the EIS is accepted, a site
of the EIS were issued by CEAA and the CNSC for preparation and construction licence could be
public review on April 4, 2008. The final guidelines issued. Following licensing approval by the Panel, site
and Joint Panel Review Agreement were issued in preparation and construction would take about five to
January 2009. seven years. OPG would require an operating licence
The scope and results of the geoscience, before waste could be emplaced in the DGR. The
engineering and design, safety assessment, DGR is anticipated to be operational in 2018.
5
OPG’s DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY PROJECT for Low & Intermediate Level Waste
Schedule of Milestones in the Regulatory Process
2001 • Kincardine proposes a joint study to assess the feasibility of long-term management
of L&ILW at the Bruce nuclear site
2002 • Kincardine and OPG sign Memorandum of Understanding
2003 • Engagement with Bruce municipalities and Aboriginal peoples begins
2004 • Independent Assessment Study concludes there are several safe and technically feasible
options for the long-term management of L&ILW at the Bruce nuclear site
• Kincardine requests DGR as its preferred approach moving forward
• Kincardine and OPG sign DGR Hosting Agreement
2005 • Municipality of Kincardine poll concludes majority of respondents support the DGR
proposal for long-term management of L&ILW
• OPG submits a Project Description for the DGR Project; initiates the regulatory
approvals process
2006 • CNSC releases draft guidelines for the DGR Project and holds a public hearing on
the guidelines
• Geoscientific site characterization begins at the Bruce nuclear site
2007 • Federal Minister of the Environment refers DGR Project to a Joint Review Panel
2008 • Draft guidelines for EIS issued for public review
2009 • Final guidelines for DGR Project EIS issued
2010 • Completion of the geoscientific site characterization and assessment of safety and
environmental effects
2011 • Submission of the EIS and PSR to the Joint Review Panel in support of the
licensing process
2012 • EA Public Hearing before Joint Review Panel (assumed)
2013 • Site preparation and construction begin (assumed)
2018 • The DGR receives waste (assumed)
6Environmental Impact Statement Summary
3 CONTEXT FOR THE DGR PROJECT
L&ILW from OPG’s nuclear generating stations has been safely processed
and stored on an interim basis at the WWMF, located at the Bruce
nuclear site, for almost 40 years. In 2001, the Municipality of Kincardine
requested OPG to consider options for the long-term management of
OPG’s L&ILW at the WWMF. This led to the signing of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the parties in 2002.
The MOU set out the terms for a plan to study In August 2004, the OPG Board of Directors
the long-term management options for L&ILW at agreed to proceed with a DGR, recognizing the
the Bruce nuclear site. An independent consultant reasons cited by Kincardine.
was retained to examine the technical feasibility of A DGR Hosting Agreement was signed in
constructing and operating each of four long-term October 2004 between OPG and the Municipality
management concepts at the proposed site: status of Kincardine. The agreement allows for the
quo, enhanced processing and storage, surface construction and operation of a DGR for the
concrete vaults and deep rock vaults. The study long-term management of L&ILW waste from
report (known as the Independent Assessment OPG-owned or -operated nuclear generating
Study IAS) was completed in February 2004, and stations and provides a series of hosting payments
concluded that all options were technically feasible to Kincardine and surrounding communities, subject
and could be safely constructed and operated at the to meeting major project licensing and construction
site. These options were also assessed in relation to milestones. The agreement also required that a clear
possible environmental effects, economic benefits, mandate be provided by the Kincardine community
effects on tourism and public attitude. to its council in favour of the DGR. A poll was
Communication activities were conducted conducted in early 2005 of all Kincardine permanent
throughout the duration of the IAS to inform (by telephone) and seasonal (by mail) residents 18
stakeholders and the public of the study and to years of age and older by an independent polling
obtain their comments on the long-term management company working on behalf of the Municipality of
options. These activities included stakeholder Kincardine. With a 71 percent response rate, 60
briefings, a newsletter to the residents of Kincardine percent of the Kincardine community voted in favour
and neighbouring municipalities, a project-specific of the DGR, 22 percent against, 13 percent neutral,
web site, a round of five open houses and communi- and 5 percent don’t know/refused to answer.
