Presentation from Ontario Power Generation Inc. Présentation d. Ontario Power Generation Inc.

Transcription

1 Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel Commission d examen conjoint du projet de stockage dans des couches géologiques profondes PMD 14-P1.1E File / dossier : Date: Edocs: Presentation from Ontario Power Generation Inc. On Expansion plans for the DGR project Présentation d Ontario Power Generation Inc. Sur Les Plans d agrandissement pour le projet de stockage dans des couches géologiques profondes In the Matter of À l égard de Ontario Power Generation Inc. Ontario Power Generation Inc. OPG s Deep Geological Repository (DGR) Project for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Installation de stockage de déchets radioactifs à faible et moyenne activité dans des couches géologiques profondes Joint Review Panel Commission d examen conjoint September 2014 septembre 2014

2 OPG s L&ILW DGR Joint Review Panel Hearing EIS DGR Expansion September 16, 2014

3 Presentation ti Outline DGR Expansion - not included in Licence Application Nature of Information Request EIS Expansion considerations on DGR facilities L&ILW from decommissioning Preclosure and postclosure safety impact Relative timelines and potential sequencing Conclusions 2

4 DGR Expansion Not in Licence Application OPG is not seeking approval for an expanded DGR to accommodate L&ILW arising i from decommissioning i i (decommissioning i i waste) Any future expansion would require a separate and complete regulatory approval process Expansion was considered as part of the cumulative effects assessment per the EIS guidelines Future decommissioning waste in the DGR is OPG s planning assumption 3 Uncertainties in future requirements for expansion including: L&ILW volumes (e.g. from decommissioning) Waste characteristics Timelines for expansion Repository layout

5 Information Request EIS Provide the Technical Assessment for the proposed DGR to dispose all OPG s decommissioning waste from Pickering, Darlington, and Bruce nuclear generating stations The anticipated timing of any expansion activities relative to the current proposed DGR phases Conventional safety of occupied spaces for extended timelines Clarification of Short-term and Long-term Safety implications Graphical representation of the relative timelines of the conceptual expansion Provide the maximum doses for each Disruptive Scenario 4

6 5 Conceptual Expansion Layout

7 Underground d Facilities Considered the following for an expanded facility: Cobourg formation Underground services Ground support Ventilation Remobilizing for construction (including waste rock handling) Environmental emissions would be consistent with initial repository construction Waste emplacement at the repository would cease and emplaced waste isolated prior to construction 6

8 Surface Facilities Considered the following for an expanded facility: Waste rock management Stormwater management Surface structures (i.e. headframes and hoists) Services (i.e. power, water, compressed air) Staging and laydown areas Environmental emissions would be consistent with initial repository construction 7

9 Waste Operations Prior to and during expansion: WWMF would be prepared to receive and manage waste at surface during expansion development Emplacement rooms containing waste would be isolated by closure walls Post expansion: Repository waste handling will be similar to pre-expansion L&ILW handling practices 8 Environmental emissions would be consistent with the proposed operational period

10 Decommissioning i i Waste (1) Waste volumes and characteristics have been estimated Waste types are similar to those from operations and refurbishment Would include more concrete and metal Initial estimates of 135,000 m 3 Estimated 10-20% ILW by packaged volume Total radionuclide inventory for all units is estimated to be 390,000 TBq at 30 years after shutdown 9

11 Decommissioning i i Waste (2) Preliminary volume estimate assumed wastes are disposed as-is (i.e. limited processing) Estimate therefore includes large amount of LLW metal This would result in a large amount of gas generation within the repository over long times LLW metal is largely surface contaminated Metal reduction through decontamination can be used as necessary Same radionuclide inventory but less metal 10

12 Safety Preclosure Conventional safety is similar Nominal 100-year design for openings Long-term repository stability is inherent in the design Waste package off-gassing is not expected to be materially different 11 Waste packages will meet OPG waste acceptance criteria

13 Safety Postclosure Preliminary assessment of postclosure impacts Remains well below dose criterion for Normal Evolution Scenarios Remains below risk criterion for Disruptive Scenarios 12

14 Relative Expansion Timelines Expansion of the DGR for decommissioning waste is OPG s planning assumption Considered early and late scenarios to illustrate the range in time for business decisions Assumptions for expansion activities include: 2 years for additional site characterization in support of a business decision to proceed with regulatory approvals 4 years for design and regulatory approvals in support of a business decision to proceed with construction 13 4 years for construction and application for an Operating Licence extension

15 Early Scenario Earliest start of Pickering decommissioning (2044) Initial decision to proceed with regulatory approvals by 2035 Panel 2 would be filled and isolated Expand the DGR Resume DGR operations in 2044 Assumes Darlington and Bruce decommissioning 30 years after reactor shutdown Extends the DGR operational life by about 30 years 14

16 Late Scenario Decision following end of planned operations (2062) Requires interim storage of decommissioning waste Panel 1 and 2 are filled and isolated Expand the DGR Resume DGR operations in 2072 Assumes Darlington and Bruce decommissioning 30 years after shutdown Extends the DGR operational life by about 30 years 15

17 Conclusions 16 Expansion for decommissioning waste is not part of the current licence application There are uncertainties related to decommissioning waste volumes and characteristics ti Broad range of time for business decisions to expand the DGR Expansion of the DGR was considered as part of the cumulative effects as per the EIS guidelines No adverse cumulative effects of the DGR Project in combination with the expansion were identified No technical reasons why the DGR could not be expanded for decommissioning waste