design, production and initial state of the underground ... · the underground openings line...
TRANSCRIPT
POSIVA 2012-22
August 2013
POSIVA OY
Olki luoto
FI-27160 EURAJOKI, F INLAND
Phone (02) 8372 31 (nat. ) , (+358-2-) 8372 31 ( int. )
Fax (02) 8372 3809 (nat. ) , (+358-2-) 8372 3809 ( int. )
Posiva Oy
Underground Openings Production Line 2012Design, Production and Initial State of the
Underground Openings
ISBN 978-951-652-203-9ISSN 1239-3096
Tekijä(t) – Author(s)
Posiva Oy
Toimeksiantaja(t) – Commissioned by
Posiva Oy
Nimeke – Title
UNDERGROUND OPENINGS PRODUCTION LINE 2012 – DESIGN, PRODUCTION AND INITIAL STATE OF THE UNDERGROUND OPENINGS
Tiivistelmä – Abstract
The Underground Openings Line Production Line report describes the design requirements, the design principles, the methods of construction and the target properties for the underground rooms required for the final repository. It is one of five Production Line reports, namely the:
- Underground Openings Line report - Canister report - Buffer report - Backfill report - Closure report.
Together, these reports cover the lifespan of the underground phases of the final repository from the start of construction of the underground rooms to their closure.
Posiva has developed reference methods for constructing the underground rooms. Tunnels will be constructed using the drill and blast technique, shafts will be constructed using raise boring and the deposition holes will be constructed by reverse down reaming. Underground openings will be made safe by reinforcement by using rock bolts, net or shotcrete, depending on which type of opening is being considered, and groundwater inflows will be limited by grouting.
Posiva's requirements management system (VAHA) sets out the specifications for the enactment of the disposal concept at Olkiluoto under five Levels – 1 to 5, from the most generic to the most specific. In this report, the focus is on Level 4 and 5 requirements, which provide practical guidance for the construction of the underground openings. The design requirements are presented in Level 4 and the design specification in Level 5 In addition to the long-term safety-related requirements included in VAHA, there are additional requirements regarding the operation of underground openings, e.g. space requirements due to the equipment used and its maintenance, operational and fire safety.
The current reference design for the disposal facility is presented based on the design requirements and design specifications. During the lifespan of the repository the reference design will be revised and updated according to the design principles as new information is available. Reference methods for the construction of all the particular underground openings are presented, including such aspects as investigations during tunnelling, methods of grouting, geometrical tolerances, the methodology for accepting deposition holes, etc. The potential hazards associated with the construction of these underground openings relative to the design requirements and design specifications are also presented with reference to deposition tunnels, deposition holes and other underground rooms.
Posiva has demonstrated that both the deposition tunnels and deposition holes can be produced based on current requirements and specifications and using current technology, although there are likely to be further advances in the development of construction techniques.
Avainsanat - Keywords
Final repository, final deposition tunnel, final deposition hole, underground openings, design, construction, reference method. ISBN
ISBN 978-951-652-203-9 ISSN
ISSN 1239-3096 Sivumäärä – Number of pages
160 Kieli – Language
English
Posiva-raportti – Posiva Report Posiva Oy Olkiluoto FI-27160 EURAJOKI, FINLAND Puh. 02-8372 (31) – Int. Tel. +358 2 8372 (31)
Raportin tunnus – Report code
POSIVA 2012-22
Julkaisuaika – Date
August 2013
Tekijä(t) – Author(s)
Posiva Oy
Toimeksiantaja(t) – Commissioned by
Posiva Oy
Nimeke – Title
KALLIOTILOJEN TUOTANTOLINJA 2012. LOPPUSIJOITUSTUNNELIN SEKÄ LOPPUSIJOITUSREIÄN SUUNNITELMA, TUOTANTO JA ALKUTILA
Tiivistelmä – Abstract
Kalliotilojen tuotantolinjaraportissa kuvataan maanalaisten loppusijoitustilojen suunnitteluvaatimukset, suunnitteluperusteet, tilojen tuotantomenetelmät sekä tavoiteominaisuudet. Raportti on yksi viidestä tuotantolinjaraportista, jotka ovat:
- Kalliotilojen tuotantolinjaraportti - Kapselin tuotantolinjaraportti - Puskurin tuotantolinjaraportti - Täytön tuotantolinjaraportti - Sulkemisen tuotantolinjaraportti
Yllä mainitut raportit muodostavat kokonaisuuden, jossa kuvataan maanalaisten loppusijoitustilojen vaiheet alkaen tilojen tuottamisesta päättyen niiden sulkemiseen.
Posiva on määrittänyt tilojen tuottamiselle referenssimenetelmät. Määritelmän mukaan tunnelit louhitaan poraus & panostus -menetelmällä, kuilut nousuporaamalla ja loppusijoitusreiät täysprofiiliporauksella. Tilat tehdään turvallisiksi tukemalla kalliota kalliopulteilla, verkottamalla tai ruiskubetonoimalla. Käytettävä menetelmä valitaan kohteena olevan tilan mukaan. Kallio tiivistetään vesivuotojen minimoimiseksi.
Suunnitteluvaatimukset on koottu VAHA-tietokantaan viiteen eri tasoon. Level 1 -tason vaatimukset ovat yleisimmin kuvatut vaatimukset ja tason Level 5 vaatimukset ovat yksityiskohtaisimmat. Tässä raportissa kuvataan tasojen Level 4 ja -5 vaatimukset, jotka sisältävät käytännön ohjeita suunnittelun ohjaamiseksi. Suunnitteluvaatimukset ovat Level 4-tasolla ja Level 5-tasolla ovat suunnitteluspesifikaatiot. VAHA-tietokannassa olevien pitkäaikaisturvallisuuspohjaisten vaatimusten lisäksi suunnittelua ohjaa muitakin vaatimuksia, esim. koneiden käyttämiseen vaadittavien tilojen mitat tai palosuojeluun liittyvät ohjeistukset.
Suunnittelun periaatteet ja nykyisiin vaatimuksiin sekä spesifikaatioihin perustuva maanalaiselle loppusijoituslaitoksen referenssimalli on esitelty tässä raportissa. Mallia tullaan arvioimaan ja täyden-tämään loppusijoituslaitoksen elinkaaren aikana suunnittelun periaatteiden mukaisesti lähtötietojen muuttuessa. Maanalaisten tilojen tuotantomenetelmät on kuvattu sisältäen louhinnan aikana tehtävät tutkimukset, tunneleiden tiivistysmenetelmät, tunneleiden geometria, loppusijoitusreikien hyväksyntä-menettelyt jne. Riskitarkastelut on myös esitetty loppusijoitustunneleiden, loppusijoitusreikien sekä muiden tuotettavien tilojen osalta.
Kalliotilojen tavoiteominaisuudet määräytyvät muiden tuotantolinjojen vaatimuksista, lainsäädännöstä sekä kansalliset normit. Posiva on osoittanut, että nykyisten vaatimusten mukaisia loppusijoitustunneleita sekä loppusijoitusreikiä kyetään tuottamaan olemassa olevalla teknologialla.
Avainsanat - Keywords
Loppusijoitus, loppusijoitustunneli, loppusijoitusreikä, kalliotilat, suunnittelu, rakentaminen, referenssimenetelmä. ISBN
ISBN 978-951-652-203-9 ISSN
ISSN 1239-3096 Sivumäärä – Number of pages
160 Kieli – Language
Englanti
Posiva-raportti – Posiva Report Posiva Oy Olkiluoto FI-27160 EURAJOKI, FINLAND Puh. 02-8372 (31) – Int. Tel. +358 2 8372 (31)
Raportin tunnus – Report code
POSIVA 2012-22
Julkaisuaika – Date
Elokuu 2013
DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Backfill Backfill is the material or a material that is/are used for backfilling of deposition tunnels. Buffer Compacted bentonite blocks and pellets surrounding the copper canister in the deposition hole. Bulk density, [kg/m3] The bulk density is the ratio of the mass (solids and water) to the bulk volume of a given amount of soil.
V
mm ws
Bulk volume, V [m3] Bulk volume refers to the soil volume including isolated as well as continuous voids. BWR reactor Boiling water reactor. Canister Metal container used for spent nuclear fuel disposal in bedrock. Cap Steel deck at the upper end of the buffer moisture protection system. CEC Cation exchange capacity (eq/kg) reflecting the montmorillonite content of a material. D&B Drill and Blast method for tunnel excavation. Degree of water saturation, Sr [%] The degree of water saturation is the ratio between the volume of the pore water and the pore volume.
P
wr V
VS 100
Density of solid particles / Specific grain density, s [kg/m3] The density of solid particles is defined as the ratio of the mass to the true volume of the solid matter in a given amount of soil.
s
ss V
m
Deposition hole The vertical hole where the canister and the surrounding buffer are emplaced in KBS-3V concept.
Deposition tunnel The tunnel, where the deposition holes are located in KBS-3V concept. Disposal facility All underground tunnels, shafts and holes (including the repository) and related above ground buildings (excluding encapsulation plant). Dry density, d [kg/m3] The dry density is the ratio of the solid mass to the bulk volume of a given amount of soil.
V
msd
EBS Engineered Barrier System, which includes canister, buffer, backfill and closure. EDZ Excavation Damage Zone. EPR reactor European pressurised water reactor. Foundation bed/layer Layer of backfill material used for levelling of the tunnel floor. Grain density Density of solid particles (kg/m3) defined as the relationship between weight of solids (Ws) and volume of solids (Vs). Green body A ceramic or porcelain compound, usually clay or powder, produced by casting before it has been fired or sintered. Ibeco RWC (earlier called Deponit Can) Calcium bentonite from Milos (Greece) with a medium montmorillonite content produced for nuclear waste disposal application (Radioactive Waste Clay BackFill), produced by IBECO and sold by S&B Industrial Minerals GmbH (Germany). Initial state Initial state is the state in which a given component has been emplaced according to its design and remains after intentional engineering measures and executed controls have been completed. KBS (Kärnbränslesäkerhet). The method for implementing the spent nuclear fuel disposal concept based on multiple barriers.
KBS-3V (Kärnbränslesäkerhet 3-Vertikal). The reference design alternative of the KBS-3 method in which the spent nuclear fuel canisters are emplaced in individual vertical deposition holes. LO1, LO2 Loviisa reactor units 1 and 2. Type VVER 440. Mass, m [kg] Mass is the term for the content of material of a body (usually determined by weighing). MQC Manufacturer Quality Control. Measurement and definitions made by a bentonite producer to ensure that the material fulfils the requirement set for it, for example montmorillonite content, grain size distribution and water content. MX-80 bentonite High grade sodium bentonite, known by the commercial name MX-80, produced by American Colloid Company in Wyoming, USA and distributed by Askania. MX-80 is a blend of several natural sodium-dominated bentonite horizons, dried and milled to millimetre-sized grains (Karnland et al. 2006). The reference buffer material for Posiva Oy. OL1-4 Olkiluoto reactor units 1 - 4. OL1 and OL2 are BWR-reactors in operation, OL3 is EPR-type (in construction) and OL4 is so far only a decision-in-principle. ONKALO The Olkiluoto Underground Rock Characterisation Facility. PLR Production Line reports. Porosity, n [dimensionless or %] Porosity is the ratio between the pore volume and the bulk volume of the soil.
V
Vn p also
e
en
1
PSAR Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. PWR reactor The pressurised water reactor. RH [%] Relative humidity percentage. Relative humidity describes the amount of water vapour in a mixture of air and water vapour.
SKB Svensk Kärnbränslehantering Ab (Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company). STUK Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, Finland. Swelling index Standard free swelling index tests where the free swelling index is reported as a ratio of swelled material volume to initial material mass (ml/g). TDS Total dissolved solids (g/L). TURVA-2012 Safety Case portfolio A safety case for a geological disposal facility documents the scientific and technical understanding of the disposal system, including the safety barriers and safety functions that these are expected to provide, results of a quantitative safety assessment, the process of systematically analysing the ability of the repository system to maintain its safety functions and to meet long-term safety requirements, and a compilation of evidence and arguments that complement and support the reliability of the results of the quantitative analyses.
The TURVA-2012 safety case for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel at Olkiluoto is compiled in a portfolio of main reports with supporting documents. VAHA Posiva’s requirement management system (in Finnish “Vaatimusten hallintajärjestelmä”). VAHA level 1 requirement - Stakeholder requirement The requirements arising from laws, regulatory requirements, decisions-in-principle and other stakeholder requirements. VAHA level 2 requirement - System requirement More specific system requirements arising from laws, regulatory requirements and decisions-in-principle. VAHA level 3 requirement - Subsystem requirement Specific requirements for the canister, buffer, backfill, closure and host rock and underground openings. The requirements of level 3 are mostly general and set qualitative requirements (performance targets and target properties) for EBS and host rock performance. Safety functions are the main roles for each barrier, from which performance targets for the engineered barriers and target properties for the host rock are defined considering their respective safety functions. Individual performance targets or target properties must be defined for each main component of the repository system (canister, buffer, filling material, repository host rock).
VAHA level 4 requirement - Design requirement These requirements further clarify and provide more details to the requirements of Level 3. Design requirements are ultimately defined so as to enable the achievement of the performance targets in the expected scenarios. VAHA level 5 requirement - Design specification These requirements are the quantitative specifications to be used in the design, construction and manufacturing. Design specifications are ultimately defined so as to enable the achievement of the performance targets in the expected scenarios. The difference between design requirement and specification is that design specification gives concrete numerical specifications for the design. Void ratio, e [dimensionless] The void ratio is the ratio between the pore volume and the volume of solids.
s
p
V
Ve
Volume of solid matter, Vs [m
3] The volume of the solid mass or specific volume refers to the total volume minus the void volume. VVER 440 The Russian pressurised water reactor type used in Loviisa. Water content, w [%] Water content gives the ratio between the mass of the pore water and the mass of the dry solid substance.
s
w
m
mw 100
XRD X-ray diffraction, an analytical method used to identify minerals in a rock. YJH-2012 programme YJH refers to the Finnish word “ydinjätehuolto” meaning nuclear waste management. The YJH 2012 programme describes Posiva’s plans for further research and development during the years 2013-2018. YVL YVL refers to the Finnish word “ydinvoimalaitos”. Finnish nuclear regulatory guides. Äspö HRL Hard Rock Laboratory in Äspö, Sweden.
PREFACE
This report is a part of Posiva's production line report series. The work for this report has been coordinated by Sanna Mustonen from Posiva Oy, who is mainly responsible for producing the text. Chapters 3.3 and 3.4 are edited from a Posiva report (Kirkkomäki 2013) and information to Chapter 5.2 is taken from the Site Engineering Report (Sacklén et al. 2012-23), and therefore the authors for those reports are presented there. Pirjo Hellä (Saanio & Riekkola Oy) and Linda Kumpula (Posiva Oy) have contributed to requirements (Chapters 2 and 4), Paula Kosunen (Posiva Oy) to RSC-related issues and Jere Lahdenperä (Posiva Oy) to Monitoring (Chapter 3.2.2). Special thanks are given to Tim McEwen (McEwen Consulting, UK) for linguistic control and for keeping a critical eye on the subject at the same time.
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT TIIVISTELMÄ DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS PREFACE 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Structure and content .................................................................................... 5
1.1.1 The design of underground openings ............................................... 5
1.1.2 The construction of underground openings....................................... 5
1.2 Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................ 6
1.3 Limitations ..................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Interfaces ...................................................................................................... 6
2 DESIGN BASIS FOR THE UNDERGROUND OPENINGS .................................... 9
2.1 General ......................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Regulatory requirements ............................................................................. 11
2.3 Design basis and design specifications ...................................................... 12
2.3.1 Target properties for the host rock .................................................. 13
2.3.2 Design requirements for the underground openings ....................... 15
2.3.3 Design specifications for the underground openings ...................... 16
2.4 Other requirements ..................................................................................... 16
2.5 ONKALO construction and long-term safety-relevant issues ...................... 16
3 DESIGN AND EXCAVATION ............................................................................... 19
3.1 General ....................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Detailed investigation and monitoring programme ...................................... 20
3.2.1 Site investigations and Olkiluoto Island bedrock ............................. 21
3.2.2 Monitoring programme .................................................................... 25
3.2.3 Control programme ......................................................................... 26
3.3 General layout planning .............................................................................. 28
3.3.1 Access tunnel .................................................................................. 29
3.3.2 Shafts .............................................................................................. 29
3.3.3 Technical rooms .............................................................................. 30
3.3.4 Central tunnels ................................................................................ 30
3.3.5 Deposition tunnels and deposition holes......................................... 31
3.4 Reference layout ......................................................................................... 33
3.5 Preparation for backfill and closure ............................................................. 36
3.5.1 Rock Suitability Classification (RSC) system .................................. 36
3.5.2 Construction of the shafts ............................................................... 39
3.5.3 Construction of the tunnels ............................................................. 39
2
3.5.4 Construction of deposition holes ..................................................... 40
3.5.5 Construction of the plug chamber ................................................... 40
3.5.6 Operations before buffer, backfill and closure processes ............... 42
3.6 Documentation of the initial state condition ................................................. 43
4 THE REFERENCE DESIGN AT OLKILUOTO AND ITS CONFORMITY WITH THE DESIGN PREMISES .......................................................................... 45
4.1 Design requirements ................................................................................... 46
4.1.1 Common design requirements for all underground rooms .............. 46
4.1.2 Design requirements for access routes........................................... 47
4.1.3 Design requirements for deposition tunnels .................................... 48
4.1.4 Design requirements for deposition holes ....................................... 48
4.1.5 Design requirements for demonstration tunnels ............................. 49
4.2 Design specifications for underground openings ........................................ 49
4.2.1 Design specifications for all underground openings ........................ 49
4.2.2 Design specifications for shafts....................................................... 51
4.2.3 Design specifications for access tunnel, technical rooms and central tunnels ............................................................................................. 51
4.2.4 Design requirements for deposition tunnels .................................... 53
4.2.5 Design requirements for deposition holes ....................................... 55
4.2.6 Design requirements for demonstration tunnels ............................. 57
5 REFERENCE METHODS ..................................................................................... 59
5.1 General basis .............................................................................................. 59
5.2 Reference methods used in the construction of tunnels ............................. 61
5.2.1 The ONKALO .................................................................................. 61
5.2.2 Grouting techniques and grouting results ....................................... 63
5.3 Reference methods used in the construction of tunnels in deposition areas ........................................................................................................... 65
5.3.1 Investigations during tunnelling work .............................................. 65
5.3.2 Grouting in the deposition area ....................................................... 67
5.4 Details of tunnel excavation ........................................................................ 67
5.4.1 EDZ due to the use of drill and blast techniques ............................. 67
5.4.2 Geometrical tolerances ................................................................... 72
5.4.3 Tunnel floor contour ........................................................................ 73
5.4.4 Recess for the plug in deposition tunnels ....................................... 73
5.4.5 Preparation of the completed deposition tunnels for further use ..... 74
5.5 Reference methods used in the construction of deposition holes ............... 74
5.5.1 EDZ from the use of mechanical excavation techniques ................ 75
5.5.2 Geometrical tolerances of deposition holes .................................... 76
5.5.3 Acceptable inflow ............................................................................ 76
3
5.5.4 Preparation of the completed deposition hole for further use ......... 76
5.6 Reference methods associated with other underground openings ............. 76
5.6.1 Reference methods used in the construction of shafts ................... 76
5.6.2 Artificial holes .................................................................................. 77
6 INITIAL STATE OF THE UNDERGROUND OPENINGS ..................................... 79
6.1 General ....................................................................................................... 79
6.2 Geohazards, design methodologies and reference methods ...................... 79
6.3 Repository depth and deposition areas ....................................................... 79
6.3.1 Review of potential hazards relative to the design premises .......... 80
6.3.2 Qualitative risk assessment of the initial state ................................ 80
6.4 Deposition tunnels ....................................................................................... 80
6.4.1 Review of potential hazards relative to the design premises .......... 85
6.4.2 Qualitative risk assessment of the initial state ................................ 85
6.5 Deposition holes .......................................................................................... 86
6.5.1 Review of potential hazards relative to the design premises .......... 86
6.5.2 Qualitative risk assessment of the initial state ................................ 87
6.6 Other underground opening rooms ............................................................. 88
6.6.1 Plug chamfer ................................................................................... 88
6.6.2 Artificial holes .................................................................................. 88
7 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 89
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 91
APPENDIX A1, A2, A3 ................................................................................................. 95
4
5
1 INTRODUCTION
Posiva's spent fuel disposal is based on the KBS-3V concept and on the characteristics of the Olkiluoto site. In the KBS-3V concept, the spent fuel elements are disposed in copper-iron canisters, surrounded by bentonite buffer in deposition holes. There are several deposition holes in one deposition tunnel and, after all the canisters have been emplaced, the deposition tunnel will be backfilled and then sealed with a plug. The disposal operation is planned to take place at such a rate that one or two deposition tunnels will be required per year. After all the deposition tunnels in a deposition panel have been backfilled and plugged, the central tunnels and other openings in the panel will also be backfilled and plugged, i.e. closed.