cation with the local Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON). SON was approached in 2003 by OPG to inform
With the finalization of the IAS, Kincardine Council them of the IAS. A Communications Protocol was
passed a resolution requesting OPG to pursue a signed in 2004 that provided resources to enable
DGR (i.e., deep rock vaults) for L&ILW at the Bruce SON to conduct their own independent peer review
nuclear site, citing reasons that this option offered of the study report and to inform their community
the highest margin of long-term safety among the members of the IAS. In March 2009, the signing
technical options studied, was consistent with best of a Protocol Agreement between SON, OPG and
international practice, provided economic benefit NWMO provided SON with resources to facilitate their
to the residents of the municipality and offered a participation in the EA process for the project. Over
permanent solution for all L&ILW (i.e., deep geologic the course of the past seven years, there have been
disposal is the only option that can manage long-lived numerous meetings, workshops and open houses
ILW). In considering this request, OPG assessed a to discuss the project and disseminate information
number of options, including the option of pursuing a with the SON Council and their communities.
greenfield location. SON’s Environmental Office was established with
7OPG’s DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY PROJECT for Low & Intermediate Level Waste
Public engagement activities have provided opportunities for the public to become informed and provide comment
about the DGR Project.
the support of the DGR Project. The engagement Over the course of the DGR Project lifetime,
process with SON is ongoing. an extensive public communications program
Local Métis interests include the Historic Saugeen has been in place for the purpose of keeping all
Métis Community and the Métis Nation of Ontario. interested parties updated on developments with
The process with these groups, to facilitate their the project. The program includes annual open
engagement with the DGR Project, began in 2008. houses, newsletters, annual reports, technical
Beginning in 2006, a comprehensive program of materials, speaking engagements and attendance at
field and technical studies and investigations were community events with exhibits. Public surveys have
undertaken with work programs in geoscience, indicated strong overall support for the project from
safety assessment, environmental assessment, the community and its leaders.
public communications and the development of the On January 2009, OPG contracted the NWMO
engineering design. Expert review panels in the areas to manage the regulatory approvals phase for the
of geoscience, engineering and safety assessment DGR Project. OPG continues to be the owner and
were established to guide and review the study prospective licence holder and operator of the DGR.
findings. All work was completed in 2010 leading to Financing for the DGR Project is provided from the
the regulatory submission. Decommissioning Fund established under the Ontario
Nuclear Funds Agreement.
8Environmental Impact Statement Summary
Western Waste Management Facility
L&ILW generated by the operation of OPG's There are currently 11 LLSBs at the WWMF
20 nuclear reactors at the Bruce, Pickering and containing approximately 74,000 m3 of LLW. The
Darlington nuclear generating stations is sent to the wastes stored in LLSBs and in all other storage
WWMF for interim storage (see photo below). The structures at the WWMF are continually monitored
WWMF is located on the 932-hectare Bruce nuclear and can be easily retrieved. All WWMF storage
site within the Municipality of Kincardine. OPG (then containers have a minimum design life of 50 years.
Ontario Hydro) began operating this facility in 1976. Intermediate level waste (ILW) is stored either
There are currently about 84,000 m3 of waste stored above ground or below ground in a variety of
at the WWMF. This represents almost all the L&ILW shielded structures. There are currently approximately
generated by the production of about 50 percent of 10,000 m3 of ILW in storage at the WWMF. Irradiated
Ontario’s electricity for the last 40 years. fuel channel wastes from the refurbishment of
Low level waste (LLW) is stored in a variety Bruce A reactors are being stored in reinforced
of stackable carbon-steel containers and these concrete containers with stainless steel inner and
containers are stored in warehouse-like structures, outer steel shells.
known as Low-Level Storage Buildings (LLSBs).
Western Waste Management Facility
10
6
3
5
1 8 9
2 4
7
1 10 low level storage buildings 5 Intermediate level waste 8 Refurbishment waste
2 Waste volume reduction building quadricells storage building
3 Transportation package 6 Western used fuel 9 Low-level storage building #11
maintenance building dry storage facility 10 Proposed site of L&ILW DGR
4 In-ground intermediate level 7 Steam generator
storage containers storage building
9OPG’s DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY PROJECT for Low & Intermediate Level Waste
Waste Volumes ILW
Each year, approximately 5,000 m3 to 7,000 m3 of new ILW, because of its physical condition and greater
low and intermediate level (L&ILW) radioactive waste is levels of radioactivity, is not processed for volume
produced as a result of the operation of OPG-owned reduction. ILW consists of ion exchange resins, filters
or -operated nuclear generating stations. The waste is and irradiated reactor core components. These
transported to the WWMF for processing and interim wastes are currently stored in concrete- and steel-
storage. After volume reduction, this results in 2,000 lined structures constructed in augured boreholes, in
m3 to 3,000 m3 of additional stored waste annually. If concrete-lined and covered trenches, and in concrete
each of the current 20 reactors operates to the end of above-ground structures (these latter structures are
its planned life (which includes a mid-life refurbishment no longer receiving waste). The irradiated fuel channel
of most of the reactors), a total of about 170,200 m3 wastes are being stored in reinforced concrete
(as stored) of operational and refurbishment L&ILW containers with inner and outer steel shells. About
would result. When placed into DGR-ready packages, five percent of all waste (excluding used nuclear fuel)
the total volume of waste packages would be about received at WWMF is classified as ILW.
200,000 m3.
In the future, an additional 135,000 m3 of L&ILW
is expected to be produced during the decommis-
sioning of the reactors and the associated nuclear Refurbishment Waste
waste storage facilities. The current proposed DGR
Project does not include management of decommis- Refurbishment waste consists of waste generated
sioning waste. At the time that each generating station from activities such as the replacement of motors,
is decommissioned, an EA will be required that will valves, instrumentation, fuel channels and steam
address management of the decommissioning waste. generators in existing reactors. The refurbishment of
Used fuel, otherwise known as high level waste, a reactor is expected to extend its life for up to an
will not be accommodated in the DGR. The DGR additional 25 to 30 years. About 21,700 m³ of L&ILW
Hosting Agreement between OPG and the Municipality radioactive waste will be generated from planned
of Kincardine is only for L&ILW, as is the regulatory refurbishment activities. This forecast is based on the
approvals process for the DGR. A completely separate planning assumption of refurbishment of all reactor
and distinct approach, called Adaptive Phased units at or near their mid-life. 8,400 m³ is LLW while
Management, has been mandated by the federal the remaining 13,300 m³ is ILW.
government for all of Canada’s used fuel.
Waste Characterization
LLW
Based on the existing and projected inventory, the
Operational LLW consists of common industrial items DGR will receive approximately 50,000 packages
that have become contaminated with low levels of representing a total emplaced volume of nominally
radioactivity during routine clean-up and maintenance 200,000 m3.
at the nuclear generating stations. It consists of The physical composition of the waste consists
mops, rags, paper towels, temporary floor coverings, typically of industrial materials, including steel,
floor sweepings, protective clothing and hardware plastics, other metals and inorganics which are
items such as tools. The majority of these wastes are contaminated with radioactivity. The relative propor-
processed through incineration or compaction for tions are shown in the top diagram on page 11.
volume reduction. The DGR will not accept liquid, highly reactive or
gaseous wastes. The L&ILW may contain varying
amounts of chemicals or elements that can be
10Environmental Impact Statement Summary
hazardous. These include asbestos (originally used
as insulating material in some stations), heavy Proportions of main waste materials planned for emplacement
in the DGR
metals like Uranium (U), Cadmium (Cd), Mercury
(Hg) and Lead (Pb), and certain organic materials,
Cellulose
such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), chlori- Inorganics
nated benzenes and phenols, dioxins and furans,
and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) produced in
the incinerator and trapped in the ash. There are also Concrete
metals like Chromium (Cr), Nickel (Ni) and Lead (Pb) Plastics &
Resins
that are present in container materials (i.e., stainless Other Metals
steel, lead shielding).
Over long times, the wastes and containers will
degrade. The various metals will degrade generally Other Organics
Steel
into inorganic salts, oxides or minerals consistent with
the surrounding reducing saline water chemistry. The
organic materials will generally degrade into simpler
The relative proportions of LLW, ILW and Reactor Refurbishment
elements, likely under microbial-mediated reactions Waste (RRW) waste volumes planned for the DGR
that will be slow under this expected saline, reducing
condition. Similar processes occur in landfills for
routine industrial wastes.