For the whole KBS-3V disposal system and for its subsystems, safety functions have been determined, taking into account regulatory requirements, operational safety and efficiency, environmental aspects and quality assurance. From the safety functions, performance requirements for each subsystem have been defined and these form the design basis of each subsystem. The performance requirements and design requirements derived from them have been compiled in the Design Basis report (Posiva 2012g).
This report belongs to a series of Production Line reports which describe the design, production and initial state of each subsystem of the disposal system - the underground openings and the engineered barriers, i.e. the disposal canister, the buffer, the backfill and plug of the deposition tunnels and the closure of other underground openings. The production line report explains how each subsystem has been designed to meet its design requirements. The production of a subsystem comprises the purchase of the raw materials required, the manufacturing of the subsystem components, their installation and the quality assurance measures necessary through all of the production process. A final outcome of the design and production process is that the initial state of the emplaced subsystem is also described. This initial state serves as input information for the performance assessment of the subsystem and for the safety assessment of the whole disposal system.
1.1 Structure and content
1.1.1 The design of underground openings
Two phases of design are necessary in order to produce underground openings for the repository at Olkiluoto - the first phase involves more general layout design, which is followed by a second phase with more detailed and specified designs. There can be numerous design loops within these two phases where experts from different disciplines bring their skills to the design process.
In this report the design process is discussed in Chapter 3. Some parts of the design are carried out within Posiva and some by other companies, but this has no affect on the methodology employed - regardless of the designer, the requirements and the design approval process is the same.
1.1.2 The construction of underground openings
The construction of underground openings described below is performed with tried and tested techniques. With regard to the design of such openings, the tolerances and limitations associated with the designs depend on the chosen method of construction.
6
However, as indicated above, the life-span of the repository is considerable, and therefore it seems likely that there will be further development in the various means of construction, such as in excavation or blasting. The individual reference methods for the construction process are described in Chapter 5.
1.2 Purpose and Objectives
Before the spent fuel can be finally emplaced, the repository area must be characterised and the repository needs to be designed and build. The methods employed firstly to characterise the rock mass and then to construct openings will have effects on the properties of the rock, with respect to the rock surfaces and the extent to which the rock mass is disturbed. The properties of the rock mass around the opening can vary, for example, depending on the excavation method employed (e.g. drill & blast or reaming) or on the parameters selected (e.g. changing the explosive employed). In this report the results of the production process are described, i.e. the properties of the tunnels, the deposition holes and the investigation holes with respect to the construction method selected. For tunnelling work this is likely to be drill & blast (D&B); for the construction of shafts – raise boring; for the construction of deposition holes – down reaming; for the installation of a tunnel plug – wire sawing of a slot in the tunnel wall; and for investigation holes – drilling. The aim is that the other production line reports (Buffer (Posiva 2012k), Backfill (Posiva 2012l) and Closure (Posiva 2012 m)) can use this report as a starting point for their work.
1.3 Limitations
This report describes the methods that could be employed to produce different underground openings and what their "properties" could be. Except for some specific cases, it has not yet been decided whether Posiva or a contractor should carry out certain tasks or which techniques or machinery should be used. Certain decisions in this regard will, therefore, need to be made by Posiva before the construction of the repository begins. It is also possible that such decisions could subsequently be modified, based on the experience gained during the construction process.
1.4 Interfaces
This report has connections to other reports and, as mentioned above, is one of several production line reports. For the other production line reports (Buffer (Posiva 2012k), Backfill (Posiva 2012l) and Closure (Posiva 2012 m)) this report provides the initial state of the underground openings in which they must operate.
The design of underground openings is dependent on information from various sources, such as from legislative guides, from construction techniques and from the results of site characterisation. Some of this information will come from within and some from outside Posiva. The latter of these sources includes YVL guides1, occupational health and safety regulations, design codes etc., whereas the former sources are more varied, but can be roughly divided into two categories: Posiva's requirements and also investigation results.
1 Regulatory requirements related to the host rock, for example, are presented in STUK’s Guide YVL D.5 which is currently in Draft 4 in Finnish but in Draft 3 in its English translation (dated 23.02.2011).
7
All systems that are going to be implemented, both underground openings and encapsulation plant are defined. This documentation is called the system descriptions and for underground parts of the repository ten such systems are described:
deposition holes deposition tunnels central tunnels access tunnel personnel shaft canister shaft exhaust air shaft 1 and 2 inlet air shaft 1 technical rooms
The documents are in Posiva’s file database and are only available in Finnish.
Design requirements that have a long-term safety function are stored in Posiva's VAHA system (see Chapter 2), and other design requirements set by Posiva can be found in the Kronodoc data archive.
Posiva has developed a classification system that links site investigation information and construction activities and defines their interaction during the different phases of construction. The system is known as the Rock Suitability Classification (RSC) system, the aim of which is to classify the bedrock into suitable and avoidable volumes of rock for disposal purposes. When moving from large, site-scale to more detailed design the pre-defined steps ensure that the required research, design and decision process is carried out before reaching the final, smallest deposition hole scale. The current status of the RSC system is presented in McEwen et al. (2012).
Various site investigation activities are carried out at the surface and from the ONKALO facilities and these collect physical, chemical and spatial information about the bedrock and the groundwater. The results of these investigations are mainly reported in Posiva's Working Report series. Approximately every three years a Site Description report is published, which presents and summarises the latest investigation results in an integrated manner and provides the natural boundary conditions for the designers (e.g. in situ stress magnitudes and orientations, groundwater chemistry, etc.) (the most recent such report is Olkiluoto Site Description 2011, Posiva 2012a).
8
9
2 DESIGN BASIS FOR THE UNDERGROUND OPENINGS
2.1 General
Requirements management
Posiva has developed a robust design for the geological disposal of spent nuclear fuel at Olkiluoto through a formal requirements management system (VAHA) (Posiva 2012g). This provides a rigorous, traceable method of translating safety principles and the safety concept to a set of safety functions, performance requirements, design requirements and design specifications for the various barriers, i.e. a specification for the enactment of the disposal concept at the Olkiluoto site. The VAHA sets out:
At Level 1, stakeholder requirements that come from laws, decisions-in-principle, regulatory requirements, and other stakeholder requirements.
At Level 2, the long-term safety principles, which lead to the definition of the safety concept and safety functions;
At Level 3, the performance requirements, consisting of performance targets for the engineered barriers and target properties for the host rock, such that the safety functions are fulfilled;
At Level 4, the design requirements for the engineered barriers and the underground openings including rock suitability criteria, such that the performance requirements will be met.
Level 5 presents the Design specifications. These are the detailed specifications to be used in the design, construction and manufacturing.
In this report, the focus is on Level 4 and 5 requirements, which provide practical guidance for the construction of the underground openings. The management of the requirements is a continuous process and therefore changes, especially in the design requirements and specifications, are likely during the operation of the disposal facility, due to, for example, changes in regulations, the findings from detailed investigations, developments in the safety case and studies on the performance of the engineered barrier system, as well as experience gained from construction and operation. In addition to the long-term safety-related requirements included in VAHA, there are additional requirements regarding the operation of underground openings, e.g. space requirements due to the equipment used and its maintenance, operational and fire safety, and these operational requirements are discussed below in Sections 2.4 and 2.5.
Safety principles, safety concept and safety functions
The long-term safety principles set out for the KBS-3 method are based on the use of a multi-barrier disposal system consisting of engineered barriers and host rock. The engineered barrier system consists of the canister, the buffer, the backfill of the deposition tunnel and its eventual backfilling and closure. The role of the engineered barriers is to provide the primary containment against the release of radionuclides. The host rock should provide favourable conditions for the long-term performance of the engineered barriers, but also limit or retard the transport of radionuclides. The multi-barrier system as a whole should be able to protect the living environment, even if one of the barriers turns out to be deficient.
10
The safety concept (Figure 2-1) is a conceptual description of how these principles are applied to achieve safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel under the present-day and future conditions of the Olkiluoto site.
Containment of the radionuclides in the spent fuel is provided first and foremost by encapsulating the fuel in sealed (gas-tight and water-tight) copper-iron canisters. The other EBS components (buffer, backfill and closure) provide favourable near-field conditions for the canisters to remain intact and, in the event of canister failure, slow down or prevent releases of radionuclides from the canister. The containment of radionuclides is ensured by the proven technical quality of the EBS. Other elements of the safety concept include a sufficient depth for the repository, favourable and predictable bedrock and groundwater conditions and well-characterised material properties of both the bedrock and the EBS. A robust system design ensures that the repository system provides the required levels of safety, even were there to be some deficiencies in the design or its implementation, and taking account of uncertainties in future conditions.
Safety functions are assigned to the components of the engineered barrier system (EBS) and the host rock, as shown in Table 2-1.
Retention and retardation of radionuclides
Slo
w t
ran
sp
ort
in
th
e g
eo
sp
he
re
Slo
w r
ele
ase
fro
m t
he
s
pe
nt
fue
l m
atr
ix
Slo
w d
iffu
siv
e
tra
ns
po
rt i
n t
he
bu
ffe
r
SUFFICIENT DEPTH
FA
VO
UR
AB
LE
NE
AR
-FIE
LD
C
ON
DIT
ION
S F
OR
TH
E
CA
NIS
TE
R
PR
OV
EN
TE
CH
NIC
AL
QU
AL
ITY
O
F T
HE
EB
S
SAFE DISPOSAL
LONG-TERM ISOLATION AND CONTAINMENT
FAVOURABLE, PREDICTABLE BEDROCK AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
WELL-CHARACTERISED MATERIAL PROPERTIES
ROBUST SYSTEM DESIGN
Figure 2-1. Outline of the safety concept. Orange blocks indicate the primary safety features and properties of the disposal system. Green blocks indicate secondary safety features that become important in the event of a radionuclide release from a canister.
11
Table 2-1. Safety functions assigned to the barriers (EBS components and host rock) in Posiva’s KBS-3V disposal concept.
Barrier Safety functions
Canister Ensure a prolonged period of containment of the spent nuclear fuel. This safety function rests first and foremost on the mechanical strength of the canister’s cast iron insert and the corrosion resistance of the copper surrounding it.
Buffer Contribute to mechanical, geochemical and hydrogeological conditions that are predictable and favourable to the canister
Protect canisters from external processes that could compromise the safety function of complete containment of the spent nuclear fuel and associated radionuclides
Limit and retard radionuclide releases in the event of canister failure.
Deposition tunnel backfill
Contribute to favourable and predictable mechanical, geochemical and hydrogeological conditions for the buffer and canisters
Limit and retard radionuclide releases in the possible event of canister failure
Contribute to the mechanical stability of the rock adjacent to the deposition tunnels.
Host rock Isolate the spent nuclear fuel repository from the surface environment and normal habitats for humans, plants and animals and limit the possibility of human intrusion, and isolate the repository from changing conditions at the ground surface
Provide favourable and predictable mechanical, geochemical and hydrogeological conditions for the engineered barriers
Limit the transport and retard the migration of harmful substances that could be released from the repository.
Closure Prevent the underground openings from compromising the long-term isolation of the repository from the surface environment and normal habitats for humans, plants and animals,
Contribute to favourable and predictable geochemical and hydrogeological conditions for the other engineered barriers by preventing the formation of significant water conductive flow paths through the openings,
Limit and retard inflow to and release of harmful substances from the repository.
2.2 Regulatory requirements
The requirements for guiding the repository design and layout adaptation have been given in the YVL Guide 8.4 (STUK 2001). In addition, Posiva is developing more practical criteria based on the research data from the ONKALO (Posiva 2009). The basic requirements of the YVL Guide 8.4 provide that:
The characteristics of the host rock shall be such that it adequately acts as a natural barrier.
The characteristics of the host rock shall be favourable with respect to the long-term performance of engineering barriers.
12
According to YVL Guide 8.4, the host rock conditions of importance to long-term safety should be stable and predictable for up to at least several thousands of years. The factors that indicate unsuitable conditions are:
Proximity of exploitable natural resources Abnormally high rock stresses Predictable, anomalously high seismic or tectonic activity Exceptionally adverse groundwater characteristics, such as a lack of reducing
buffering capacity and high concentrations of substances, which might substantially impair the performance of the barriers.
The location of the repository should be favourable with regard to the groundwater flow regime at the disposal site and the disposal depth should be selected with due regard to long-term safety, taking into account at least:
The geological structures and lithological properties of the host rock and The trends in rock stress, temperature and groundwater flow rate with depth. To ensure that the effects of above-ground natural phenomena, such as glaciation and human activities, will be adequately mitigated, the repository shall be located at a depth of several hundreds of metres.
Finally, YVL Guide 8.4 requires that: "The structures of the host rock of importance to groundwater flow, rock movements or other factors relevant to long-term safety, shall be defined and classified. The waste canisters shall be emplaced in the repository so that adequate distance remains to such major structures of the host rock which might constitute fast transport pathways for the disposed radioactive substances or otherwise impair the performance of barrier."
YVL Guide 8.4 will be replaced by guide YVL D.5 (STUK 2011). This guide includes new requirements for repository design and implementation, e.g.
Preparedness to change the layout of the underground facilities in case rock quality is significantly poorer than the design premises.
Construction of the repository should be done in a stepwise manner, so that the investigations needed to estimate the suitability of the rock volume for disposal and classification of important rock structures for long-term safety can be carried out.
2.3 Design basis and design specifications
The definition of the performance targets for the safety functions of the engineered barriers and the target properties for the safety functions of the host rock requires the identification of the different loads and interactions that may act on the repository system at the time of canister emplacement and in the long-term. To achieve this, the potential future conditions have to be described as alternative lines of evolution, and their likelihoods have to be assessed on the basis of present-day knowledge. In the definition of the performance targets and target properties, all the lines of evolution and expected loads that are judged reasonably likely are taken into account and, hence, included in the design basis. When the performance targets and target properties are met and the future follows the expected lines of evolution, the safety functions are fulfilled.
13
From the performance targets and target properties (VAHA Level 3) the design requirements are derived (VAHA Level 4). Then, design specifications are worked out such that the fulfilment of these requirements can be verified at implementation (VAHA Level 5). Performance assessment is used to show that the system, designed and built according to the technical requirements and specifications, will meet the performance targets and target properties and that the safety functions will be fulfilled.
In defining the performance targets for the engineered barriers, implementation aspects also have to be considered: the requirements have to be set considering, on the one hand, the long-term safety aspects and, on the other hand, the design and implementation must follow the principle of robustness, as that is a part of the safety concept.
For the rock barrier the target properties set the starting point for the definition of the RSC system developed by Posiva to identify suitable rock volumes for repository panels and to assess the suitability of locations for deposition tunnels and deposition holes.
The performance targets and target properties, together with the derived technical design requirements and the underlying design basis scenarios, form the design basis for the repository. The background and premises for the design basis are presented in the Design Basis report.
2.3.1 Target properties for the host rock
The target properties define the host rock properties that contribute to the fulfilment of the safety functions for the host rock (Table 2-2). The target properties outline the conditions that are considered to be favourable for the performance of the engineered barriers, as well as for limiting the transport and retarding the migration of harmful substances that could be released from the repository. Therefore, the current reference design of the engineered barriers, as well as the understanding of their performance under different conditions, has been taken into account when defining the performance targets. The target properties concern the following rock properties: groundwater composition, groundwater flow and the mechanical stability of the rock. The target properties of the host rock and their derivation is discussed in detail in Posiva Design Basis -report (Posiva 2012g).
14
Table 2-2. Target properties for the host rock (Posiva 2012-24) The target properties and their rationale are discussed in detail in the Design Basis report, Posiva 2012-3.
VAHA ID Target properties for the host rock L3-ROC-3 Host rock shall, with the exception of incidental deviations, retain its favourable
properties over hundreds of thousands of years L3-ROC-5 The repository shall be located at minimum depth of 400 m. L3-ROC-10 To avoid canister corrosion, groundwater at the repository level shall be anoxic except
during the initial period until the time when the oxygen entrapped in the near-field has been consumed. Therefore, no dissolved oxygen shall be present after the initially entrapped oxygen in the near-field has been consumed.
L3-ROC-11 Groundwater at the repository level shall a have high enough pH and a low enough chloride concentration to avoid chloride corrosion of the canisters. Therefore, pH shall be higher than 4 and chloride concentration [Cl-] < 2M.
L3-ROC-12 Concentration of canister-corroding agents (HS-, NO2-, NO3
- and NH4+, acetate) shall be
limited in the groundwater at the repository level. L3-ROC-13 Groundwater at the repository level shall have low organic matter, H2 and Stot and
methane contents to limit microbial activity, especially that of sulphate reducing bacteria.
L3-ROC-14 Groundwater at the repository level shall initially have sufficiently high ionic strength to reduce the likelihood of chemical erosion of the buffer or backfill. Therefore, total charge equivalent of cations Σq[Mq+]*, shall initially be higher than 4 mM. * [Mq+] = molar concentration of cations, q = charge number of ion
L3-ROC-15 Groundwater at the repository level shall have limited salinity so that the buffer and backfill will maintain a high enough swelling pressure. Therefore, in the future expected conditions the groundwater salinity (TDS, total dissolved solids) at the repository level shall be less than 35 g/l TDS. During the initial transient caused by the construction activities salinities up to 70 g/l TDS can be accepted.
L3-ROC-16 The pH of the groundwater at the repository level shall be within a range where the buffer and backfill remain stable (no montmorillonite dissolution). Therefore, the pH shall be in the range of 5 −10, but initially a higher pH (up to 11) is allowed locally. The acceptable level also depends on silica and calcium concentrations.
L3-ROC-17 Concentration of solutes that can have a detrimental effect on the stability of buffer and backfill (K+, Fetot) shall be limited in the groundwater at the repository level.
L3-ROC-29 Groundwater conditions shall be reducing in order to have a stable fuel matrix and low solubility of the radionuclides.
L3-ROC-31 In the vicinity of the deposition holes, natural groundwater shall have a low colloid and organic content to limit radionuclide transport.
L3-ROC-19 Under saturated conditions the groundwater flow in any fracture in the vicinity of a deposition hole shall be low to limit mass transfer to and from EBS. Therefore, the flow rate in such a fracture shall be in the order of one litre of flow per one meter of intercepting fracture width in a year (l/(m*year)) at the most. In case of more than one fracture, the sum of flow rates is applied.
L3-ROC-20 Flow conditions in the host rock shall contribute to high transport resistance. Therefore, migration paths in the vicinity of the deposition hole, shall have a transport resistance (WL/Q) higher than 10,000 years/m for most of the deposition holes and at least a few thousand years/m.
L3-ROC-21 Inflow of groundwater to deposition tunnels shall be limited to ensure the performance of the backfill.
L3-ROC-33 The properties of the host rock shall be favourable for matrix diffusion and sorption.
L3-ROC-23 The location of the deposition holes shall be selected so as to minimise the likelihood of the rock shear movements large enough to break the canister. Therefore, the likelihood of a shear displacement exceeding 5 cm shall be low.
L3-ROC-30 To ascertain the data for sorption parameters, the pH shall be in the range of 6−10 after the initial period when a higher pH of up to 11 is allowed.
15
2.3.2 Design requirements for the underground openings
The long-term performance targets and target properties are used to derive the design requirements that the repository system must meet. For the engineered barriers these define the requirements that the barriers must have in order to withstand the future expected loads. The design requirements form Level 4 in VAHA.
The design requirements for underground openings are presented in Section 4.1.
The RSC system is designed to define suitable volumes of rock and can be used for repository design and construction (McEwen et al. 2012). It includes criteria for defining volumes of rock suitable for the repository panels, for assessing the suitability of deposition tunnels or tunnel sections for locating deposition holes and for the acceptance of deposition holes for emplacement. The aim is to avoid features of the host rock that may be detrimental to safety, either initially or in the long term. The target properties presented in Table 2-2 outline the conditions that are considered to be favourable.
The criteria developed for use in the classification system need to be based on observable and measurable properties of the host rock. These rock suitability criteria provide constraints to what are considered acceptable rock properties in and around the repository that need to be met before waste emplacement can be allowed. Based on interpretation, modelling and general understanding of the site properties, it is shown that the target properties for the host rock (Table 2-2) are fulfilled when the rock suitability criteria are met.
Classification of the host rock according to the RSC system is carried out at different scales, including repository, panel, tunnel and deposition hole scale, and applied at different stages of the investigation and excavation work. It also addresses the overall suitability and adequacy of the site as a natural barrier (YVL Guide D.5, paragraph 406), including checking properties that could indicate the unsuitability of the site, e.g. the proximity of exploitable natural sources, abnormally high rock stresses with regards to the strength of the rock (YVL Guide D.5, paragraph 410).
Classification at the repository scale aims to define the rock volumes to be used for repository layout planning. Layout determining features (LDFs) are identified, as well as their respect volumes, which are to be avoided when locating deposition tunnels and holes. LDFs are either large fault zones that are potentially mechanically unstable in current or future stress fields, or they are major groundwater flow routes, important for the transport of solutes and in determining the chemical stability at depth.
Classification at the panel scale aims to define suitable areas for the tunnels within a certain panel and to assess the degree of utilisation2 of the panel area for the detailed design of the panel. The panel consists of a central tunnel and a number of deposition tunnels that will be excavated and used en bloc. The classification is
2 The degree of utilisation is determined by the number of suitable deposition holes with respect to the theoretical maximum number and is related to whether the volume of rock is being used in an economical and effective manner. The suitability of a deposition tunnel can also be described by the term suitability ratio, which is used as a measure of the ratio of suitable tunnel sections/total tunnel sections.
16
carried out based on the more detailed data on deformation zones and hydraulically conductive zones becoming available, together with the construction of central tunnels for the panel in question.
The tunnel scale classification aims at defining suitable tunnel sections for the deposition holes, so that the LDFs and smaller, local deformation zones and their respect volumes, large fractures and high inflow to the deposition holes are all avoided.
At the deposition hole scale, the fulfilment of the rock suitability criteria is checked as part of the acceptance procedure for the deposition hole.
Rock suitability criteria are discussed further in the Design Basis report (Posiva 2012g) and in the Rock Suitability Classification report (McEwen et al. 2012).
In addition to the regulatory requirements and the RSC principles, there are also other factors to be considered in the layout design, as presented in Section 6.2.
2.3.3 Design specifications for the underground openings
Design specifications are the detailed specifications to be used in the design, construction and manufacturing process that have been derived from the more general design requirements. They are defined so that the safety functions and performance targets are achieved initially and will be fulfilled under the expected conditions during the time that the spent nuclear fuel presents a significant hazard. Design specifications form Level 5 in VAHA. All the requirements are presented in Section 4.1 and the specifications in Section 4.2.
2.4 Other requirements
The requirements discussed above all relate to long-term safety. In addition to these, there is a group of requirements, which are known as other design requirements, which have no immediate link to long-term safety, and are therefore treated differently. At the time of writing this report, these other design requirements were stored in Posiva's file management database (Kronodoc), and controlled by what was termed the Underground Opening Process, which was used to guide the work. This process has now been abandoned and the design requirements are now guided by a process known as the Management of the Disposal Concept.
A procedure for the design and construction of underground openings needs to be agreed in advance, before any such work can commence. The aspects of the design that need to be considered as part of this process are issues such as the radii of tunnel curves, drilling tolerances for the blasting holes or the permitted depth of the EDZ as perspective for choosing the explosives. A few such issues have changed during the excavation of the ONKALO (for example the permitted depth of the EDZ being less in the lower parts of the ONKALO). All here described requirements that apply when constructing the technical rooms (Figures 3.1 and 3.9) (dated 21.11.2012) are presented in Appendix A.
17
2.5 ONKALO construction and long-term safety-relevant issues
Before construction of the ONKALO had commenced, Posiva had recognised four long-term safety-relevant issues:
Controlling the making of the holes (boreholes, drill holes) from the surface and from the disposal area.
Controlling the water flow underground Control of foreign materials Control the effect of the Excavation Damage Zone (EDZ) in underground
openings. In addition to the related VAHA requirements, Posiva has produced specific guides (these have not been published) on the control procedures regarding these issues. These guides are part of Posiva’s management system and have been followed during the construction of the ONKALO.
During the excavation of the ONKALO a list of foreign materials has existed that are either allowed or not allowed to be used, so as to control that materials which are possibly harmful to the long-term safety of the repository. During the excavation working procedures, materials and components to meet the long-term safety requirements have been developed. For example, low-pH cement has been developed for controlling the inflow of water in such a manner that it reduces the impact of grout on the chemical environment3. In the deeper parts of the ONKALO (below a depth of 300 m) normal cement is not allowed to be used as a grouting material due to its potential impact on bentonite. Therefore, the low-pH cements are being developed for grouting purposes, so as to keep the inflow to tunnels to a minimum. The EDZ and artificial holes4 can form transport paths for radionuclides from deposition holes to the surface environment. The excavation method is the key to control the EDZ: blasting has to be designed and executed both gently and effectively to ensure that the remaining bedrock stays as solid as possible and so that no continuous fractured zone around underground openings is produced. For both research and constructional purposes artificial holes are required in the bedrock, but they have to be designed in a manner that they do not form a direct connection between the repository and the surface.
3 There is an internal Posiva memo that discusses the progress that has been made in this area. 4 Artificial holes is a general term applied to all underground openings that are not the access tunnel, deposition and other tunnels, shafts or deposition holes, e.g. core drilled holes, grouting holes, probe holes, holes for rock bolts, etc.
18
19
3 DESIGN AND EXCAVATION
3.1 General
This Chapter provides information about general layout planning, a subject which is described in more detail in the Design of the Disposal Facility 2012 report (Saanio et al. 2013).
The design of the underground openings starts in the Plant Design Process with the layout design. There, the orientations and dimensions of the principal tunnels are decided and stored as design drawings. Based on these, design drawings for construction purposes are made, in which detailed information is provided as to how specific underground openings are to be developed. These detailed designs for constructing underground rooms include designs before pre-grouting, excavation designs by drill and blast in tunnels and by down-reaming in shafts, rock reinforcement plans (bolts, nets, shotcrete) and post-grouting designs, if required. Having developed the excavation designs, the next step is to produce designs for the development of the underground infrastructure. Roads have to be build and there is a need for air, water, electricity, data networks and different kinds of constructions for various purposes: fire doors, pumping stations, office space, a repair shop, etc. The above-mentioned detailed designs are developed in the respective design departments: underground construction in the rock engineering department, ventilation by the air conditioning design, structural design by the structural design department, etc.
The design process also includes the quality actions - these are requirements which the design has to fulfil in order to be classified as a qualified design, which are derived mainly from legislation. The designer uses source information gained from the site investigations, together with design laws and codes, to produce appropriate designs. Normally these designs are developed outside Posiva in a design office where the designs are firstly checked and then approved. They are then delivered to Posiva and stored in Posiva's data managements system where the designs are finally checked and approved.
In addition to these are very detailed designs and plans required for various tests and demonstrations carried out in the ONKALO. For so-called production work (i.e. normal tunnel excavation, shaft reaming or the construction of deposition holes) and to some extent also in the research work (e.g. hole drilling and associated investigations, measuring weirs), the methods and designs are predefined. Due to the long period of repository operation, there is a need to continue to study new technologies to ensure that the best techniques are being employed. These designs and plans for investigation purposes are developed, together with the researcher in charge of the study and the appropriate design department.
When designs (both for construction and investigation) have been prepared and approved, these are delivered to the constructors (this term is used to apply to any type of work). These constructors have then to prepare method statements and working instructions, so that the design needs can be met, which will depend, for example, as to whether the construction or investigations are for research purposes or for construction of the repository itself. In some cases Posiva can also develop the working instructions, if there is a need for closer control of the working procedures. During the actual work quality actions are taken as defined in the inspection and testing plan, which is part of
20
the method statement. Later these quality notes act as part of the acceptance documentation of the defined work.
At present, the ONKALO is an underground research facility, but it has been designed and built in the some quality controlled manner as would be the case had it been part of a nuclear facility. This is because it is planned to be part of the disposal facility after its construction has been accepted by the authorities (Figure 3-1).
Figure 3-1. The ONKALO, the underground research facility. In the disposal facility it is planned that the construction of the central tunnels should take place in a stepwise manner, whereas the deposition tunnels and deposition holes are to be constructed in a more uninterrupted manner. All construction work in the disposal facility ceases during the disposal of waste canisters. More detailed plans on the sequencing of the underground construction work is presented in Section 3.4.
Designs are currently available for the disposition of the anticipated spent fuel for the entire life of the repository. During its life revised versions of all designs may be modified for numerous reasons. During the excavation of tunnels, new data are derived, both from the site investigations which are carried out in advance of tunnel construction, such as pilot holes, and also from the excavations themselves. Also, new methods and techniques are developed, some of which may be taken into use. New technologies can have different design requirements, which may require changes to the design and may produce, for example, superior tunnel profiles that it was not possible to construct earlier. The legislation and design codes (occupational health and safety, blasting, fire protection, etc.) are likely to undergo revisions during the life of the repository, and the designs may have to be adapted accordingly. It is possible that the disposal concept could change, e.g. from KBS-3V to KBS-3H, which would result in many changes to the design.
21
3.2 Detailed investigation and monitoring programme
Over twenty years the Olkiluoto bedrock has been subjected to various site characterisation activities, including the drilling of shallow and deep investigation holes, geological mapping of both natural outcrops and investigation trenches, airborne and ground geophysical studies, as well as hydrological and hydrogeological studies. Following the construction of the ONKALO, the number of underground data has increased substantially. The latest summary of the site characterisation activities is given in the Olkiluoto Site Description 2011 (referred to as SR2011, Posiva 2012a). Detailed geological and hydrogeological data are also provided in Aaltonen et al. (2010) and Vaittinen et al. (2011), respectively.
The site investigations and the monitoring programme provide information on the rock mass to the design team. Some of the investigations are planned to provide direct data for design purposes, such as the rock type or the groundwater characteristics. Others, such as precise levelling measurements or the biosphere investigations, on the other hand, provide more generalised knowledge of the Olkiluoto site that could also be helpful for design purposes. The monitoring programme is described in more detail in SR2011 (Posiva 2012a). The functional relationships between design, research and long-term safety are shown in Figure 3-2.
Design basis scenarios, including
loads and interactions
Design basis
Performance targetsand
target properties
Performance assessment
Formulation and assessment of scenarios leading to radionuclide release
Safety case in support of PSAR
Design requirements
Issues to be addressed in FSAR
Safety concept and associated
FEPs
Figure 3-2. The design basis employed by Posiva (Saanio et al, 2013).
22
3.2.1 Site investigations and Olkiluoto Island bedrock
The aim of the site investigations is to obtain detailed information on the bedrock and on its behaviour. Site investigations are carried out both from the surface and also underground - some of these investigations take place either only at or from the surface or underground and some take in both types of environment. For example, GPS measurements are carried out twice a year only at the surface and are reported yearly. Data are obtained from fixed measuring points on Olkiluoto Island and the changes caused by processes such as land uplift can be detected (Koivula et al. 2012). In contrast, the logging of characterisation drillholes is carried out in the same way, regardless if these are drilled from the surface or from a tunnel (Engström et al. 2008). The results of the investigations are input to models and summarised in different reports, such as the Olkiluoto Site Description reports (the most recent being SR2011, Posiva 2012a); the reports of pilot hole results (such as Core drilling of deep drillhole OL-KR56 at Olkiluoto in Eurajoki 2011-2012; Toropainen 2012); and modelling reports (such as the ONKALO Rock Mechanics Model (RMM) Version 2.0; Mönkkönen et al. 2012).
The bedrock of the Olkiluoto site area consists of Proterozoic variably migmatised gneisses and migmatites, together with pegmatitic granites and diabase dykes that have been subjected to multi-phase ductile and brittle deformation during their geological history (Aaltonen et al. 2010, Lahti et al. 2009). The rocks of the Olkiluoto area can be divided into four groups: i) migmatitic gneisses, including veined and diatexitic gneisses (VGN and DGN, respectively), ii) tonalitic-granodioritic-granitic gneisses (TGG), iii) other gneisses, including mica gneisses (MGN), quartz gneisses (QGN) and mafic gneisses (MFGN) and iv) pegmatitic granites (PGR) (Kärki et al. 2006). Diatexitic and veined gneiss types are the most common rock types in the Olkiluoto area (Figure 3-3).
The rock types have also been subjected to hydrothermal alteration, and alteration products, such as clay minerals, sulphides and illite, show spatial variations in the Olkiluoto area (Aaltonen et al. 2010).
The Geological Site Model (GSM) version 2.0 (Aaltonen et al. 2010) was updated for use in SR2011 (Posiva 2012a) as model version 2.1, and includes 228 modelled brittle fault zones (BFZ). The brittle fault zones at Olkiluoto can be divided into two general groups based on their geometrical properties: i) low-angle faults dipping generally to the SE and ii) subvertical faults that strike N-S to NE-SW. The brittle fault zones and other types of deformation zones and the principles applied in their modelling are described in more detail in the GSM (Aaltonen et al. 2010). The geological and mechanical properties of deformation zones, especially the brittle fault zones, are described in more detail in Section 3.2.
Hydrogeological zones have been modelled for the site area by Vaittinen et al. (2011). The majority of these zones are predominantly oriented NE-SW and some of them coincide with the modelled brittle deformation zones known in the area (Figure 3-4). The hydrogeological zones are described in detail below.
23
Fig
ure
3-3
. Bed
rock
map
of t
he O
lkil
uoto
are
a at
sea
leve
l (0
m).
TG
G s
tand
s fo
r to
nali
tic-
gran
odio
riti
c-gr
anit
ic g
neis
ses.
The
loca
tion
of
the
com
plet
ed O
NK
AL
O tu
nnel
mid
line
is s
how
n in
blu
e.
23
24
All brittle fault zones and hydrogeological zones are evaluated as part of the rock suitability classification (RSC) process (Hellä et al. 2009, McEwen et al. 2012). The large-scale brittle fault and hydrogeological zones that may have deleterious effects on the long-term safety of the repository are classified as layout determining features (LDF). An influence zone, defined as the volume around a brittle fault or hydrogeological zone which is affected by the existence of the feature, is determined for each LDF; the LDFs and their influence zones are not allowed to be penetrated by deposition tunnels. The latest interpretation of the LDFs, their properties and their influence zones is presented in Pere et al. (2012). The LDFs based on GSM v.2.1 and the hydrogeological model v. 2010 (Vaittinen et al. 2011) at the proposed repository depth of 420 m are shown in Figure 3-4 (from Pere et al. 2012).
The respect volume, which is shown in Figure 3-4 in grey, encompasses the cumulative effect of the influence zones of LDFs located close to each other and thus present a further buffer volume defining the limits of suitable rock volumes for the repository. The principles of defining the respect volumes (and respect distances) are presented in detail in Pere et al. (2012).
Three of the most significant low-angle brittle fault zones in the ONKALO area (BFZ102, BFZ019 and BFZ020) are presented in Figure 3-5. According to the definition of the rock suitability criteria, these zones are also LDFs (Pere et al. 2012). The zones BFZ102, BFZ019 and BFZ020 were intersected by the ONKALO access tunnel during its construction (Figure 3-5) and the penetration of these zones provided important first-hand information and experience for construction through such a zone.
Figure 3-4. Layout determining features (LDF) at Olkiluoto. The influence zone surrounds the core of a brittle fault or hydrogeological zone and forms a "safety margin" and also defines their respect volumes. Plan view is from the level -420 m (Pere et al. 2012).
25
Figure 3-5. The layout determining brittle fault zones BFZ102, BFZ019, BFZ020a and BFZ020b (in brown) that are penetrated by the ONKALO tunnel (in light grey). The brittle fault zone volumes are according to GSM 2.0 (Aaltonen et al. 2010).
3.2.2 Monitoring programme
The Olkiluoto Monitoring Programme has been carried out since 2004 when the construction of ONKALO commenced. It comprises rock mechanics, hydrogeological, hydrogeochemical and surface environment studies to monitor natural changes within the geosphere and biosphere of Olkiluoto, as well as the way in which such parameters are affected by the construction of the ONKALO and by other human activities. In addition, controlling the use of foreign materials in the construction of the ONKALO has been a part of the programme. The aims of the monitoring programme have been to observe changes in the host rock and surface environment that may affect the long-term safety of the disposal facility, and also the assessment of this long-term safety; to obtain data on the properties of the site and on the environmental impact of the project; and to obtain information on the response of the host rock to the excavation, for the benefit of further planning of construction, operation and eventual closure of the disposal facility.
The most recent version of the monitoring report (Posiva 2012b) presents an update of the monitoring programme which is to be implemented from 2012 until ca. 2018, or close to the projected beginning of the operational period of the disposal facility, and also generic plans for monitoring during its operation. The monitoring targets relevant for long-term safety (or the assessment of it) are defined on the basis of process lists compiled for the safety assessment, and the needs of environmental impact monitoring on the basis of potential effects recognised in the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure. The updated programme is more comprehensive than that carried out over the period 2004-2011 because of the requirements of new objectives for monitoring the performance of the engineered barriers and radioactive releases into the environment during the operational phase. Preparations will be made during the period of this
26
programme so as to be ready to start such monitoring before waste emplacement commences.
Rock mechanics monitoring aims at demonstrating the stability of the bedrock and consists of observing rock movements and stresses, and also microseismic monitoring. The movement of blocks of rock is studied using repeated GPS surveys and precision levelling of measuring posts at the surface, and local deformations and changes in rock stress due to construction of the ONKALO by underground convergence and extensometric measurements. There are several seismic monitoring stations, both on the surface and in the ONKALO, and the network will expand further into new underground rooms during the programme period.