The total radionuclide inventory of the DGR will
increase as wastes are added but also decrease Intermediate
Level Waste
due to decay. The total inventory estimate is based
Low Level
on the assumption that the DGR will start operation Waste
in 2018 and fill to capacity around 2052, with a
closure date of 10 years later, or 2062. The short- Refurbishment
lived nuclides will have decayed to negligible levels L&ILW
by 2062. Within a few hundred years, the radioac-
tivity in the large volume of LLW waste decays
away. The remaining activity of the repository is
then dominated by carbon-14 in the ILW. In the very The change in the radioactivity of LLW, ILW and RRW over time is
shown below
long-term, the residual radioactivity is dominated by
the Zirconium-93 in the retube wastes. This is about
Total Radioactivity (TBq)
one percent of the radioactivity present at the time of
repository closure. 20,000 RRW
The natural radioactivity of the rock above the 18,000 ILW
repository is shown in the bottom diagram on 16,000 LLW
this page. The radiological hazard of the waste is 14,000 Natural
generally directly related to the total radioactivity. 12,000 Rock
Comparison of the total radioactivity in the DGR over Activity
10,000
time with the natural radioactivity in the rock illustrates
that the remaining DGR radioactivity decreases below 8,000
the natural radioactivity of the rock overlying the 6,000
proposed DGR at the Bruce nuclear site within about 4,000
100,000 years. 2,000
0
0 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000
Years from 2062
11OPG’s DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY PROJECT for Low & Intermediate Level Waste
International Experience management. The tour took place prior to council
members passing a resolution that requested the
The investigation of sedimentary rocks, such as those DGR as their preferred option of study moving
at the Bruce nuclear site, for long-term nuclear waste forward, and also provided council members with
management purposes has been ongoing interna- an opportunity to meet their international municipal
tionally for more than a decade. The experience counterparts to discuss community engagement
gained and lessons learned from this have been of programs utilized in countries such as Sweden and
significant benefit to the DGR Project. France.
For example, with respect to characterization DGR technology has a proven track record
studies, many tried and tested techniques from many internationally in the safe management of low and
international programs were applied to the DGR intermediate nuclear waste:
characterization studies, including:
• The Forsmark facility in Sweden opened in 1988
• Specialized hydraulic borehole testing methods, and is located at the Forsmark nuclear power
developed by Sandia National Laboratories during station site. The Swedish underground repository
the licensing of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in was excavated to a depth of 60 m in crystalline
New Mexico; rock below the Baltic Sea.
• Laboratory techniques to characterize the • The Olkiluoto (VLJ) facility in Finland began
chemistry of pore fluids within the rock core operation in 1992 and was excavated to a depth
samples obtained during drilling, developed at of 70 to 100 m underground in crystalline rock. It
the University of Bern, Switzerland for the French is located near the Olkiluoto nuclear power station.
and Swiss programs in the Callovo-Oxfordian and • The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), located
Opalinus shale formations; and in Carlsbad, New Mexico in the United States, is
• Techniques to estimate the diffusive properties excavated to a depth of 600 m in a bedded salt
of limestone and shale, developed at the Paul formation. The facility has been operating since
Scherrer Institute in Switzerland. 1999.
The DGR Project has also benefited from collabor-
ative international research in areas such as contam-
inant mobility, sub-surface excavation and rock mass
response, and glacial ice-sheet erosion rates, to
mention a few examples.
First-hand visits to long-term nuclear waste
management facilities, including those in Sweden,
Finland and the United States, have provided learning
opportunities with applicable outcomes about surface
facilities, repository access, hoisting, lay-out and
material handling that have been utilized in the design
of the DGR. International collaboration has also
been extremely helpful in terms of experience, the
exchange and analysis of reports, and visits with key
personnel.
From a community engagement point of
view, council members from the Municipality of
Kincardine toured a number of international nuclear
waste management facilities to learn more about
the technical options available for nuclear waste
12Environmental Impact Statement Summary
The DGR has benefited from international collaboration and peer review.
COMPARISON WITH PEER REVIEW
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS OPG sought the expertise of both national and
Several international groups are studying the potential international geoscientists and engineers, recognized
for the deep geological disposal of nuclear waste as experts in their specific fields, to provide
in clay-rich bedrock formations. A comparison of independent peer review and oversight for the
the results from geoscientific investigations at the geoscience, safety assessment and engineering/
Bruce nuclear site for the proposed DGR Project design work programs for the DGR. Improvements
highlights several consistently reported observations, were made to the specific work programs based on
including conditions of low seismic activity, a laterally peer review comments. The extensive experience of
extensive and predictable stratigraphy, a lack of peer review team members in international nuclear
hydraulically significant fractures, and diffusion- waste management programs ensured that the DGR
dominated transport. In particular, the proposed DGR was developed in a manner consistent with interna-
site compares favourably with other international tional best practice.
programs in terms of its hydraulic conductivity,
porosity and effective diffusion coefficients, with
measured values comparable to those determined
elsewhere. In addition, the proposed DGR site is
the deepest planned facility and is bounded by the
thickest assemblage of low permeability cap rocks.
13OPG’s DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY PROJECT for Low & Intermediate Level Waste
4 DESCRIPTION OF THE DGR PROJECT
OPG has assessed the potential environmental effects of site preparation
and construction, operation, decommissioning, and abandonment and
long-term performance of the DGR Project. The DGR will be constructed in
competent sedimentary bedrock about 680 m beneath the Bruce nuclear
site on lands adjacent to OPG’s WWMF.