Hydrogeological monitoring focuses on observing the groundwater table, hydraulic head and groundwater flow in the numerous drillholes of varying depths and groundwater tubes at Olkiluoto, and the inflow of groundwater into the ONKALO; whilst hydrogeochemical monitoring is based on laboratory analyses of samples taken from groundwater and surface waters. Both programmes will continue over the period from 2012-2018 in their established forms, with changes that mainly concern the frequency of certain measurements and the expansion of monitoring locations as excavation advances.
Monitoring studies of the surface environment serve several purposes. They produce input data for biosphere modelling on the storage and transport of radionuclides in the overburden, groundwater, surface water bodies and organisms, as well as data relevant for the performance of the disposal system on the interaction between the deep groundwater and the surface environment. At the same time, the conventional environmental impact of the project, changes in land use, and weather conditions are monitored. During the period of this programme, the radiological baseline of the environment and the release paths of possible radioactive releases from the disposal facility will also be determined to enable the monitoring of radioactive releases during the operational phase.
Foreign materials monitoring covers the approval procedures for the materials used in the construction of the ONKALO, the recording of materials that end up underground, either deliberately or accidentally, and monitoring the effects of foreign materials on the ONKALO process water and groundwater. As to the monitoring of the engineered barriers, the period of this programme will be used for research, development and testing of the necessary equipment and methods.
3.2.3 Control programme
The control programme in this report is understood as a protocol that is followed during the actual work in an underground facility where quality records are maintained – these refer to the records kept during the construction process that ensure that the construction protocols are being followed. There is not just one programme, but several protocols, depending on the type of work or investigation that is carried out. One type of such work is work that is carried out repeatedly (such as tunnelling work), and there the inspection plan is valid for the working method employed, regardless of where the work is performed. The other type of such work is unique, and there the control plan is only valid for that work in a specific location. An example of each of these types of operations is presented below.
27
Deposition holes are one example of the first type of such work. Holes are to be bored with a special machine, built for that purpose, and therefore the working procedure is the same everywhere. Figure 3-6 shows an example of the control programme for hole boring. As can be seen in the figure, the production of the hole is divided into parts, which are checked separately. Before the boring starts both the validity of the machine and the designs need to be checked and signed by the employee and the supervisor. This same procedure applies throughout the boring work. Some of the points are defined as a hold points (HP), where employees are not allowed to proceed before getting permission from the supervisor.
Figure 3-6. Example of the control plan for boring a deposition hole. Another example is the index from the colloidal silica grouting development work instruction for use in demonstration tunnel 2 (Figure 3-7). Before the investigation starts, an investigation plan is required. Working instructions are one part of the plan and these also contain control plans. During the work the protocols are completed, and stored in Posiva's filing archive.
28
Figure 3-7. Index from the colloidal silica grouting work instruction.
3.3 General layout planning
The underground disposal facilities at Olkiluoto will consist of deposition tunnels, central tunnels, the inclined access tunnel, shafts and technical facilities (Figure 3-8). There will also be a disposal room for both low and intermediate level waste – operational waste from the encapsulation plant.
Underground rooms will be divided into controlled and uncontrolled areas – controlled areas being where nuclear material is present. The aim when dividing such areas is to separate areas where nuclear material is managed from "clean" areas, as this helps to measure and control the radiation doses to humans and also assists in the overall control of the nuclear material. The border between controlled and uncontrolled areas also act as a fire department border. Both areas have their own, independent ventilation systems.
The construction of new areas, together with activities such as the backfilling of tunnels, is carried out on the uncontrolled side. All areas where waste canisters are being transported and where other activities, such as where bentonite blocks are assembled, are carried out in controlled areas. During such operations the border between the areas can change. If there is an emergency, for example if there is a fire, such areas can be changed in a flexible manner.
29
Figure 3-8. Conceptual design of the underground disposal facility at Olkiluoto.
3.3.1 Access tunnel
The access tunnel has been constructed as part of the ONKALO programme over the period from 2004 - 2012. It is 4987 m long, and extends to a greater depth (455 m) than the actual proposed disposal level (of 420 m), because it includes the pumping stations and lowest part of the shafts. During its construction Posiva has gained both more detailed information on the bedrock and experience in tunnelling. A model of the bedrock was developed before excavation commenced, so that the construction of the tunnel could act as a verification method for the structures and rock types encountered. Prediction-outcome studies were carried out repeatedly as the tunnel advanced and the results of these studies are discussed in each of the Site Description reports (Posiva 2005; Andersson et al. 2007; Posiva 2009; Posiva 2012a). It had been known beforehand that there were major structures in the bedrock, which would be penetrated by the access tunnel, and some of these same structures will act as a LDFs in the disposal facility.
The access tunnel will also acts as a connection to the surface during the operating phase, with construction material and excavated rock being transported through the tunnel during operation. Waste canisters could also be transported via the access tunnel if the shaft were out of use for some reason.
3.3.2 Shafts
Three shafts have already been constructed as part of the ONKALO using the down-reaming technique, in order to ensure sufficient ventilation to the underground facilities. Five shafts are eventually planned within the disposal area, four of them will act as ventilation shafts (two inlet and two exhaust), with the fifth being the canister shaft where both the canister and personnel will be transported.
30
3.3.3 Technical rooms
The technical rooms (Figure 3-9) are situated at the same level (-420 m) as the deposition tunnels. Technical facilities have also been constructed as part of the ONKALO research phase and consist of storage and parking halls, rescue areas, shaft chambers and canister storage rooms, together with the canister receiving station – these last two technical rooms are currently used for other purposes and will need to be modified to allow for their future use.
Figure 3-9. Technical facilities in the disposal facility (Saanio et al. 2013).
31
3.3.4 Central tunnels
Two parallel central tunnels are proposed for the disposal facility, which will ensure flexibility during operation. During the operational phase the central tunnels will be excavated in a periodic manner so as to meet the requirements for deposition tunnels. This will ensure that the total open volume of underground space is limited, which in turn will minimise the services required for the open tunnels and will help in limiting the inflow of groundwater. It will also distribute the cost of the construction over a longer period of time.
It is planned to construct the central tunnels using the drill & blast (D&B) technique. The design life of the tunnels is 100 years, and Figure 3-10 shows two tunnel profiles: a) for the straight sections of the tunnels and b) for the curved sections.
a) b)
Figure 3-10. Tunnel profiles for a) straight sections of the central tunnels and b) in curved sections.
3.3.5 Deposition tunnels and deposition holes
Deposition tunnels are planned to be excavated using the D&B method. Whereas the central tunnels of the repository are to be constructed in phases, perhaps 200 m at a time, as required, the construction of deposition tunnels and deposition holes will be more regular, continuous work.
The design of the tunnels depends on the type of the waste to be emplaced. Table 3-1 shows the minimum required dimensions for deposition tunnels and deposition holes for the three different sizes of spent fuel canister. The Loviisa type of canister (LO1-2) has the shortest length and therefore requires both a smaller deposition tunnel and a shorter deposition hole (Figure 3-11). The Olkiluoto type waste is in longer canisters and requires a larger tunnel and a longer deposition hole. The diameter of the deposition hole is the same for all waste types, namely 1,75 m. In the design, OL-4 also has the same design criteria as OL-3.
32
Table 3-1. Deposition tunnel and deposition hole dimensions foe the three sizes of spent fuel canister.
LO1‐2 OL1‐2 OL‐3
Tunnel height 4,0 4,4 4,4
Tunnel width 3,5 3,5 3,5
Hole depth 6,63 8,28 7,83
Minimum hole spacing 7,2 9,0 10,6
The spacing of deposition holes in the deposition tunnels varies, depending on the bedrock quality (see McEwen et al. 2012 for the potential constraints on the location of deposition holes). For constructional and safety reasons, the maximum length of a deposition tunnel is 350 m, but if the various constraints do not allow deposition holes to be drilled, they could be considerably shorter and, in the extreme, could be abandoned and backfilled. Deposition tunnels are separated by 25 m. Following their excavation, deposition tunnels will be surveyed, mapped and investigated to optimize the best places for the canister holes.
After potentially suitable locations for the deposition holes have been determined, the holes will be constructed using a down-reaming technique. Following their construction the deposition holes will be surveyed, mapped and investigated and, based on the results of these investigations, a decision will be taken as to whether any particular hole is suitable for disposal purposes. If it is found to be unsuitable, the hole will be backfilled.
Figure 3-11. Deposition tunnels and deposition hole dimensions for the three different waste types.
33
3.4 Reference layout
The repository layout has been updated every three years as a part of the outline design of the whole disposal facility. The latest update was carried out in 2012, which included preliminary plans for the stepwise implementation of the facility (Kirkkomäki 2013). The description presented here serves as an example only, since the exact position of the facility and the implementation procedure will most likely be adjusted when more detailed knowledge of the host rock is available, e.g. the precise orientation of the principal stress field and how it might vary. Figure 3-12 illustrates a layout alternative, where the first deposition panel with six deposition tunnels is shown in red. This design of the disposal facility consists of a total of 119 deposition tunnels.
The disposal facility consists of deposition tunnels and deposition holes which will be bored into the floors of the tunnels, i.e. the KBS-3V concept. The repository will be a single storey structure between the levels -400 m and -450 m in the rock blocks indicated in Figure 3-12. In addition to the guidance offered by the RSC system, with regards to the location of deposition tunnels and deposition holes, the following assumptions have been made in adapting the repository layout (Kirkkomäki 2013):
The total amount of spent fuel to be disposed of is 5400 tU, originating from the Olkiluoto power plants (OL1-3) and the Loviisa power plants (LO1-2).
The total number of the disposal canisters is 2770. The total number of deposition hole positions is 3324 (assuming that 20 % of the
hole positions are rejected). The minimum distance between deposition tunnel centre lines is 25 m. Deposition tunnel will have dimensions of: width 3.5 m, height 4.0-4.4 m and
maximum length 350 m. The orientation of deposition tunnels is chosen to be 126º/306º, which is
approximately parallel to the assumed maximum principal stress direction, which is 144º /324º (±25º) (Kirkkomäki 2013) - although this orientation is close to the limit of the uncertainty range.
The distance between the deposition holes is 7.2-10.6 m (see Table 3-1). The size of the deposition holes is: diameter 1.75 m, depth 6.63-8.28 m. The respect distance for all underground openings to the investigation drillholes 15
m at level -400 m.
34
Figure 3-12. Repository layout alternative for 5400 tU. First disposal panel is shown in red (Kirkkomäki 2013). The disposal facility consists mainly of disposition tunnels, which, as discussed earlier, are constructed gradually, as required, during its operation.
The construction of the disposal facility will start by enlarging the ONKALO with the rooms that are required for handling and emplacing the spent fuel canisters (additional shafts, storage rooms, deposition tunnels) and also additional ventilation. Figure 3-13 illustrates the sequenced construction of the underground openings at 10 years intervals, from the start of the disposal programme. Deposition tunnels will be excavated firstly in the northern and northeastern areas of the facility, then in a western direction and finally to the northwestern side from the technical rooms. The new proposed power plant unit OL4 will require the disposal facility to be enlarged to the eastern part of Olkiluoto Island, where potentially suitable bedrock blocks are believed to be available.
According to this plan, the maximum volume of open tunnels at any one time is 787 000 m3, with the majority of the volume located in the uncontrolled area. The maximum volumes of open tunnels at any one time during the operation within the controlled areas is 286 000 m3 and 625 000 m3 in the uncontrolled areas, i.e. these two maxima are not synchronous.
35
Figure 3-13. Underground facilities: a) at the beginning of the disposal programme, b)-i) at 10 year intervals during the disposal programme and j) when disposal of all the spent fuel has been carried out (Kirkkomäki 2013).
36
3.5 Preparation for backfill and closure
The design of the backfill and the methods employed for its emplacement and for the closure of rooms (a termed applied to all underground openings) are determined from the requirements imposed by long-term safety and also operational safety (some of which are included as part of the RSC process, McEwen et al. 2012); and the rooms need to be prepared accordingly to meet the demands of such designs. These requirements are thus carried through to influence the designs and the working instructions. The disposal facility will be constructed in several stages, and during its operation there will be different phases of disposal activities taking place in different locations. There will be areas where deposition tunnels that have already sealed, deposition tunnels in which disposal is taking place and deposition tunnels that are either being investigated or are under construction.
Having determined the preferred layout for a panel etc, there will be a sequence of predefined actions to ensure that all the underground openings are investigated, designed and constructed in a proper and adequate manner (such a layout design is only preliminary in nature, as it may change as construction proceeds – see the RSC 2012 report, McEwen et al. 2012). There are predefined points, so called "hold points", in this investigation-design-construction process where certain checks and approvals need to have been carried out before any work can continue to the next step. These will also form part of the quality acceptance process.
The various stages towards the eventual emplacement of the spent fuel which are likely to influence the location, orientation and design of underground opening are summarised below. Additional information regarding some of these stages is provided in other reports; for example the RSC system has many couplings with the design and construction of the deposition tunnels, as described in the RSC 2012 report (McEwen et al. 2012). The underground openings that must be sealed or backfilled are the shafts, tunnels, deposition holes and the drill holes. Reference methods for constructing all these underground openings are described in Chapter 5. In the following Sections (3.5.1. …4.5.6.) the basic assumption is that the underground openings have been constructed, and the emphasis here is to illustrate the critical issues which the underground openings must fulfil to ensure the optimal behaviour of the technical barriers.
Posiva will carry out demonstrations on the installation of buffer, backfill and plugs before any emplacement of spent fuel takes place. These demonstrations will allow the various processes and techniques to be tested in situ and at true scale, which will in turn allow the necessary working practices and schedules to be optimised.
3.5.1 Rock Suitability Classification (RSC) system
This Section summarises the application of the RSC system and its practical implementation as part of the repository construction process; its efficient implementation will necessitate its seamless integration with design, construction and research activities.
Repository stage The main function to take place at the repository stage is the layout design of the entire repository. The RSC assessment carried out at this stage aims to determine the rock
37
volumes that fulfil the repository-scale rock suitability criteria and are, thus, suitable for hosting the repository panels for deposition tunnels.
To do this, the RSC team uses the site-scale models (Aaltonen et al. 2010) and other available site investigation data to determine which of the known features of the Olkiluoto bedrock do not meet the requirements set by the target properties (see RSC 2012, McEwen et al. 2012) and must be classified as LDFs. The LDFs and their respect volumes, also defined by the RSC team, must be avoided in the layout design of the repository panels to ensure the long-term safety of the repository, as stated by the repository-scale rock suitability criteria.
The current understanding of the LDFs, their properties and their respect volumes is described in the LDF report (Pere et al. 2012) and also summarised in McEwen et al. 2012. The layout design team has produced the latest repository layout and estimation of the repository utilisation ratio according to these constraints.
As new information becomes available from future site investigations and investigations carried out during the repository construction, the LDFs will be evaluated and updated, if necessary. This will lead to a re-evaluation and possibly an updating of the repository layout by the layout design team.
Panel stage The panel stage comprises the construction of a central tunnel (or two parallel central tunnels) for a repository panel and the detailed design of the panel layout. The aim of the RSC assessments carried out at the panel stage is to verify the suitability of the selected rock volume for hosting a repository panel and to produce a preliminary estimate of the panel’s degree of utilisation, as well as to provide information for the detailed design of the panel layout. During the panel stage, the host rock suitability will be assessed twice: firstly after the drilling of a pilot hole for the panel central tunnel and secondly after the excavation of the central tunnel. Interaction between design, construction, investigations and rock suitability assessment activities during the panel stage is illustrated by the flow chart given in Figure 3-14.
38
Figure 3-14. Interaction between design, construction, investigations and rock suitability assessment activities in repository design. Tunnel stage The tunnel stage comprises the construction of deposition tunnels within a repository panel and culminates in selecting locations for deposition holes in the tunnels. The aim of the RSC assessments carried out at this stage is to verify, firstly, the overall suitability of the selected tunnel locations, i.e. to verify the fulfilment of the target properties and the repository and tunnel-scale criteria. Secondly, the aim is to apply the hole-scale criteria in order to classify the rock volume below the tunnels and to divide the tunnels into sections that are possibly suitable or possibly not suitable for locating deposition holes. In addition, an estimate of the degree of utilisation for each tunnel will be produced. The suitability assessment will be carried out twice during the tunnel stage. In the same way as during the panel stage, the first, preliminary, suitability assessment will be carried out after the drilling of pilot holes, one within each planned deposition tunnel profile, and the second after excavation of the deposition tunnels. Interaction between design, construction, investigations and rock suitability assessment activities during the tunnel stage is illustrated by the flow chart given in Figure 3-14.
Hole stage The hole stage comprises the construction of the deposition holes in the deposition tunnel and culminates in the final acceptance (or rejection) of the constructed holes for use. Hence, the aim of the RSC assessments carried out at this stage is to verify, firstly, the suitability of the planned deposition hole locations and, secondly, to evaluate which
39
of the constructed holes fulfil the criteria and can be accepted for deposition. Interaction between design, construction, investigations and rock suitability assessment activities during the hole stage is illustrated by the flow chart given in Figure 3-14.
3.5.2 Construction of the shafts
When constructing the shafts one has to be assured that the company conducting the raise boring is sufficiently experienced to ensure that the bedrock is not damaged unnecessarily. Before the reaming of the shaft can be carried out the bedrock around it has to be sealed to prevent uncontrolled inflows of groundwater to the disposal facility.
3.5.3 Construction of the tunnels
The method for tunnelling has to be chosen so that the intact rock is not damaged unnecessarily. D&B is chosen as the reference method, but the way it is employed has to be controlled and monitored, so that the requirements for tunnel walls, roofs and floors are met. The smoothness of tunnel floors is important, most particularly in the deposition tunnels, for several reasons. Deposition holes cannot be bored if the floor level changes considerably over short distances, also, the haulage of various disposal machines is difficult over uneven surface. Emplacing the tunnel seal at the mouth of the tunnel will also be more difficult and would require more bentonite pellets to be used to seal between the bentonite blocks and the tunnel walls, thus lowering the density of the seal.
There are joint studies taking place between Posiva and SKB to find the best methods of producing level tunnel floors; these include developing methods for levelling the floor after blasting and also better controlling the blasting so that the floor is less uneven. In Finland studies are taking place on the use of a road header to smooth the tunnel floor after blasting as part of a normal tunnel excavation process. SKB is studying a method where a horizontal fracture is wire sawed in the face of a tunnel where the tunnel floor is designed to be located – this is carried out in advance of blasting, is expected to result in a more even floor and could the method eventually employed by Posiva.
There remain questions related to the Excavation Damage Zone (EDZ), which is formed around the tunnel profile immediately behind the surface of the tunnel and is seen as a potential long-term safety problem. It is thought possible that the EDZ could provide a continuous, more transmissive, water-bearing pathway, parallel to any underground opening, which could thus provide a preferential flow path for radionuclides were a canister and buffer to fail. Over the years 2006 ... 2012 Posiva has carried out a series of investigations concerning the EDZ in the ONKALO. This work involved studies on the blasting-induced EDZ, potential characterisation methods, and the significance of the EDZ in terms of long-term safety and its hydrogeological characteristics (Mellanen et al. 2009, Mustonen et al. 2010). Further EDZ studies are continuing in which the hydrogeological features of the EDZ are being investigated; and the results of these latest investigations should be available in 2013. The evidence to date, however, suggests that the EDZ does not form a continuous pathway but rather consists of a series of fractures, some of which may be connected, but many which are isolated.
Another important issue when discussing deposition tunnels is rock support. The use of both shotcrete and rock bolts is permitted in the central tunnels to stabilise any loose rock. In deposition tunnels shotcrete is not allowed, as its use endangers the functionality of the bentonite, both in the buffer and in the backfill. Deposition tunnels
40
will be supported instead by using rock bolts and mesh. There may be constrains on the use of rock bolts in the area of a plug, but both the investigations and the long-term evaluations of the such issues are still under investigation.
3.5.4 Construction of deposition holes
There are significant requirements for deposition holes from both the standpoints of rock suitability and also their dimensions. The RSC system sets criteria for defining where a deposition hole can be located and also regarding the characteristics of the hole itself. For example, criteria related to the presence of grouting material in a fracture within a deposition hole have been introduced into the RSC system, as this is considered to indicate a fracture with a potential for higher flow rates and to be of significance with regard to solute transport. The rock around the hole must thus be tight enough to prevent an unacceptable level of water inflow - if the flow were too high it could endanger the functionality of the buffer. As mentioned above, the volumetric criteria, i.e. criteria related to tunnel height, straightness, etc., also require adequate working methods and machinery. The roundness, length and straightness of the deposition hole plays an important role in the functionality of the buffer and, if the requirements of the hole are not met, the hole is rejected. There are, however, processes in the rock that can cause spalling, for example, regardless of how exactly the requirements are met during the boring of the hole. These natural events and their potential impacts have still to be determined, including what magnitude of impact might be acceptable, and a greater understanding of such processes, the spalling behaviour in particular, should become available when the results of the POSE experiments are published (Johansson 2013, Valli 2013).
3.5.5 Construction of the plug chamber
No plug chambers have been constructed in the ONKALO to date, but Posiva has participated in SKB’s plug projects in the Äspö HRL and is planning to develop a special demonstration tunnel where a plug will be constructed. It is proposed to construct the plug chamfer using wire sawing (Figure 3-15). The location in the tunnel where the plug is going to be constructed is determined by the positions of FPIs (Full Perimeter Intersection) fractures, as the rock has to be tight, with no structures that could provide transmissive pathways adjacent to the plug. The use of normal rock support methods (rockbolts, net, etc.) is not allowed in the chamfer area, because no artificial holes are allowed, so as to ensure the water-tightness of the plug construction. Therefore, as part of Posiva's plug project it is necessary to develop work safety procedures and working methods to meet these demands. The final requirements and the plans for making both the plug chamfer and the plug will be agreed on after the results from these experiments have been evaluated.
41
Figure 3-15. Schematic picture of the plug and its location in the deposition tunnel (Posiva 2012l).
Swelling pressure
Concrete beams Filter layer Watertight seal
Swelling pressure
Concrete beams
Filter layer Watertight seal
4400
Deposition tunnel Central tunnel
Central tunnel Deposition tunnel
42
The location for the plug is the first thing that has to be defined after the excavation of the deposition tunnel (as it determines the potential section of the tunnel for the disposal of spent fuel canisters), although it is the last operation that is carried out in the disposal cycle of the tunnel. When the location for the plug has been determined, the process of defining the locations for the waste canisters can commence, as is discussed in RSC 2012 (McEwen et al. 2012). Posiva is currently participating in SKB's plug project, whose aim is to construct a full-scale plug in the Äspö URL. Not only is the construction of the plug being studied but also the process of how to select the most appropriate place in the tunnel for locating the plug. Wire sawing would appear to be the most promising technique for producing a tunnel wall to meet the requirements of the plug. Regardless of the technique that is eventually employed, before constructing the plug the only thing needed from the Underground Openings Line process is to produce a location for it, its subsequent construction is described in the Closure Line report.
3.5.6 Operations before buffer, backfill and closure processes
Deposition tunnels As each deposition tunnel, deposition hole and plug chamfer is constructed, the process moves from the Underground Openings Line to the initial stage of the next Line. Previously, it had been thought that at the end of the construction phase and before the installation of the buffer and backfill the deposition tunnel would be empty and there would be bare rock surfaces. More recently, when these processes have been re-examined, it would appear that there is a need for infrastructure in the tunnel during the emplacement of the waste canisters.
The waste canisters are placed in deposition holes, in which the bentonite buffer has already been installed. The production of the bentonite blocks and their installation are described in the Buffer Production Line report (Posiva 2012k). After the canister and the upper bentonite blocks have been placed in the hole, the hole is sealed with an air and water-tight cover. Backfilling of the deposition tunnel is carried out at intervals after four deposition holes have been completed. The infrastructure of the tunnel (electrical power, ventilation, water lines, rock support net, installation plate in tunnel floor and temporary tunnel levelling material) is removed and bentonite is installed. A levelling layer of bentonite pellets is emplaced on the floor of the tunnel with bentonite bocks being installed on top. Bentonite pellets are injected between the blocks and the tunnel walls and roof to limit the extent of groundwater inflow (Posiva 2012l).
There can be places in the tunnel where the rock support net is not removed, for reasons of operational safety, for example if the tunnel intersects a fracture zone. In these locations there is a potential risk of tunnel collapse if the supporting net were removed before the backfill had been emplaced. In those sections of the tunnel where the net has been removed staff are not allowed to work without a shelter. The rock support net is therefore removed mechanically and any necessary scaling of the tunnel walls and roof is carried out mechanically before the backfill in emplaced.
The final action in the development of a deposition tunnel is the installation of the plug, which is described in the Closure Production Line report (Posiva 2012 m). The main purpose of the plug is to hold the backfill in the tunnel in place during the operational phase before the whole repository is closed.
43
Other facilities The other facilities to be sealed are the central tunnels, the technical areas, the access tunnel, the shafts and artificial holes. The methods for sealing these underground rooms are described in the Closure Production Line report (Posiva 2012m) and the sealing of the artificial holes is described in Karvonen et al. (2012).
The same general principles regarding their backfilling, sealing and closure apply to these facilities as those described for the deposition tunnels. In a similar manner, all infrastructures have to be removed, and scaling has to take place before closure is possible.
The first area to be sealed in the disposal facility will be the first panel area. This is expected to take place approximately 20 years from the start of disposal, so that technical development in machinery, working procedures and materials will affect the final design.
3.6 Documentation of the initial state condition
Before the operational phase, documentation and procedures will have been agreed with the regulatory authorities. All construction works and investigations will produce extensive documentation (the results of the investigations, inspection cards, survey records, etc), which are stored in Posiva's archives. A set of procedures will have been followed in order to complete the construction process. Based on the records that will have been kept, the deposition tunnels and holes will need to be verified that they fulfil the requirements for the repository. These different phases of work are understood as being different processes, e.g. a process, such as the construction of a deposition tunnel, will result in drawings, measurements, records of the construction, etc. that will result in a ‘product’ that will act as the ‘starting point’ and provide the data for the subsequent process – which in this case is the construction of the first deposition hole. This material will also act as verifying documentation for the regulatory authorities.
44
45
4 THE REFERENCE DESIGN AT OLKILUOTO AND ITS CONFORMITY WITH THE DESIGN PREMISES
The reference design for the disposal facility is presented in the Design of the Disposal Facility 2012 report (Saanio et al. 2012), which is a so-called living document, meaning that it will be updated every three years. It contains the reference layout for both the buildings above ground and the underground facilities. The implementation of disposal, as a whole, has to be planned with due regard to safety. The planning needs to take account of the decrease of the activity of spent fuel during interim storage and the utilisation of the best available technology and scientific knowledge. However, the implementation of disposal should not be unnecessarily delayed.
Subsequent to the selection of a disposal site, implementation of spent fuel disposal includes the following phases:
construction and operation of an underground research facility and other necessary research, development and planning work
construction of the encapsulation plant and the underground disposal facility
encapsulation of spent fuel elements and transfer of waste canisters into their deposition positions
closure of emplacement rooms and other underground rooms
post-closure monitoring, if required
These phases, which can be, where necessary, proceed in parallel, should be scheduled and implemented with due regard to long-term safety. In doing so, the following aspects, among others, are considered:
the reduction of the activity and heat generation in waste prior to disposal
the introduction of the best available technique or a technique that is becoming available
the acquisition of adequate experimental knowledge of the disposal site and other factors affecting long-term safety
the potential surveillance actions related to ensuring the long-term safety or to non-proliferation of nuclear materials
the need for preserving the retrievability of the disposed of waste canisters
the aim of preserving the natural features of the host rock and other favourable conditions in the repository
the aim of limiting the hazards and other burdens to future generations due to long-term storage of waste
In this chapter the requirements from the VAHA database are introduced. Any requirements in the tables below that are marked 'RSC' are related to the rock suitability
46
criteria, and are explained in more detail in the RSC report (McEwen et al. 2012). (RSC-I refers to RSC-I criteria (the earlier criteria, see Hellä et al. 2009; RSC-II refers to RSC-II criteria, as presented in the more recent RSC report, McEwen et al. 2012).
Similarly, those marked 'PLUG' in the following tables are related to Posiva's plug designs and the basis for the requirements is explained in Posiva 2012l. It should be noted, that these are the current requirements at the time of writing this report and further demonstration and investigation could result in new information which could require some requirements to be changed.
In the requirements tables the ID refers to Posiva's identification numbers and these numbers are also used in the text when referring to the requirements.
4.1 Design requirements
Level 4 requirements are divided into groups based on specific components or features of the disposal facility, as listed in Table 4-1, where definitions are provided. Table 4-1. Requirements related to definitions.
ID Level 4 - Design Requirements - Host Rock Note
L4-ROC-1 1 DEFINITIONS L4-ROC-2 Access routes in this context means the access tunnel and shafts
including, personnel shaft, canister shaft and ventilation shafts.
L4-ROC-53 All subsurface rooms in this context means the access routes, technical rooms, central tunnels, deposition tunnels, deposition holes and demonstration tunnels.
L4-ROC-3 Layout determining features (LDFs) are large deformation zones that form the main groundwater flow routes or that can transmit movements of earthquakes large enough to induce canister-breaking secondary displacements, and are thus of significance for long-term safety.
Although the Level 4 requirements do not provide exact values to guide the design, they do describe the issues that need to be controlled with more detailed requirements at Level 5. Different underground openings have different roles, which mean that there can be common requirements for all openings and, in addition, special needs for certain rooms. In Table 4-2, the common requirements for all rooms are shown, whereas in the following tables (Table 4-3, Table 4-4, Table 4-5 and Table 4-6) the requirements for different types of rooms are given.
4.1.1 Common design requirements for all underground rooms
Common requirements apply everywhere underground. There is already a link to design, namely LDFs, which divide the bedrock into blocks that are potentially usable for disposal purposes The RSC system has defined the LDFs and the rock volumes that are considered suitable for the repository. In the layout design, these constrains are taken into account in the design. LDFs are shown in Figure 3-12 with an example layout.
47
Table 4-2. Design requirements for sub-surface rooms.
ID Level 4 - Design Requirements - Host Rock Note L4-ROC-39 2 PERFORMANCE L4-ROC-40 2.1 All sub-surface rooms L4-ROC-41 The layout and dimensions of the repository shall be designed
and the repository shall be constructed in such a way that thermally and mechanically induced damage to the host rock is kept sufficiently low.
RSC-I
L4-ROC-42 Intersections with the LDFs and their respect volumes shall be avoided as far as possible when locating any sub-surface rooms.
RSC_II
L4-ROC-43 When designing the underground openings, intersection with existing drillholes (except for pilot holes) should be avoided by applying a respect distance to such holes. Deposition tunnels must not be intersected by existing drillholes connecting them to the surface or LDFs.
L4-ROC-44 Use of foreign materials in underground openings shall be controlled and regulated.
L4-ROC-45 Total inflow to the open sub-surface rooms shall be limited.
L4-ROC-46 The excavation/boring shall be carried out in a controlled way to limit the EDZ of the walls of tunnels and shafts and floor of the tunnels, in particular, to limit the formation of connected flow pathways along the tunnel length.
RSC-I
4.1.2 Design requirements for access routes
There are only two requirements (Table 4-3) specific to the access routes, both of which have already been taken into account when constructing the ONKALO. The entrance to the ONKALO lies in an area of higher topography in the middle of Olkiluoto Island. No deposition tunnels are planned to be located below the ONKALO access tunnel nor in the immediate vicinity of the shafts.
Table 4-3. Design requirements for access routes.
ID Level 4 - Design Requirements - Host Rock NoteL4-ROC-48 2.2 Access routes L4-ROC-49 The entrances of the access routes should be located at the same
level to avoid groundwater flow caused by head differences.
L4-ROC-50 Construction of access routes in such a way that they would be located above or near the potential location of the deposition tunnels should be avoided.
48
4.1.3 Design requirements for deposition tunnels
The Level 4 requirements for the deposition tunnel refer to the rock suitability criteria (Table 4-4), which are presented in RSC 2012 report (McEwen et al. 2012). Table 4-4. Design requirements for deposition tunnels.
ID Level 4 - Design Requirements - Host Rock Note L4-ROC-7 2.3 Deposition tunnels L4-ROC-8 Intersections with the LDFs and their respect volumes shall be
avoided when locating the deposition tunnels. RSC-I
L4-ROC-9 Inflow to deposition tunnels shall be limited to ensure the installation of the backfill, and to limit piping and erosion.
RSC-I
4.1.4 Design requirements for deposition holes
The requirements for the deposition hole are based on three rock suitability criteria, which take into account the functionality of the engineered barriers. A more detailed basis for the requirements is presented in both RSC reports (Hellä et al 2009; McEwen et al. 2012) and at Level 5 with reference to deposition hole lengths.
Table 4-5. Design requirements for deposition holes.
ID Level 4 - Design Requirements - Host Rock Note L4-ROC-12 2.4 Deposition holes L4-ROC-13 Inflow to deposition holes shall be limited to provide
favourable conditions for the EBS and radionuclide retention. RSC-I
L4-ROC-14 Deposition holes shall not intersect the respect volumes of hydrogeological zones.
RSC-I
L4-ROC-15 Fractures that may undergo shear movements with potential to break the canister are not allowed to intersect the canister.
RSC-I
L4-ROC-16 Deposition holes shall not intersect the respect volumes of brittle deformation zones.
RSC-I
L4-ROC-17 Deposition holes should be straight enough to allow installation of the buffer and the canister and to ensure sufficient density of the buffer.
L4-ROC-18 The dimensions and the quality of wall and bottom of each deposition hole shall allow installation of the buffer and the canister in a planned way to ensure sufficient density of the buffer.
L4-ROC-19 Deposition holes shall not intersect the respect volumes of the LDFs.
L4-ROC-20 Taking into account the thermal properties of the host rock and the heat generation of the waste canisters, the minimum spacing between deposition tunnels and deposition holes should be defined such that no high temperatures that could cause damage to the EBS are reached.
49
4.1.5 Design requirements for demonstration tunnels
Posiva has excavated an area known as a demonstration area at the same depth as and close to the potential disposal area (Figure 5-1). At present, it consists of a central tunnel, two demonstration tunnels and four demonstration holes. The current purpose of this area is to produce tunnels with the same dimensions and requirements as future deposition tunnels. Later these tunnels will act as testing and demonstration facilities for future needs, such as machinery development. The requirements that have been met are almost the same as will apply to deposition tunnels and holes, but with a few exceptions with regard to some Level 5 requirements. One example of these relates to the requirements for a plug, because demonstration tunnels will not contain nuclear material, and therefore there is no need to seal them like deposition tunnels.
Table 4-6. Design requirements for demonstration tunnels.
ID Level 4 - Design Requirements - Host Rock NoteL4-ROC-21 2.5 Demonstration tunnels L4-ROC-22 The requirements set for the deposition tunnels and deposition
holes shall apply for demonstration tunnels, however some exceptions are allowed as defined at level 5.
4.2 Design specifications for underground openings
In a similar manner to Level 4, Level 5 requirements also start with definitions. Only one definition is required (Table 4-7). Table 4-7. Definition of the level 5 requirements.
ID Level 5 - Design Specifications - Host Rock Note L5-ROC-1 1 Definitions L5-ROC-2 The extent of a fracture is defined as the diameter of a circular
fracture that has the same area as the fracture in question. The limiting extent is set equal to 150 m. The estimation of the fracture extent shall be based on conservative interpretation of the observations and measurements.
RSC-I
4.2.1 Design specifications for all underground openings
When designing or excavating any underground room these requirements apply (Table 4-8.). The first two are to limit the connections from the repository to the surface environment by avoiding any potentially connected network of investigation and grouting holes in the bedrock. The following five requirements are to ensure that grouting does not endanger the performance of the bentonite in the disposal facility.
Posiva has developed low-pH and colloidal silica grout for use in the ONKALO and their development is still proceeding. Previously, it was thought that only colloidal silica would be used at disposal depths, but experience has shown that the there is also a
50
need for the low-pH cements. During the operational phase of the repository there is a need to penetrate wider, water-conductive fracture zones. Colloidal silica alone is insufficient for grouting such zones, because of its small particle size and low strength; so that low-pH cement based grouts need to be applied in addition to colloidal silica.
Inflow into the tunnels is kept at a minimum in three different ways. Firstly, by following the RSC system to ensure that the excavated rooms are optimised and placed in the less transmissive parts of the rock mass. Secondly, by a well-designed programme of pre-grouting. And thirdly, by also optimising the required open space during the repository operation. Minimising groundwater inflows also limits the mixing of different types of groundwater.
Table 4-8. Design specifications for demonstration tunnels.
ID Level 5 - Design Specifications - Host Rock Note L5-ROC-9 2 Performance
L5-ROC-12 2.1 Sub-surface facilities L5-ROC-13 2.2 All sub-surface rooms L5-ROC-14 Drill holes are not allowed to intersect any excavated rooms
and a respect distance between excavated rooms and drill holes shall be left. The respect distance is defined to be equal to 11 m + 0.0125 x the drill hole length at the point of the nearest distance of excavated rooms. (The distance requirement does not apply for the starting point of drilling.)
RSC-1
L5-ROC-15 Systematic grouting fans or other drill-hole network from the repository level to the surface shall not be used.
L5-ROC-16 Low-pH grouts shall be used as primary grouting material in any rock openings below 300 m depth.
L5-ROC-17 At the repository level, grouting shall be done using primarily non-cementitious grouts. However, low-pH cementitious grouts are allowed in places with high leakage where sufficient sealing cannot be reached by using non-cementitious grouts.
L5-ROC-18 Inflow to open sub-surface rooms shall be controlled according to ONK-005466 (ONKALOn turvallisuuskriittiset toiminnot - Vuotovesien hallinta) (in Finnish).
L5-ROC-19 Chemical composition of groundwater at the repository level must be within the limits set by the target properties.
6< pH<11 Cl-<2 M Total charge equivalent of cations, Σq[Mq+]*, > 4E-3 M.
[Mq+] = molar concentration of cations, q = charge number of ion
RSC-I
L5-ROC-79 Groundwater salinity shall be controlled according to ONK-005466.
51
4.2.2 Design specifications for shafts
The existing shafts were constructed using the raise boring technique. However, there is also an option to construct future shafts using D&B, e.g. in the situation of a blind shaft (a shaft which is connect to tunnels only at one end) – there is an option to make the lowest part of the canister shaft such a blind shaft. The reason for preferring raise boring is that it results in a smaller EDZ than when D&B is used. The Level 5 requirements list the necessary dimensions for the different kinds of shafts required for the disposal facility (Table 4-9).
Table 4-9. Design specifications for shafts.
ID Level 5 - Design Specifications - Host Rock Note L5-ROC-20 2.1.2 Shafts L5-ROC-21 Raise boring shall be the preferred method for constructing
shafts as it limits the disturbances and the excavation damage on the surrounding rock.
L5-ROC-22 The maximum EDZ around the shafts constructed by drill and blast method shall be according to InfraRYL 2010, 17640 Shafts, class 2.
L5-ROC-27 The requirement for the excavation accuracy with drill and blast method: ±0 mm ... ...+400mm
L5-ROC-28 The raise boring diameter of the personnel shaft is 4.5 m. L5-ROC-29 The raise boring diameter of the canister shaft is 5.5 m. L5-ROC-30 The raise boring diameter of the air shafts is 3.5 m.