Need for the DGR the Bruce nuclear site, but the majority of the site is
controlled by Bruce Power under a lease agreement.
The need for the DGR Project is demonstrated OPG has retained control of a portion of the Bruce
by OPG’s social responsibility, a host community nuclear site, including the WWMF and adjacent lands.
wanting to implement a long-term management The DGR will be constructed in sequential stages.
solution now, and an existing and forecasted waste Firstly, all site preparation activities will be completed,
inventory requiring management. The estimated followed by construction of the surface infrastructure,
volumes included in the EIS take into consideration including the permanent shaft headframes. The
the effect of the various in-place and planned waste two shafts (main and ventilation) will be sunk
minimization programs. However, even if all future simultaneously, followed by the construction of the
wastes were reduced to zero, the need for the project underground services area infrastructure and the
would not be eliminated because of the stored access tunnels. Shafts will be excavated by traditional
volume of existing wastes. drill and blast methods. Ground freezing and/or
The selection of the DGR Project as the preferred grouting will be employed to sink the shaft through
alternative is the result of many years of development about 160 m of upper dolostones to minimize water
and consultation with the host municipality, including ingress during the sinking. The emplacement rooms
an Independent Assessment Study which considered will be developed using controlled drill and blast
three alternatives to the DGR Project. The identifi- techniques.
cation of preferred alternative means occurred during Waste retrieval is possible, if required, by
the engineering design and EA studies. reversing the process of emplacement to remove
The design for the DGR Project takes into account any packages that are identified for retrieval, however
the OPG-retained lands and the reference waste the wastes are without value so there is no intent to
volumes to be emplaced in the repository. OPG owns retrieve them.
14Environmental Impact Statement Summary
History of the Bruce Nuclear Site Proposed DGR Project Site
The Bruce nuclear site encompasses two operating In 1966, the DGR Project site was in a natural “green
nuclear generation stations – Bruce A and Bruce field state.” In 1971 and 1972, clearing took place
B, as well as the Douglas Point Generating Station, on the land now proposed for the DGR Project site.
which is no longer in operation. For the period 1971 to 1980, most of the proposed
The Douglas Point Generating Station, DGR project site was used as a construction laydown
constructed by the former Ontario Hydro and area for BHWP except for the areas that are currently
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), sent nuclear- occupied by mature trees. It is likely these are the
generated electricity for commercial use to the grid same trees that existed prior to development of the
for the first time in 1968 and continued to operate Bruce nuclear site; i.e., no industrial activity has
until 1984. Its facilities remain in place, however the occurred in these treed areas in the past.
reactor is shut down and is in a safe storage state. In 1979 and 1980, a structure was located near
The used fuel from the reactor is stored in concrete the proposed location of the two DGR shafts.
canisters at the Douglas Point facility. Existing aerial photos from 2007 and 2009 depict
Ontario Hydro began operation of the Bruce A the structure as what appears to be a remnant
Generating Station in 1977. In the late 1990s, the concrete pad.
station was placed in lay-up status, with the units During the period 2007 to 2009, the DGR Project
taken out of service in the period from 1995 through site was used for the disposal of clean soil. This soil
1998. In 2001, OPG leased the Bruce nuclear has been placed in areas that were formerly used for
reactors to (now) Bruce Power who restarted Bruce construction laydown.
A Units 3 & 4 in 2003 and early 2004, and is currently From 1971 to 2009, a railway was present at the
undertaking the refurbishment of Bruce A Units 1 & 2. southern end of the DGR Project site but this railway
Bruce B Units 5, 6, 7 & 8, now operated by Bruce is no longer in service.
Power, went into service between 1984 and 1987. As a result of the ongoing activity on the site, a
Bruce Heavy Water Plant (BHWP) began large body of environmental information has been
operation on the site in 1973 and continued to collected. A review of the existing information, as
operate to provide heavy water for use in CANDU well as additional data collection to supplement the
reactors until 1997. The BHWP received a decommis- existing information, provides baseline site information
sioning licence in 2004. OPG is in the final stages of for use in the assessment of effects.
decommissioning the BHWP; decommissioning is
expected to be completed before 2014.
The WWMF has been developed in stages
since 1974 and it has been operated by OPG, or
its predecessor company, since it was originally
constructed. The WWMF includes facilities for the
storage of L&ILW as well as a dry storage facility
for used fuel from the Bruce A and Bruce B
generating facilities. The used fuel facility began
operating in 2002.
15OPG’s DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY PROJECT for Low & Intermediate Level Waste
EA Study Areas The assessment of effects is completed within the framework of temporal and spatial
boundaries. For the purposes of the DGR Project EA, four generic study areas were selected.
They were selected to encompass an area that can reasonably be expected to potentially
be affected by the DGR Project. The study area boundaries are generally common for all
components of the environment, with some modification.
Project Area The Project Area corresponds to the boundary of the OPG-retained lands at the centre of the
Bruce nuclear site where the DGR Project is being proposed. The Project Area is the area
where Project-related effects are most likely to occur and is the area of focus for the EA.
Site Study Area The Site Study Area corresponds to the property boundary of the Bruce nuclear site, including
the existing licensed exclusion zone on land and in Lake Huron.
Local Study Area The Local Study Area corresponds to the 10 km emergency planning zone (centred on the
Bruce nuclear site) as identified by Emergency Measures Ontario.
Regional Study Area The Regional Study Area encompasses Bruce County with the exception of the peninsula
communities of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula and the Municipality of Northern
Bruce Peninsula.
16Environmental Impact Statement Summary
Map of EA Study Areas
The project and study areas for OPG’s DGR Project for L&ILW that were utilized for the EA are outlined above.
17OPG’s DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY PROJECT for Low & Intermediate Level Waste
Project Phases
The temporal boundaries for the EA establish the timeframes for which the direct, indirect and cumulative
effects are assessed. For purposes of the EA, the project was divided into four phases:
1 SITE PREPARATION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Includes site preparation and all activities associated with the construction of the DGR
Project until operations commence with the emplacement of waste. The site preparation and
construction phase is expected to last approximately five to seven years.
2 OPERATIONS PHASE
Covers the waste emplacement period in the DGR and the period of monitoring prior to the
start of decommissioning. Activities include the on-site transfer and receipt of waste packages,
their transfer and emplacement in L&ILW rooms in the DGR, and activities necessary to
support and monitor operations. The operations phase is expected to last approximately 40 to
45 years with waste being emplaced for the first 35 to 40 years. The length of the monitoring
period would be decided at some future time in consultation with the regulator.
3 DECOMMISSIONING PHASE
Begins immediately after the operations phase for the DGR. Activities include preparation for
decommissioning and may include monitoring following decommissioning. The decommis-
sioning activities, including dismantling surface facilities and sealing the shaft, are expected to
take about five to six years.
4 ABANDONMENT AND LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE PHASE
Begins once decommissioning activities are completed. This period will include institutional
controls for a period of up to 300 years.
18Environmental Impact Statement Summary
DGR Project Works and Activities for EA Purposes
For the purposes of the EA the DGR Project is described in terms of works and activities that are required to
construct and operate the DGR, focusing on those that could potentially affect the environment.
Site Preparation activities include: Operations activities include:
• removal of brush and trees • receipt of disposal-ready waste packages
• grading of site including development of roads, • movement of waste packages from surface to
laydown areas, stormwater management pond, below ground
ditches • placement of waste packages in emplacement
• set-up of construction trailers and temporary rooms
facilities • installation of end walls on full emplacement
• installation of fuel depot for construction rooms
equipment • installation of closure walls in tunnels
• maintenance of various systems including hoists,
Construction activities include: fire protection systems, waste handling equipment
• construction of permanent buildings including two and underground rock support
headframe buildings • monitoring to ensure the facility is performing as
• set-up of shaft-sinking equipment, and sinking of expected
main and vent shafts
• development of access tunnels and emplacement Decommissioning activities include:
rooms • installation of concrete monolith at base
• placement of excavated rock in waste rock of shafts
management area • sealing the shafts
• commissioning of DGR facility • removal of surface buildings
• recycling of materials and disposal of waste
An example of a drill jumbo creating openings in underground rock.
19OPG’s DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY PROJECT for Low & Intermediate Level Waste
2
1
Low level waste emplacement room.
1 Western Waste Management Facility
Intermediate level waste 2 DGR Project Site
emplacement room.
20Environmental Impact Statement Summary
Surface Facilities
The surface buildings and infrastructure for the DGR Project consist of:
Main Shaft Headframe Building: The main Intake and Exhaust Fans and Heaters: The
shaft provides primary access to the underground function of the surface intake fans is to provide the
repository and the main shaft headframe houses required airflow for the DGR. Heaters will be used
hoisting equipment to lower and raise cages for during the winter to raise air temperature before
transporting personnel, equipment and waste delivery underground.
packages.