4.2.3 Design specifications for access tunnel, technical rooms and central tunnels
The access tunnel (Figure 3-1) and some of the technical rooms (Figure 3-9) have already been constructed as part of the ONKALO, before the construction of the repository has commenced. The requirements, as listed in Tables 4-10 and 4-11 were applied as design criteria. The construction of central tunnels has only commenced locally, such as in the demonstration area of the ONKALO, but the requirements listed in Table 4-12 have been applied.
The dimensions of the tunnels are optimised to be as small as possible, whilst still allowing all the necessary machinery to pass through along them. The greatest volume of traffic in the access tunnel and central tunnels will be associated with the haulage of excavated rock to the surface. It is proposed that the technical rooms will eventually be used for storage and parking, for association with shaft constructions, for emergency rooms and as a pumping station. Plans for these are presented in Design of the Disposal Facility 2012 (Saanio et al. 2013).
The thickness of the EDZ and therefore the amount of explosives used in one blasting round is limited in the access tunnel and technical areas, in order to limit the formation of potential flow and transport paths, although no spent fuel will be present in these rooms. The excavation of the access tunnel and the other tunnels in the ONKALO have been used for both constructional and investigational purposes and helped in developing methods to control the EDZ during D&B operations.
52
Table 4-10. Design requirements for the access tunnel.
ID Level 5 - Design Specifications - Host Rock Note L5-ROC-32 2.1.3 Access tunnel L5-ROC-34 The design values for the access tunnel (straight sections)
width 5500 mm height (distance between the lowest and highest
point) 6950 mm and cross-sectional area 34.62 m2.
L5-ROC-35 To limit the EDZ, the requirement for blast design for the access tunnel from ch. 4340 onwards:
Column charge at roofs and walls (excluding the tunnel end walls): class 2 of InfraRYL 2010 (Finnish construction code)
Column charge at tunnel floors: class 3 of InfraRYL 2010
L5-ROC-36 The requirement for the excavation accuracy from ch. 4340 onwards: - Roof and walls: ±0 mm...+400 mm - Floor: ±0 mm...+600 mm
Table 4-11. Design requirements for technical rooms.
ID Level 5 - Design Specifications - Host Rock Note L5-ROC-37 2.1.4 Technical rooms L5-ROC-38 The design values for the technical rooms:
width 5500 mm height (distance between the lowest and highest
point) 6650 mm and cross-sectional area 33.79 m2.
These values define the minimum dimensions for the technical rooms.
L5-ROC-40 To limit the EDZ, the requirement for blast design for the technical rooms:
Column charge at roofs and walls (excluding the tunnel end walls): class 2 of InfraRYL 2010
Column charge at tunnel floors: class 3 of InfraRYL 2010
L5-ROC-41 The requirement for the excavation accuracy: Roof and walls: ±0 mm...+400 mm Floor: ±0 mm...+600 mm
53
Table 4-12. Design requirements for central tunnels.
ID Level 5 - Design Specifications - Host Rock Note L5-ROC-42 2.1.5 Central tunnels L5-ROC-43 The design values for the central tunnels (straight sections)
width 6400 mm height (distance between the lowest and highest
point) 7850 mm and cross-sectional area 45.67 m2.
L5-ROC-44 To limit the EDZ, the requirement for blast design for the central tunnels:
Column charge at roofs and walls (excluding the tunnel end walls): class 2 of InfraRYL 2010
Column charge at tunnel floors: class 3 of InfraRYL 2010
L5-ROC-45 The requirement for the excavation accuracy: Roof and walls: ±0 mm...+400 mm Floor: ±0 mm...+600 mm
4.2.4 Design requirements for deposition tunnels
Design requirements for deposition tunnels are described in Table 4-13. The first four of these requirements concern grouting issues and the use of normal cementitious materials is not allowed in deposition tunnels to ensure the performance of the bentonite. Design dimensions are specified for the tunnel (width, height, tunnel separation, etc) which are optimised so as to ensure that tunnels are as small as possible, in order to control the extent of open tunnel face and to minimize the need for backfill.
Specifications are also defined concerning the excavation tolerance, which in turn is linked to the explosives allowed. The need to control the blasting is for two reasons, firstly to control the extent of the EDZ and secondly to ensure that the tunnel surfaces are smooth enough to allow high quality backfilling, in particular that the density requirements of the backfill can be met.
The last group of requirements are related to the plug (Posiva 2012l). A plug is to be installed at the beginning of every deposition tunnel and to ensure its performance the bedrock surrounding the plug must meet these requirements. Firstly, the plug forms a water tight barrier to prevent water flowing from the deposition tunnel to the central tunnel. The purpose of the plug is also to keep the backfill material in the tunnel during the operational time when the central tunnel is open.
54
Table 4-13. Design requirements for deposition tunnels.
ID Level 5 – Design Specifications – Host Rock Note L5-ROC-46 2.1.6 Deposition tunnels L5-ROC-47 Only non-cementitious grouts are allowed to be used for
grouting in deposition tunnels.
L5-ROC-48 Pre-grouting fans must be inside the tunnel profile. L5-ROC-49 Grouting of rock bolts:
Low-pH grouts shall be used.
L5-ROC-50 The distance between the plug and the centre of the first deposition hole shall be at least 5 m in order to limit solute transport.
L5-ROC-51 Enough distance shall be left between the starting point of the deposition tunnels and the centre of the first deposition hole in order to avoid thermally induced spalling in the central tunnels.
L5-ROC-52 The design values for the deposition tunnels containing spent fuel from LO1-2 are: cross-sectional area 12.60 m2, height 4000 mm and width 3500 m. The design values for the deposition tunnels containing spent fuel from OL1-2 are: cross-sectional area 14.00 m2, height 4400 mm and width 3500 mm. The design values for the deposition tunnels containing spent fuel from OL3-4 are: cross-sectional area 14.00 m2, height 4400 mm and width 3500 mm.
L5-ROC-53 Shotcreting is not allowed in deposition tunnels. L5-ROC-54 The maximum allowed local (pointwise or a fracture related)
inflow to a deposition tunnel during backfill installation is 0.25 l/min.
RSC-I
L5-ROC-55 The minimum distance between the centre lines of two adjacent deposition tunnels is 25 m.
L5-ROC-56 The requirement for the excavation accuracy (valid for 14-15 m2 cross section area):
Walls and roofs: ±0 mm…+300 mm Floor; ±0 mm...+400 mm.
L5-ROC-57 To limit the EDZ, the following requirements apply: 1) Blast Design: Values of class 2 of InfraRYL 2010 shall apply for the column charge at the whole excavation profile (walls (excluding tunnel end walls), roofs and floors) 2) Drill and Blast working practices: Practices in favour of diminishing EDZ as specified in the document PRJ-002863 (Demotunnelien louhinta –menetelmävaatimukset – EDZ) shall be applied
L5-ROC-58 EDZ shall not be continuous along the plug length. PLUG
55
ID Level 5 – Design Specifications – Host Rock Note L5-ROC-59 The plug location shall not be intersected by the respect
volumes of hydrogeological zones. PLUG
L5-ROC-60 The plug location shall not be intersected by the respect volumes of brittle deformation zones.
PLUG
L5-ROC-80 Hydraulically conductive fractures shall not intersect the entire length of the plug.
PLUG
4.2.5 Design requirements for deposition holes
Deposition holes are bored below the tunnel floor and their design requirements are given in Table 4-14. The reference method for their construction is reaming in order to minimize the extent of the EDZ in the walls of the deposition holes.
One set of the requirements is related to fractures intersecting the deposition hole and the possible rates of inflow and the presence of grouting material in the fracture. For a detailed discussion of these requirements see McEwen et al. (2012).
The dimensional requirements relate to the distances between holes and the hole dimension, together with their tolerances. These vary depending on the type of spent fuel to be emplaced in the deposition holes, because the lengths of the spent fuel rods vary. The requirements for the base of the hole are set to ensure that the buffer can be installed properly in the hole.
There is one requirement related to the chamfer at the top of the deposition hole, in order that the waste canister can be emplaced. To date no such chamfers have been constructed in test demonstration holes.
Table 4-14. Design requirements for deposition holes.
ID Level 5 - Design Specifications - Host Rock Note L5-ROC-61 2.1.7 Deposition holes
L5-ROC-62 The maximum allowed inflow into a deposition hole is 0.1 l/min.
RSC-I
L5-ROC-82 A fracture that is not allowed to intersect the canister according to L5-ROC-64 is neither allowed to intersect the 0.5 m respect zone above or beneath the canister.
RSC-I
L5-ROC-64 (1) Fractures with extent larger than the limiting extent shall not intersect the canister. (2) If the fracture extent is unknown, the Full Perimeter Inter-section (FPI) criterion shall be applied: a fracture traceable over a full deposition tunnel perimeter shall not intersect the canister. (3) If a fracture intersects the entire deposition hole at the potential location of the canister in it and has such an orientation that it is not possible to observe its continuation in a tunnel or other deposition holes, the deposition hole shall be
RSC-I
56
ID Level 5 - Design Specifications - Host Rock Note discarded.
L5-ROC-65 No fracture in which grouting material has been observed or in which there are indications of grouting material is allowed in a deposition hole.
RSC-I
L5-ROC-66 The nominal distance between the axes of two adjacent deposition holes is 9.1 m (OL1-2). Taking into account the better cooling capacity
at the end of the deposition tunnels, in deposition tunnels with a limited number of
adjacent tunnels, or next to tunnel sections with no deposition holes or
where the distance between deposition holes is longer than the nominal distance
the distance between the axes of two adjacent deposition holes can be reduced based on thermal analysis. The minimum distance between the axes of two adjacent deposition holes shall be in any case 6 m.
L5-ROC-67 The nominal distance between the axes of two adjacent deposition holes is 7.3 m (LO1-2). Taking into account the better cooling capacity
at the end of the deposition tunnels, in deposition tunnels with a limited number of
adjacent tunnels, or next to tunnel sections with no deposition holes or
where the distance between deposition holes is longer than the nominal distance
the distance between the axes of two adjacent deposition holes can be reduced based on thermal analysis. The minimum distance between the axes of two adjacent deposition holes shall be in any case 6 m.
L5-ROC-68 The nominal distance between the axes of two adjacent deposition holes is 10.8 m (OL3-4). Taking into account the better cooling capacity
at the end of the deposition tunnels, in deposition tunnels with a limited number of
adjacent tunnels, or next to tunnel sections with no deposition holes or
where the distance between deposition holes is longer than the nominal distance
the distance between the axes of two adjacent deposition holes can be reduced based on thermal analysis. The minimum distance between the axes of two adjacent deposition holes shall be in any case 6 m.
57
ID Level 5 - Design Specifications - Host Rock Note L5-ROC-69 The design depths of the deposition holes:
Spent fuel from: Design depth OL1-2: 7830 mm LO1-2: 6630 mm OL3-4: 8280 mm The depths (of the deposition hole axis) shall be measured from the lowest allowable level of the tunnel floor specified in the excavation design.
L5-ROC-70 In order to allow the emplacement of the canister, a chamfer is needed at the top part of the deposition holes. The width and height of the chamfer (in mm) is: 0/0 (LO 1-2), 350 / 520 (OL1-2), 635 / 900 (OL3-OL4). The width is measured from the deposition hole wall and the height from the top of the pavement. The shape of the chamfer is defined in “Buffer Production Line 2012”, Posiva 2012-17, Figure 4-3 and Table 4-1 and it allows installation of the buffer and backfill in a way that the requirements of the buffer and backfill density can be met.
L5-ROC-71 The design radius of the deposition hole is 875 mm. Accuracy requirement: -2.5 mm…+25 mm. The radius is measured from the vertical axis through the actual centre of the top of the deposition hole.
L5-ROC-81 The bottom of the deposition hole shall be straight enough to ensure the installation of the buffer and the canister. The overall inclination of the bottom of the deposition hole shall not be more than 1 mm:1750 mm.
L5-ROC-72 Full profile boring method shall be used for constructing deposition holes to minimise the EDZ.
4.2.6 Design requirements for demonstration tunnels
Posiva has constructed two demonstration tunnels in the ONKALO. The requirements are essentially the same as would be applied for actual deposition tunnels, except for the requirements presented in Table 4-15. These tunnels are going to be reserved for testing and demonstration purposes and no spent fuel will be emplaced in the test deposition holes.
58
Table 4-15. Design requirements for demonstration tunnels.
ID Level 5 - Design Specifications - Host Rock Note L5-ROC-73 2.1.8 Demonstration tunnels
L5-ROC-74 The design value for demo tunnel cross-sectional area is 14.46 m2. Demotunnel height is 4.35 m and width 3.5 m.
L5-ROC-75 Requirements on the OL1-2 deposition holes shall be applied for demonstration deposition holes, except that a shorter distance between adjacent the demonstration holes and adjacent demonstration tunnels can be allowed as there will be no thermal load.
L5-ROC-76 Grouting with low pH cementitious grout is allowed on a case-by-case basis in demonstration tunnels.
L5-ROC-77 In demonstration tunnels, bolts shall be grouted primarily with low-pH cementitious grouts. However, other cementitious grouts are allowed in case needed to reach sufficient rock support.
59
5 REFERENCE METHODS
5.1 General basis
The constructions of the disposal facility will employ normal excavation methods, although development has taken place with regard to the design of a new rock bolt for use in the ONKALO and also with regard to silica grouting. Tunnels will be constructed using the drill and blast technique, shafts will be constructed using raise boring and the deposition holes will be constructed by down reaming. Underground openings will be made safe using rock bolts, net or shotcrete, depending on which type of opening is being considered and the inflow to tunnels will be limited by grouting.
Posiva has constructed two demonstration tunnels in the ONKALO at the same depth as is proposed for disposal purposes to demonstrate that it is possible to construct such tunnels and disposition holes (Figure 5-1).
Figure 5.1. The demonstration area in the ONKALO.
The excavation process of the ONKALO followed the flow chart shown in Figure 5-2 and its layout is shown in Figure 5-3. To assist with the design and excavation of the tunnels, probe holes and pilot holes were drilled ahead of the tunnel face, both within the tunnel profile, and the investigations carried out from these pilot holes are discussed in Section 5.3.1. The purpose of the pilot holes was to verify the rock quality ahead of the tunnel, and in particular to locate any water-conducting fracture zones and other rock characteristics that could affect the excavation. Based on the results of these investigations the excavation and grouting design were revised.
60
Excavation designs
Pilot holes
Logging of the hole, logging of the rock core,
flow logging
Probe holes
Water injection tests, flow logging, drilling
observations
Revise of the excavation and grouting designs
Grouting
Excavation
Tunnel mapping after each round (round mapping)
Detailed tunnel mapping after each five rounds (systematic mapping)
Reporting
Synthesis
Rock mass quality drawings
Support design for work safety
Revise of the support design
Figure 5-2. Excavation process during the ONKALO excavations.
As described in Section 3.2.1, geological mapping of the tunnel was performed systematically, typically in 5 m increments, corresponding to the length of one excavation round. The mapping was carried out in two different stages: round and systematic mapping (Engström et al. 2008). Based on the mapping results the rock support design was revised.
In addition to the excavation process shown in Figure 5-2, several types of monitoring, e.g. microseismic, laser scanning of the excavated rooms, visual stress-induced damage monitoring and groundwater leakage monitoring were carried out during the excavations.
61
Figure 5-3. Layout of the ONKALO and the main profile of the access tunnel. The different colours for the tunnel and TU1-5 refer to the five construction contracts.
5.2 Reference methods used in the construction of tunnels
The reference construction methods employed in the construction of the ONKALO and the experience gained during its construction are summarised below and are presented in more detail in the Site Engineering Report (Sacklén et al. 2013).
5.2.1 The ONKALO
The excavation work for tunnel sections has been carried out in sequential contracts by three main contractors, starting with Kalliorakennus Oy, followed by SK-Kaivin Oy and finally Destia Oy. Tunnel sections were divided into five tunnel contracts (TU1 - TU5 in Figure 5-3).
The start of the ONKALO, i.e. the open cut section of the access tunnel, was excavated using D&B. The interval between the contour holes was limited to 400 mm, in order to diminish the thickness of excavation damage zone (EDZ) and the walls were excavated with an inclination of 7:1.
The method used for excavating the ONKALO tunnels (mean inclination 1:10) was also D&B, with scaling being performed after each excavation round. Excavation took place five days a week in three shifts, with approximately 25 m of the tunnel being excavated per week. The work typically proceeded in 5 m long rounds and cement anchor rock bolts made of ribbed steel bars as well as shotcrete were used to support the tunnels.
The excavation involved several stages of work, such as drilling, charging, blasting, ventilation, loading, rock carrying, scaling, rock support and measuring the tunnel dimensions. In addition to these, occasionally pre-grouting was used to seal the tunnel
62
and was carried out if the criterion for rock grouting were exceeded when the probe holes were drilled.
The tunnel drilling was carried out using two jumbos, a Sandvik Axera T11 (Figure 5-4) with three booms and an Atlas Copco Boomer E3 with two booms. All blast holes were percussion drilled. The accuracy of their drilling has been good and the extent of tunnel advance has been the length of blast holes. The required accuracy for the roof and walls was 0…+400 mm and for the floor 0…+600 mm, which was accomplished.
Since September 2005, charging has been carried out with emulsion explosives. The use of bulk explosives other than emulsion was, however, not prohibited and charged explosives were occasionally used, both in addition and also in place of emulsion. The main reasons for using emulsion explosives were increased charging safety and ease of handling. The contour holes of a blasting round were, however, charged using pipe charges, as the emulsion “charge” could easily be broken where the rock was abundantly fractured.
Figure 5-4. Tunnelling jumbo used during the construction of the ONKALO.
63
5.2.2 Grouting techniques and grouting results
The grouting equipment used in the ONKALO is presented in Figure 5-5. This configuration has been specially designed and set up for the ONKALO and consists of:
Mixer (2 Häny HCM 300W, 1450 rpm); Crutcher (2 Häny HRW 350A, 46,5 rpm): Pumps (4 Häny ZMP 812V, max 20 MPa); Datalogger electromagnetic flowmeter EMF FXM200; HIAB-crane.
Figure 5-5. Grouting equipment HÄNY in the ONKALO. Photo: K. Hollmén 2007.
The grouting fan lengths used in the ONKALO have varied between 10-25 m, and they have been drilled with both tunnelling jumbos used at the site. The basic grouting recipes have been based on microfine sulphate resistant Portland cement Ultrafin 16. Coarse grained sulphate-resistant Portland cement, SR-cement, has been used in the hydrogeological zones (HZs). Microsilicaslurry GroutAid has been used to diminish bleeding and superplasticizers (currently Mighty 150) have been used to lower the viscosity of the cement mixes. Nedmaq CaCl2 solution has been used when acceleration of grout hardening was required. Standard cement grout mixes have been used down to a depth of about 300 m. Low-pH cementitious grout and silica sol are considered the most suitable grouts for use at greater depths, in particular below HZ20 (e.g. Bodén & Sievänen 2006)
Basic information about low-pH cementitious materials is provided by Kronlöf (2005) and Vuorinen et al. (2005). Cementitious grouts are designed for use in larger fractures or in fracture zones and colloidal silica in smaller fractures. Development work on silica sols is mainly carried out by Chalmers University of Technology and the testing of colloidal silica has continued in the ONKALO. The silica sol is based on Meyco MP320 and its accelerator is a solution of NaCl.
64
Grouting
The first kilometre of the access tunnel was almost all systematically pre-grouted and the grouting fans and grouts were designed on a case-by-case basis. After tunnel chainage 1000 m (about 100 m depth), the fracture density of the rock and fracture openings decreased and the need for grouting diminished.
Standard cement grouts lead to an unfavourably high pH in leachate (pH 12-13) and mainly low-pH cementitious grouts were used during the penetration of HZ20 and also at greater depths. The low-pH grouts have shown to possess at least as good a performance as so-called standard cementitious grouts.
Occasionally, poor hardening of cementitious materials and poor gelling of colloidal silica has occurred in the ONKALO. The most recent grouting experience and studies (Axelsson et al. 2008) suggest this may be caused either by dilution of the grout due to erosion under a high groundwater gradient before a sufficiently high shear strength is achieved, or due to too short a grouting time. Further studies are currently taking place and no definite conclusions on these matters have yet been drawn.
The grout intake from tunnel chainage 0-4650 m is shown in Figure 5-6. High grout intakes have occurred only locally (e.g. in HZ20A and B between tunnel chainages ~3100-3400 m).
The three shafts have been grouted from the shaft interconnection tunnels, each by having several vertical grouting sections. The grout intake over different 90 m long shaft lengths has varied considerably, from a maximum of 50 m3 to a minimum of 6 m3. Over the depth range 180 m…270 m all the shafts was so dry that grouting was not required in any shaft.
Figure 5-6. Grout intake (L) per a grouting fan in the access tunnel 0-4650 m. HZ19 and HZ20 are hydraulically conductive fracture zones.
65
5.3 Reference methods used in the construction of tunnels in deposition areas
The same construction and investigation methods are to be used in constructing the tunnels in the deposition panels as have been employed in the ONKALO (Section 5.2.1). The working and construction methods are discussed in more detail in Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2.
5.3.1 Investigations during tunnelling work
Pilot holes Construction of the deposition tunnels commences with pilot hole drilling (Figure 5-2). Pilot holes are cored drillholes within the tunnel profile to provide geological data for both research and construction purposes. The purpose of the pilot holes is to confirm, or otherwise, the quality of the rock mass for tunnel construction, in particular to identify water-conductive fractures/fracture zones and provide information that could result in modifications to the existing construction plans (Aalto et al. 2011). From the research point of view the pilot holes will also provided important information (as research will continue during the operational phase of the disposal facility) for the detailed-scale modelling procedure and for initial estimations of usability estimations, i.e. what proportions of potential deposition tunnels are likely to be suitable for hosting deposition holes.
Several different investigation methods are carried out from the pilot holes. Geological logging and rock mechanical studies are performed on the core samples, hydraulic measurements and geophysical logging in the holes themselves.
Logging of the core provides information on lithology, foliation, fracturing, fractured zones, weathering, rock quality, etc. The orientation of the foliation is determined from drillhole images by using Wellcad software. The orientations of fracture planes are determined, when possible, both from the core and from the drillhole images. After the full geological logging has been carried out rock quality is determined using Barton’s Q classification (Barton et al. 1974 and Grimstad & Barton 1993) and Hoek’s GSI classification (Hoek 1994). Also core samples for rock mechanical field tests, which include rock strength and deformation property tests, are selected.
Hydraulic measurements are carried out using the PFL DIFF (Posiva Flow Log, Difference Flow method) which provides the locations of flowing fractures and their transmissivities. Simultaneously, the electric conductivity (EC) of the drillhole water and the fracture-specific water, the temperature of the drillhole water, the single point resistance (SPR) of the drillhole wall and the prevailing water pressure profile are measured. Following these, water loss measurements are carried out and groundwater samples are collected.
Geophysical surveys included natural gamma radiation, gamma-gamma density and magnetic susceptibility, Wenner resistivity, short and long normal resistivity, single point resistance, drillhole radar and full waveform sonic measurements, as well as optical and acoustic imaging.
A group of geoscientists produce an integrated interpretation based on the investigation results of the pilot holes. In single-hole interpretations the objective is to identify and to
66
describe the general characteristics of major rock units and possible deformation zones within a drillhole. A single-hole interpretation involves the integrated interpretation of the data from the geological and geophysical loggings, as well as hydrogeological investigations (Aalto et al. 2011). These data sets are applied in the detailed-scale modeling procedures.
Probe holes During the excavation of the ONKALO access tunnel, four probe holes were drilled in the tunnel face at a distance of approximately 2 m from each other to conduct hydraulic measurements as described above. Information gathered from the probe holes was then employed in the excavation planning and execution of the tunnel. Such probe holes will also be used during the construction of the disposal facility.
Probe holes are being drilled in every tunnel constructed underground, with the configuration of the holes being determined by the tunnel profile. The length of probe holes is normally 29 m (the same as the maximum length) when carrying out probe hole measurements systematically as part as a normal tunnel excavation routine, but the hole length can be adjusted as appropriate. When approaching, for example, a fracture zone, the lengths of the probe holes are likely to be determined by its location, orientation and thickness, i.e. probe holes might end just before they are expected to intersect the zone, with perhaps subsequent probe holes penetrating the zone to obtain the best results for grouting design. Probe holes are designed to overlap to ensure that continuous information is provided on the rock mass.
Tunnel mapping The geological and geotechnical mapping of the excavated tunnels is carried out in three separate stages, referred to as: round mapping, systematic mapping and supplementary studies. Posiva uses four different classification systems concurrently when assessing the rock properties. These classifications are the Rock Quality Designation (RQD) of Deere et al. (1967), the Q classification system of Barton et al. (1974), Grimstad & Barton (1993) and Barton (2002), the Geological Strength Index (GSI) of Hoek (1994) and the RG classification system (Rakennusgeologinen kallioluokitus) of Korhonen et al. (1974) and Gardemeister et al. (1976). The first three classification systems can partly be derived from each other and the Q classification is also the main classification scheme that has been employed in the ONKALO tunnel. The RG classification system was developed for Finnish conditions and therefore provides a good supplement to the other classifications (Engström et al. 2008).
The first stage, round mapping, is performed as soon as possible after each excavation round and its main purpose is to obtain geological data to assist in the geotechnical assessment of the rock mass in the tunnel. At this stage possible deformation zones, tunnel cutting fractures (TCF) and other significant fractures are measured in situ with a total station – this is a device for measuring locations in a tunnel and might also be referred to as a tachymeter - to provide quick, first-hand data for the detailed-scale modelling. Digital photography and digital imaging (scanning) of the round is also carried out at this stage.
The second stage, systematic mapping, is the main geological mapping stage, and thus the majority of the geological information is gathered during this stage. For each mapped section a detailed lithological description is developed. The fracture attribute
67
data, include orientation, trace length, displacement, surface morphology, joint alteration number, filling materials, aperture, termination, undulation, water inflows and, for fractures which display discernible movement, striation (or a so-called F vector). The structural observations include rock type, foliation, folding and deformation phase (Engström et al. 2008). After systematic mapping has been carried out, all the fractures and other observations are measured in situ with a total station for the need of modelling personnel.
The supplementary studies carried out in tunnels after the systematic mapping phase include the recognition and description of deformation zone intersections, water inflow mapping and hydrogeochemical sampling (performed by a hydrogeologist) and Schmidt hammer testing. Deformation zone intersections are accurately measured with a total station to obtain the exact coordinates of the traces (zone boundaries, single structures). These features will already have been recognised during the earlier mapping stages, but their detailed definition and description are completed during this last mapping phase.
5.3.2 Grouting in the deposition area
Grouting will be required in the disposal facility to prevent, or at least substantially limit, groundwater inflow. Posiva has determined that the use of normal cement grouting is not permitted below a depth of 290 m, because its presence might affect the performance of the bentonite (Posiva 2012e). This has required Posiva to develop a low-pH grouting cement and colloidal silica grouting material (Hollmén et al. 2012).
In the central tunnels of the disposal facility and in the demonstration tunnels in the ONKALO, grouting is allowed with appropriate materials. The use of colloidal silica is preferred, but for fractures with greater apertures, low-pH cement may be required. However, no fracture which contains grout of any type is allowed to intersect a deposition hole.
The definitive requirements for the grouting machinery have yet to be determined. This equipment may or may not be the property of Posiva or the tunnelling contractor, however, it has to fulfil various requirements, which include being small enough to fit in the deposition tunnels, to have sufficient accuracy when measuring grouting materials and to be computer-controlled.
5.4 Details of tunnel excavation
In the construction of tunnels by the D&B method there are several details of the process that are likely to be of more significance that others and the following Sections are focused on those issues.
5.4.1 EDZ due to the use of drill and blast techniques
As discussed above, the reference method for constructing the tunnels is D&B. The thickness of the EDZ can be controlled to some extent by the design of the blasting technique, i.e. the separation and placement of blasting holes and the amount of explosives used.
Prior to the excavation of the demonstration tunnels, a mock-up tunnel was constructed to test the new machinery and the new blasting diagram. Based on this experience most of the demonstration tunnels were excavated using the blast hole drilling and blasting diagrams shown in Figures 5-7 and 5-8.
68
Figure 5-7. An example of a blast hole drilling diagram used in the excavation of the demonstration tunnels.
69
Figure 5-8. An example of a blasting diagram used in the excavation of the demonstration tunnels. Numbers refer to the delay time in charging.
70
The control of the EDZ is determined by the excavation method employed and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) is used to measure its depth. From the perspective of long-term safety, the depth of the EDZ is not the critical issue but how hydraulically conductive it is and whether it provides a continuous transmissive pathway. In reality, and in particular during the excavation process, its conductivity is hard to measure, and therefore its depth is used as a representative feature. GPR measurements reflect the changes in the bedrock, which can be fractures, lithological changes or changes in the water content. During excavation, measuring lines are surveyed using a GPR antenna and the geophysical response is interpolated mathematically to produce a figure (Figure 5-9). Repeat measurements are shown in this figure to demonstrate the repeatability of the method; and such a figure can be used to discover whether the thickness of the EDZ has stayed within the required limits. The use of the GPR method is explained in the report on the EDZ09 Project and Related EDZ Studies in ONKALO 2008-2010 (Mustonen et al. 2010) and research is currently taking place to clarify the relationship between the GPR measurements of the EDZ and its hydraulic conductivity.
71
F
igu
re 5
-9. M
easu
red
and
inte
rpre
ted
ED
Z p
rofi
le f
rom
dem
onst
rati
on t
unne
l 1
betw
een
chai
nage
s 28
and
39.
Bla
ck a
reas
sho
w t
he E
DZ
dept
h; t
he g
rey
area
s sh
ow E
DZ
dep
th i
n th
e th
e re
peat
mea
sure
men
ts.
Lin
e "0
" is
the
cen
tral
lin
e al
ong
the
tunn
el.
Line
"50
" is
50
cm
righ
t fro
m th
e ce
ntre
line
, lin
e "1
00"
100
cm a
nd li
ne "
150"
150
cm
rig
ht fr
om th
e ce
ntra
l lin
e pa
rall
el to
the
tunn
el.
71
72
5.4.2 Geometrical tolerances
The use of the D&B method results in an undulating tunnel profile, the length of the undulations being determined by the lengths of the blasting rounds. The drilling of the blasting holes commences from inside the theoretical tunnel profile (due to the fact that there needs to be sufficient space between the existing tunnel wall and the drilling rig to allow the hole to be drilled), which results in a step in the tunnel profile, as seen in Figure 5-10. This cannot be avoided, but can be controlled by the accurate drilling of blasting holes. Each tunnel has its own design profile, with defined geometrical values, and also excavation tolerances to show the excavation limits that cannot be exceeded (Figure 5-11). The tunnel profile is also not permitted to be smaller than its design value, in order to able, for example, to accommodate the machinery required.
Figure 5-10. Undulating tunnel contour in demonstration tunnel 1.
73
Figure 5-11. Excavation profile of the demonstration tunnels, together with excavation tolerances. In Chapter 6 results are presented to demonstrate how the geometrical tolerances were fulfilled when demonstration tunnel 1 was excavated.
5.4.3 Tunnel floor contour
There is no precise requirement concerning the contour of the tunnel floor, but there is a practical need to produce as even floor as possible to make the backfill of the tunnel as smooth as possible, so as to allow the easy movement of the disposal machinery. There are studies taking place at present to make the floor more even than the present requirement, however, the existing requirement requires only that the floor has to lie within the excavation tolerance shown in Figure 5-11.
5.4.4 Recess for the plug in deposition tunnels
Although being the last act in the construction of a deposition tunnel, the location of the plug is the first thing to be decided after the deposition tunnel has been excavated. Its location is decided based on investigation results from both the site investigations, e.g. the location of FPIs, etc. (see Section 3.5.5) and also from information on other attributes of the rock mass, such as the shape of the tunnel and the depth of the EDZ. A schematic picture of the plug and the location of the plug is presented in Figure 3-15.
74
The rock is wire sawn away from the tunnel surround to produce the room for the concrete plug. Holes are firstly drilled in the corners of the plug volume, then the rock is cut between the holes to produce the room needed for the plug. The rock is removed by blasting. Posiva has a project which aims at producing both a suitable location for such a plug and the plug itself as noted in Chapter 3.5.5. After its construction the plug recess is laser scanned to both verify that the constructed surface is within the design tolerances and also to produce volumetric information for the concrete plug casting design.
5.4.5 Preparation of the completed deposition tunnels for further use
After their excavation, deposition tunnels are prepared so as to be ready for the construction of deposition holes. The floor is firstly cleaned for investigation purposes and, after the locations of the holes have been determined, the floor is made ready for hole boring. The surface need to flat enough that the drilling water stays within the hood5 during the early stages of hole boring. After the hole is approximately 1 m deep, the water will automatically remain in the hole.
During the construction of test holes in demonstration tunnel 1 concrete plates were cast on the tunnel floor to make it even. In demonstration tunnel 2 a test will be carried out to find out if it is possible to create an even surface without the use of a concrete plate. The concrete plates cast in tunnel 1 will have to be removed after the investigations in the holes are complete, as their presence is a hindrance to the future work planned in the tunnel.
5.5 Reference methods used in the construction of deposition holes
The reference method for constructing deposition hole is down reaming and a prototype machine has been constructed for making such holes (Figure 5-12). The machine has and is being been tested in the two demonstration tunnels where 4 holes have been bored in tunnel 1 and 6 holes are to be bored in tunnel 2. The first results show that it is possible to produce holes that fulfil the necessary criteria, such as their straightness and hole diameter.
5 The hood (and the seal on the lower edge of the hood) is the part in of the drilling machine which is pressed against the tunnel floor, i.e. like an inverted cup, so that the water needed for the drilling does not flow onto the tunnel floor. Later in the drilling process, when the hole is deeper, there is less of a problem in this regard, as this water does not tend to flow onto the tunnel floor, with or without the hood over the hole. If the tunnel floor is too uneven, the seal is not water-tight.
75
Figure 5-12. Prototype machine Sanna for drilling deposition test holes in demonstration tunnel 1.
Boring of the hole starts by boring the pilot hole and then reaming the hole from top to bottom to its final size. The results of how the geometrical tolerances were fulfilled when the test holes in demonstration tunnel 1 were drilled are presented in Chapter 6.
5.5.1 EDZ from the use of mechanical excavation techniques
The disposal facilities are to be constructed using a variety of excavation techniques. The shafts will be constructed using the raise boring technique and the deposition holes using down reaming. When constructing the shafts a pilot hole is firstly drilled from top to bottom, then the shaft is raise bored from the bottom upwards. The size of the shaft produced depends on the diameter of the drill head, and if a larger shaft is required, raise boring can be repeated with a larger head.
The construction of the deposition holes uses the same construction technique, but excavates the hole from top to bottom. There also work starts with drilling the pilot hole from top to bottom, but the actual reaming is also done from top to bottom.
A few investigations to measure the EDZ have been carried out in the shafts, such as GPR measurements that suggest that that EDZ is narrower when mechanical excavation is used compared to D&B. Therefore it is assumed that the EDZ is not a critical issue in the production of deposition holes from the long term safety point of view. Posiva will study the EDZs of the test deposition holes to confirm the matter.
76
5.5.2 Geometrical tolerances of deposition holes
The geometrical dimensions of deposition holes were given earlier in Chapter 3 and the tolerances for these dimensions are given in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1. Geometrical tolerance for deposition holes. Dimension of hole Tolerance Hole length 0 mm … +50 mm Hole diameter -2.5 mm…+25 mm Hole straightness -2.5 mm…+25 mm Hole bottom smoothness The overall inclination of the bottom of the deposition
hole shall not be more than 1 mm:1750 mm These are measured by laser scanning and, based on the results, the hole is either accepted or rejected.
5.5.3 Acceptable inflow
There is a limit set on the acceptable inflow to a deposition hole, which is 0.1 l/min. The criterion is discussed in more detail in the RSC report (McEwen et al. 2012).
5.5.4 Preparation of the completed deposition hole for further use
After the hole has been drilled it will be cleaned. The clean and dry hole is then laser surveyed and also geologically mapped. After the hole has been either accepted or rejected, a cover will be placed over it until emplacement of the buffer takes place, which is described in the Buffer Production Line report (Posiva 2012k).
5.6 Reference methods associated with other underground openings
5.6.1 Reference methods used in the construction of shafts
The reference method for constructing shafts is raise boring and the boring of the existing shafts was carried out by Bergteamet AB.
The shafts for the ONKALO were raise bored to their full profile (Figure 5-13). A pre-requisite for the use of the method is that the raise boring machine must have enough space at both ends of the shaft section. A pilot hole (380 mm) is drilled first and then finally reamed upwards. Ventilation shafts have a diameter of 3.5 m (required deflection is 0.5 % at the maximum) and personnel shafts are 4.5 m (max. allowed deflection 0.3 %). The raise bored shaft sections were about 100 m long.
By using the full profile raise boring method, the EDZ can be almost avoided, the water-tightness of the shaft is improved, the need for rock support is minimised and the deflection of the shaft is small. All leaked shaft sections were pre-grouted with micro-cement and colloidal silica if needed. The experience gained from the grouting operations is discussed later in Sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3.
The purpose of each of the shafts will determine how it is reinforced and equipped.
77
Figure 5-13. Raise boring of a shaft in the ONKALO is completed.
5.6.2 Artificial holes
There is a variety of holes required in the disposal facility for different purposes. The lengths of the hole vary considerably, from a few metres to hundreds of metres. Holes are made either by drilling or boring depending on the usage of the hole. Investigation holes and probe holes are described in Section 5.3.1.
Grouting holes
Grouting holes are bored holes when there is need for grouting. The lengths of the holes a defined by the grout design. Grouting holes are generally bored within the tunnel profile, although, in special cases holes (like in some shaft sections) may be bored outside the profile to ensure better tightening. Bolt holes
To ensure a safe working environment rock bolts are installed during the excavation. The holes for these bolts have lengths of a few metres.
78
79
6 INITIAL STATE OF THE UNDERGROUND OPENINGS
Underground areas and openings in the repository phase are produced by the production unit (not yet establiched), but after construction they are used by different production lines during different stages of the life of the disposal facility, as described in Section 3.4:
deposition hole, buffer tunnels, backfill and closure shafts and artificial holes, closure
This Chapter describes the properties of the underground openings prior to the above-mentioned processes taking place in the deposition holes and tunnels. There are equal risks and initial state properties in other tunnels too, but in the deposition tunnels and holes the risks must be controlled to a more precise level and the initial state properties are more strictly enforced.
6.1 General
Posiva has constructed demonstration tunnels and test deposition holes in the ONKALO whilst applying the same requirements as will apply to the actual deposition tunnels and holes. The results from demonstration tunnel 1 and its deposition holes form the basis for the initial state of the openings and for the risk analysis.
6.2 Geohazards, design methodologies and reference methods
The geohazards which could affect the long-term safety of the disposal facility are discussed in the Scenarios Report (Posiva 2012c) in relation to the different scenarios.