Waste Rock Management Area (WRMA): Waste
entilation Shaft Headframe and Hoist House:
V rock generated as a result of excavation of the shafts
The ventilation shaft exhausts the repository and underground openings at the repository level
ventilation and is used as a second egress and for is managed on the DGR Project site in the WRMA.
hoisting rock to surface during the construction Approximately 1,000,000 m3 of rock will be managed
phase. over the long-term in the WRMA.
Waste Package Receiving Building: The Waste Stormwater Management Pond: All stormwater
Package Receiving Building (WPRB) receives the runoff from the DGR Project site, as well as any
waste packages from the WWMF and stages them groundwater pumped to surface from underground
for transfer onto the main shaft cage. The WPRB is sumps, will be directed via ditches to the stormwater
connected to the main shaft headframe. management pond for treatment to remove
suspended solids. The pond discharge water will
be directed into an existing ditch that ultimately
discharges into Lake Huron.
Lay-out of the DGR surface facilities.
21OPG’s DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY PROJECT for Low & Intermediate Level Waste
Underground Facilities The underground facilities of the DGR consist of:
The underground layout of the repository has two Shafts: The main shaft provides access to the
vertical shafts in an islanded arrangement with an repository for personnel and waste, a secondary
underground services area for the provision of conduit for services and fresh air to the repository.
offices, a workshop, a wash bay, refuge stations, The ventilation shaft provides removal of excavated
lunch room and a geotechnical laboratory. rock from the repository, emergency access for staff
Underground conditions are suitable for workers and to and from the repository, and a route for exhaust air
the atmosphere is maintained in a reasonably steady from the repository.
and dry state to limit corrosion of structures and
waste packages. Underground Services Area: Includes the amenity
There will be two panels of emplacement rooms. and equipment maintenance area, including a lunch
Panel 2 will be filled first with the majority of the room, offices and refuge stations.
backlog of waste packages that will be in storage
at the WWMF at the time emplacement operations Access Tunnels: Two access tunnels are provided
commence. Both panels will contain LLW and ILW from the shaft stations to the emplacement rooms.
rooms. In general, LLW and ILW packages will not be
stored in the same room. Three rooms in Panel 1 will Waste Emplacement Rooms: There are two panels
be equipped with rail tracks that will be used to move of emplacement rooms for storage of the waste.
some of the heavier ILW packages. The underground Panel 1 will have 14 rooms and Panel 2 will have 17
arrangement enables the underground infrastructure rooms. All rooms are nominally 250 m in length, and
to be kept in close proximity to the shaft, while most are 8 m wide and 7 m high.
keeping the emplacement areas away from areas
normally occupied by workers.
Footprint of the lay-out of the DGR emplacement rooms.
22Environmental Impact Statement Summary
5 SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND
EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
Preliminary Geotechnical Site-specific investigations were initiated in the
Feasibility Study and Independent summer of 2006 to collect the information necessary
to test these seven hypotheses. Since that time,
Assessment Study a planned, four-year program of multi-disciplinary
geoscientific investigation involving the coordinated
The MOU signed between OPG and the Municipality effort of more than 20 universities, specialized
of Kincardine in 2002 to jointly study the feasibility of laboratories, consulting groups and the NWMO
implementing a long-term management facility for has been completed.
L&ILW resulted in a Geotechnical Feasibility Study
and an Independent Assessment Study to develop an
understanding of the geologic conditions beneath the Geoscience Program for Project Site
proposed Bruce nuclear site relevant to nuclear waste
management. Characterization
Indications from these studies supported the
development of hypotheses around seven specific The Geoscience work program had two principal
attributes of the geology, which are deemed to be components, as described by the Geoscientific Site
favourable for long-term nuclear waste management. Characterization Plan. These were:
The hypotheses provided a basis for a Geoscientific
Site Characterization Plan (GSCP), which was Site-Specific Geoscientific Studies: a step-wise,
developed to collect the necessary information to multi-year program of geoscience investigation that
provide a detailed understanding of the proposed site included the deep borehole drilling, coring, testing
as it exists today, how it evolved in the past and how and instrumentation program, and a 2-D seismic
it is likely to evolve in the future. The existence of the reflection survey of the sedimentary rocks underlying
following attributes would provide confidence for the the Bruce nuclear site; and
development of the DGR at the Bruce nuclear site:
Geosynthesis: a program that combined historical
Predictable: near horizontally-layered, undeformed and regional information with data from site-specific
sedimentary shale and limestone formations of large studies to describe the geoscientific basis for
lateral extent; understanding the past, present and future geologic
evolution of the Bruce nuclear site as it influences
Multiple Natural Barriers: multiple low permeability DGR safety.
bedrock formations host and enclose the DGR;
Contaminant Transport Diffusion-Dominated:
deep groundwater regime is ancient, showing
no evidence of glacial perturbation or cross-
formational flow;
Geomechanically Stable: selected DGR limestone
formation will provide stable, virtually dry openings;
Seismically Quiet: Bruce area is located in an area
characterized by low levels of seismicity;
Natural Resource Potential Low: commercially
viable oil and/or gas reserves are not present; and
Shallow Groundwater Resources Isolated: near
surface potable groundwater aquifers are isolated.
23OPG’s DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY PROJECT for Low & Intermediate Level Waste Aerial map of the DGR footprint shows the location of six deep boreholes which were drilled, cored and tested at the Bruce nuclear site from 2006 to 2010. SITE-SPECIFIC GEOSCIENTIFIC STUDIES limestone and shale rock formations. Hundreds An iterative site characterization program to confirm of tests to investigate physical and chemical rock the suitability of the Paleozoic age sedimentary properties were conducted by contractors at the sequence beneath the Bruce nuclear site to safely Bruce nuclear site, commercial laboratories and host the DGR concept was initiated in August 2006 laboratories at universities, both in Canada and and completed in June 2010. Approximately 1,200 internationally. The field and laboratory testing was samples from 3.8 km of core were taken from four conducted under a quality assurance program and vertical and two inclined deep boreholes, which has involved a variety of Canadian and international together intersected more than 4.7 km of sedimentary groups selected because of their specialized skills. rock. The boreholes were positioned and triangulated A Geoscience Review Group, comprised of four outside the DGR footprint to maintain the integrity geoscientists with extensive international experience in of the proposed DGR site, and to build confidence nuclear waste management, provided guidance in the in the consistency of the nature and predictability program design and interpretation of information from of the stratigraphic, geochemical, geomechanical these investigations. and hydrogeologic properties of horizontally-layered 24
Environmental Impact Statement Summary
Phases of the Geoscientific Site-Specific Studies
PHASE September 2006 to November 2007
ONE Included:
• Installation of shallow bedrock monitoring wells to provide data about groundwater
conditions during the characterization program;
• 2-D seismic reflection survey to image the bedrock stratigraphy;
• Installation of a micro-seismic (M≈1) borehole monitoring network;
• Drilling and coring of vertical boreholes (DGR-1 to 463 m and DGR-2 to 863 m) to provide
rock core samples for geologic, hydrogeochemical and geomechanical analysis;
• Borehole testing included geophysical logging and hydraulic testing to determine the
different bedrock layers and bedrock permeabilities; and
• Installation of multi-level groundwater monitoring equipment to allow for the long-term
monitoring of deep groundwater conditions.
PHASE March 2008 to December 2008
TWO -A Included:
• Drilling and coring of two deep vertical boreholes (DGR-3 to 869 m and DGR-4
to 857 m) to provide rock core samples for geologic, hydrogeochemical and
geomechanical analysis;
• Borehole testing included geophysical logging and hydraulic testing of DGR-3 and DGR-4
to determine the different bedrock layers and bedrock permeabilities; and
• Installation of multi-level groundwater monitoring equipment to allow for the long-term
monitoring of groundwater conditions.
PHASE January 2009 to June 2010
TWO -B Included:
• Drilling and coring of two additional steeply inclined deep boreholes (DGR-5 and
DGR-6) to characterize the nature of the vertical bedrock structure and its effect
on DGR implementation; and
• Borehole testing included geophysical logging and hydraulic testing of DGR-5 and DGR-6
to determine the different bedrock layers and bedrock permeabilities.
25OPG’s DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY PROJECT for Low & Intermediate Level Waste
1 2
3 4
5 6
1, 2 A 2-D seismic survey using 3 Core samples from all six boreholes 5 Hydraulic testing of all six boreholes
impulses from a vibroseis truck were photographed, logged and provided evidence of low permeability
and geophones that measured the preserved within 45 minutes of their in the limestone and shale formations.
rebounding seismic energy was arrival at surface as part of a test plan,
utilized to create a two-dimensional and all samples were stored in a refrig- 6 Two inclined deep boreholes (DGR-5
image of the bedrock layers beneath erator before distribution to labs. and DGR-6) verified the nature of
the Bruce nuclear site. vertical bedrock structure and its
4 Two deep vertical boreholes (DGR-1 to effects on DGR implementation.
DGR-2) were drilled, cored and tested
as part of Phase One activities.
26You can also read