Because of the long operational time of the repository, the reference methods and design methodologies might change. Both the new methodology and new methods are evaluated before being taken into use, to ensure that there will be no deleterious effects. For example, if the method for tunnelling were to be changed, it has to be demonstrated in advance of any such change that, for example, the thickness of the EDZ does not increase.
6.3 Repository depth and deposition areas
One requirement in relation to the long-term safety of the disposal facility is its depth. After emplacement of the spent fuel has commenced it is not easy to change. When developing the disposal concept for Olkiluoto there has been an option for a two story disposal. At a moment the layout of the repository is in one layer. There are uncertainties for example in the harmfulness of the salty ground water to bentonite if going deeper in the bedrock.
The deposition area is wide, but in the operation phase the open rooms is kept to a minimum to control the inflow of groundwater to the tunnels and to prevent unnecessary broad maintenance needs of the tunnels.
80
In the large scale the repository is quite well investigated and big structures are known beforehand. During the operation there is done pilot hole investigations throughout the repository. In those investigations it is locally assured where the structures are, both large and small as explained in chapter RSC. There is a risk that the unsuitable areas are wider than expected, which in turn is taken to account when designing the overall layout to Olkiluoto Island by expecting 20 % of the possible hole position places to be rejected (McEwen 2012). Risks involved with the repository area are covered in far more detail in both SR2011 (Posiva 2012a) and the RSC report (McEwen 2012)
6.3.1 Review of potential hazards relative to the design premises
All the design requirements are based on the results of scientific experiments and modelling carried out by Posiva over the last few decades and also on the results from the extensive programmes of research on radioactive waste management carried out in other countries. Some of the requirements have already tested in the ONKALO which adds to the reliability of the requirements.
Some demonstrations are still to be performed over the nest few years before the operational phase of the repository commences, in order to test all components of the disposal system. No combined testing has yet taken place in the ONKALO, although the testing of some of the individual components of the disposal system, such as the boring of deposition holes, has taken place. Such combined testing will take in the future to test, for example, how the buffer should be emplaced in the test deposition holes. Such a test examines several things: the functionality of the buffer emplacing machine, the transport of the buffer blocks and the dimensions of the test deposition hole.
The design requirements may thus be revised, based on the results of these future demonstrations and tests. It is unlikely that the disposal concept will change as a result of these demonstrations, however, changes such as adjustments to the required tolerances may be required. It is unlikely that such changes will be critical to the application of the disposal system.
6.3.2 Qualitative risk assessment of the initial state
Changes to the design premises are anticipated in the form of fine adjustments, as the construction of underground openings at the repository level has not yet started. The risk that the changes might cause a fundamental modification to the disposal concept is low, because the disposal concept with reference methods has been chosen (Posiva 2012k, Posiva 2012l, Posiva 2012m).
There has also been considered alternative operational concepts which are presented in the Design of the Disposal Facility 2012 (Saanio et al. 2013).
6.4 Deposition tunnels
Deposition tunnels, like all other tunnels in the disposal facility, are constructed using the D&B technique. This use of this technique results in a repeatable change in the cross section area of the tunnel, as is shown in Figure 6-1. The length of this cycle of change in cross sectional area depends on the length of the blasting round: at the start of the round the cross section is smaller than at the end. This also causes steps in the surface of the tunnel, as seen in Figure 6-2 and as previously discussed in Section 5.3.1.
81
Figure 6-1. Changes in the cross section area of demonstration tunnel 1 along the length of the tunnel.
Figure 6-2. View down demonstration tunnel 1 in the ONKALO.
82
The dimensions of the demonstration tunnels are given in Table 6-2 for tunnel 1. The first column (A1) is the design surface area of the tunnel (14.460 m2). Tolerances in the demonstration tunnel (as well as in future deposition tunnels) are 400 mm in floors and 300 mm elsewhere, which gives a maximum surface area of 19.590 m2.
Tolerances for the tunnel profile do not allow minus tolerances (i.e. the tunnel surface has to be outside the designed tunnel profile), which means that the tunnel cross sectional area has to be at least that of the designed area. These tunnel areas are given in column A1. If there is under excavation, the amount of that is given in column A2. A laser scanned profile from chainage PL51 is shown in Figure 6-3. From that figure it can be seen that both over and under excavation can occur in the same profile. Appendix B presents all the measured tunnels profiles pictures such as that shown in Figure 6-3.
83
Table 6-2. Dimensions of demonstration tunnel 1.
Ch. A1
[m2] A2
[m2] A3
[m2] ∆1
[m2]∆2 [m2]
A'1
[m2] A'2
[m2]
11 14,460 19,590 18,260 3,800 1,330 0,150 0,000
12 14,460 19,590 16,970 2,510 2,620 0,000 0,000
13 14,460 19,590 17,760 3,300 1,830 0,020 0,000
14 14,460 19,590 18,610 4,150 0,980 0,170 0,000
15 14,460 19,590 16,540 2,080 3,050 0,005 0,000
16 14,460 19,590 17,020 2,560 2,570 0,002 0,000
17 14,460 19,590 17,780 3,320 1,810 0,031 0,000
18 14,460 19,590 16,400 1,940 3,190 0,000 0,000
19 14,460 19,590 16,460 2,000 3,130 0,000 0,000
20 14,460 19,590 17,140 2,680 2,450 0,001 0,000
21 14,460 19,590 17,650 3,190 1,940 0,084 0,000
22 14,460 19,590 16,490 2,030 3,100 0,000 0,000
23 14,460 19,590 17,280 2,820 2,310 0,006 0,000
24 14,460 19,590 18,170 3,710 1,420 0,044 0,000
25 14,460 19,590 15,820 1,360 3,770 0,000 -0,001
26 14,460 19,590 17,150 2,690 2,440 0,339 0,000
27 14,460 19,590 18,180 3,720 1,410 0,512 0,000
28 14,460 19,590 16,000 1,540 3,590 0,000 -0,007
29 14,460 19,590 16,000 1,540 3,590 0,000 0,000
30 14,460 19,590 16,780 2,320 2,810 0,000 0,000
31 14,460 19,590 17,080 2,620 2,510 0,000 0,000
32 14,460 19,590 16,710 2,250 2,880 0,000 -0,001
33 14,460 19,590 17,750 3,290 1,840 0,002 0,000
34 14,460 19,590 18,950 4,490 0,640 0,309 0,000
35 14,460 19,590 16,310 1,850 3,280 0,000 0,000
36 14,460 19,590 16,550 2,090 3,040 0,000 0,000
37 14,460 19,590 17,220 2,760 2,370 0,000 0,000
38 14,460 19,590 16,500 2,040 3,090 0,000 -0,001
39 14,460 19,590 16,600 2,140 2,990 0,010 0,000
40 14,460 19,590 17,070 2,610 2,520 0,007 0,000
41 14,460 19,590 18,200 3,740 1,390 0,088 0,000
42 14,460 19,590 16,290 1,830 3,300 0,000 0,000
43 14,460 19,590 17,060 2,600 2,530 0,000 0,000
44 14,460 19,590 18,020 3,560 1,570 0,018 0,000
45 14,460 19,590 15,990 1,530 3,600 0,000 0,000
46 14,460 19,590 16,610 2,150 2,980 0,000 0,000
47 14,460 19,590 17,430 2,970 2,160 0,003 0,000
48 14,460 19,590 17,080 2,620 2,510 0,015 0,000
49 14,460 19,590 16,050 1,590 3,540 0,000 0,000
50 14,460 19,590 16,830 2,370 2,760 0,000 0,000
84
Figure 6-3. Measured tunnel profile from demonstration tunnel 1 at chainage PL51, i.e. precisely 51 m from the start of the tunnel. Red area is over excavation, green allowed area and blue area where there is under excavation. The length of open deposition tunnels is kept to a minimum to help limit the inflow of groundwater and the lengths of open tunnels and their volumes in different operational phases are published in Design of the Disposal Facility 2012 (Saanio et al. 2012). The bedrock is also grouted for the same reason. During the operation of the disposal facility, the tunnels must also be safe for operational purposes, which is ensured by the use of rock bolts in all tunnels, together with mesh in the deposition tunnels and shotcrete in others.
The construction of demonstration tunnel 1 is explained in more detail in the Underground Openings Line Demonstrations Stage 1, 2012 report (Mellanen et al. 2012).
85
6.4.1 Review of potential hazards relative to the design premises
As seen in Figures 6-1 and 6-2, keeping the tunnels as smooth as possible is vital, both to assure the functionality of the backfill and the closure of the tunnels and for ensuring suitable surfaces for all the machinery. This is achieved by competent blasting design and blasting. In the ONKALO investigations have taken place of the blasting design and explosive materials employed to try and optimise their use during the operational phase. Another issue when blasting is the EDZ, which is discussed in Section 5.5.1. The amount and the type of explosives have to be chosen in such a manner that the surrounding rock is not damaged unnecessarily.
A study is currently taking place in Posiva as how to smoothen the tunnel surface after blasting. A road header is being used to flatten the steps in the floor and also to take away the damaged rock.
When excavating and investigating there are workers in the tunnels and this causes a need for reinforcement to make the tunnel surfaces safe from falling rocks. In deposition tunnels shotcrete is not allowed to be installed because of its effect on the groundwater pH and therefore the reinforcement is achieved using rock bolts and net. In other rooms the use of shotcrete is permitted.
After the making the deposition holes, the reinforcement (except rock bolts) together with all the tunnel infrastructure is taken away in disposal cycle of four canisters. Tunnels must be scaled mechanically and the rock blocks need to be taken out from the tunnels prior to the backfill is emplaced. In some parts of the tunnel, such as when passing through a fracture zone, the mesh must be left in the tunnel for occupational safety reasons. In other rooms the shotcrete is also extracted, and the same safety judgement is applies as for the disposal tunnels.
As the use of use of shotcrete in disposal tunnels is not permitted, the use of a normal cementitious material in grouting is not allowed. Posiva has developed low-pH cements and colloidal silica grouting to be used in disposal areas.
6.4.2 Qualitative risk assessment of the initial state
The use of the D&B technique inevitably results in the production of uneven tunnel surfaces – this is not considered a risk in relation to other processes, such as backfilling, but something that needs to be taken into account when considering the design of these processes. Using the D&B technique in a properly controlled manner ensures the dimensions of the excavated deposition tunnel are within the given tolerances, as seen in Table 6-2 and Figure 6-3. The developments in the excavation machinery and explosives can be seen as being beneficial, because there is compatibility between the construction methods employed with the processes of both backfill and closure. In the future new excavation methods, such as the road header, might be developed which could displace the D&B technique. The use of a road header would result in the surface of the tunnel being smoother, with the result that it would easier to move the machinery necessary for emplacing the waste canisters and would also make it easier to emplace the backfill.
In the near future Posiva has to decide whether to purchase all the necessary machinery, whether such machinery should be owned by a contractor or whether some sort of joint ownership would perhaps be most suitable. The requirements for drilling accuracy, for
86
example, required by Posiva are more onerous than are considered necessary for normal underground construction. This implies that it would not perhaps be feasible to give a contract for constructing deposition tunnels to a contractor, as he is unlikely to possess the necessary machinery that might have to be built specifically for the purpose. Were Posiva to own such machinery, its maintenance could also be easier to manage.
6.5 Deposition holes
Deposition holes will need to be drilled to three different lengths, but with the same diameters, to accommodate the different lengths of spent fuel rods from the various reactors. The spent fuel rods from Loviisa are the shortest and those from Olkiluoto 3 and 4 the longest.
All deposition holes will be drilled using the same type of machine, i.e. any one machine will be able to drill all sizes of deposition holes, though it is not known yet how many such machines may be required. The first step is to produce an accurate pilot hole. This is controlled by ensuring that the drilling machine is positioned horizontally and that the drill rods are aligned vertically during the drilling. After the pilot hole has been drilled successfully and within the required tolerances, the reaming of the deposition hole can commence. The reaming cutter contains a guide which follows the pilot hole during reaming and ensures that the deposition hole is corrected drilled.
After the hole has been completed it is emptied and cleaned. When dry it can be measured by laser scanning. The results of this scanning, together with the investigations associated with the rock suitability criteria, as presented in McEwen et al. (2012), allow a decision to be made as to whether the hole is or is not acceptable for disposal purposes.
The construction of deposition test holes in demonstration tunnel 1 is explained in more detail in the Underground Openings Line Demonstrations Stage 1, 2012 report (Mellanen et al. 2012).
6.5.1 Review of potential hazards relative to the design premises
Deposition holes have to fulfil the requirements of the rock suitability criteria and, in addition, the technical criteria in order to be used for disposal purposes. The current rock suitability criteria applicable to deposition holes are described in McEwen et al. (2012).
The technical criteria are the dimensions of the hole: its length, diameter and straightness and the smoothness of the base of the hole. The first three criteria relate to the properties of a deposition hole after reaming, and cannot be changed. The last criterion, the smoothness of the base of the hole, can be modified to a small extend by subsequent machining.
The first four test deposition test holes were bored in demonstration tunnel 1. Two of these holes were located in parts of the tunnel that were considered suitable with respect to the rock suitability criteria, and two were located in parts of the tunnel considered unsuitable. It was nevertheless decided to bore all four holes, to test both the criteria and the machinery. Following the reaming of the holes, the survey results showed that three of four holes were acceptable with respect to the rock suitability criteria and only one was rejected based on the expected inflow to the hole. From the laser scanning survey
87
point of view none of the holes totally fulfilled the criteria - in almost all cases the holes were not able to fulfil the requirements related to the base of the hole. In some cases, for example when the hole was bored to too great a depth, there was a question of working accuracy. If after fine tuning the working procedures, for example the requirement for the straightness of the hole, cannot be met, the concept of boring the holes by down reaming might have to be reconsidered. Both the working procedure and the requirements are being revised, following the boring of these four holes, and will be further revised, as required, after the boring of the next six holes in demonstration tunnel 2 at the beginning of 2013.
The problems with these deposition test demonstration holes does not necessarily imply that they should all be automatically rejected. The tolerances are so small, that these holes might still be accepted if they were actual deposition holes. For example, if a deposition hole were too deep (although not by a large amount), a request could be made to the buffer team to ask if they could accommodate this change and an exception could be made to allow the hole to be used. During the operational phase of the disposal facility there will be more open rooms and also higher temperatures than currently exist in the ONKALO, due to the heat from canisters that have already been emplaced in deposition holes. These elevated temperatures will result in increased stresses in the bedrock that could result in slabbing or spalling into the tunnels and holes. This phenomenon is not fully understood and research is currently taking place in the ONKALO (Johansson et al. 2013, Valli et al. 2013). Slabbing or spalling can, however, take place at any stage after the deposition hole has been completed, and so a suitable criterion will be need to be developed (see discussion in Section 6.5.2).
6.5.2 Qualitative risk assessment of the initial state
As has already been discussed, there is a problem if the amount of suitable bedrock is smaller than that expected. Were this to be case, the repository layout would have to be revised to find the necessary space for the waste canisters. The layout design of the disposal facility makes the assumption that an additional 20% of canister locations, above that required based on the known number of waste canisters, must be incorporated into the design in order to take into account the uncertainty regarding the quality of the rock.
During the operational phase, the production rate of deposition holes is approximately 40 holes a year, assuming there is one boring machine. The deposition hole boring machine is unique, so that Posiva may have to be prepared to purchase two such machines to be able to cope with the possibility of one machine failing in some way.
In demonstration tunnel 1 four test deposition holes were bored. No visible signs of wear to the cutters or the rods was apparent as a result of these operations, however, weakness was detected in the outer parts of the cylinders that fasten the machine to the roof. These parts are now being replaced before drilling the next test deposition holes. During the operational phase there will need to be a sufficient number of spare parts available on site, because some special parts, such as the cylinders, have long delivery times. The failure of the boring machine is likely to result in some delay to the disposal operations, but is unlikely to be an insurmountable problem to the chosen disposal concept.
When excavating the rock, there is always a risk that the required dimensions are not met. Rock is a heterogeneous material and can therefore act differently over small
88
length scales. Also, once a deposition hole has been bored it cannot be reshaped. The requirements and the tolerances for such holes should perhaps, therefore, be set to accommodate the natural variations in the bedrock, so as not to cause unnecessary problems to the disposal programme. For example, it might prove necessary to allow a minor amount of small-scale slabbing to take place on the walls of deposition holes; otherwise, there is a danger that there will be too many rejected deposition holes.
6.6 Other underground opening rooms
6.6.1 Plug chamfer
The requirements for the plug chamfer will be set when Posiva finally decides on the layout of the plug. At present, the reference plug chamfer is based on the vault plug developed and tested by SKB and Posiva in Äspö (Posiva 2012l). Posiva has started a plug project of its own in the ONKALO to produce both the plug chamfer and the plug.
From the underground opening process point of view the plug chamfer has, to date, only dimensional requirements (Closure Production Line report, Posiva 2012m) There are also requirements on the rock surrounding the plug, but these are evaluated with respect to the properties of the rock mass, as part of the RSC system: the role of the underground openings line will only be to construct the chamfer in the most appropriate location in the deposition tunnel.
Wire sawing is seen as a potential method of constructing a plug chamfer. This method has been tested in the Äspö HRL and will be tested in the ONKALO. Only after both these tests have been evaluated will the final requirements for the plug chamfer be determined.
6.6.2 Artificial holes
Earlier in this report (in Sections 5.3.1 and 5.6.2.) the different kind of investigation and construction-related holes that are made in the bedrock are listed. When a hole extends to more than 5 m from the tunnel profile, permission has to be granted in advance by the long-term safety team before any such hole can be made. No holes are allowed that could form direct connections between the disposal areas and the surface, also holes which connect any tunnel should be avoided.
Cored holes are easier to control. There are means to control the deviation of the holes during drilling and for surveying them after drilling. Percussion drilled holes can deviate more easily, and therefore such holes have to be shorter to ensure that they remain within acceptable volumes of rock.
All open holes are required to be sealed when the repository is closed and sealed. Their sealing is presented in the Closure report (Karvonen et al. 2012).
89
7 SUMMARY
In this report the production of the underground openings are described. Posiva has experience in producing tunnels, shafts, test deposition holes and other artificial holes. With regard to these underground openings, there is considerable evidence as to what can be achieved with the chosen reference methods. During the writing of this report, Posiva started a research programme where a plug is going to be constructed in one demonstration tunnel. As part of this programme the plug chamfer will be produced, using wire sawing, which will be first time that this technique will have been employed in the ONKALO. Posiva has had close co-operation with SKB, who has performed wire sawing in the Äspö URL with promising results.
It is possible to produce the rooms required underground with the chosen reference methods. During the construction of the ONKALO experiences has been gained of the investigations necessary to support the construction of such rooms and how to carry these out in line with the construction of deposition tunnels, in particular. Also, the working methods, together with the quality actions, both for the investigations and the excavations have been standardised during this work. Even though the methods are proven to work, there are still aspects of the construction process which can and will be improved, such as the evenness of the floor of deposition tunnels. The backfill can function as planned with the tunnel surface obtained from using the D&B-method on its own, but would gain from having a smoother surface – and methods for producing this, such as the use of a road header, are being investigated. Posiva has also demonstrated that it is possible to produce deposition holes using the down reaming technique.
As discussed in Chapter 4, there are requirements for each of the underground openings that must be met during their construction. In advance of the operational phase, these requirements need to be revised and carefully evaluated, based on the experience relevant to that phase. It has already been demonstrated that it is possible to fulfil some of the requirements, such as those associated with the tolerances of deposition tunnels,, but the further development of construction techniques may result in improvements, as indicated above.
The requirement management for the design requirements also needs to be revised. Posiva has developed a procedure for managing the requirements that have long-term safety implications. This procedure should cover all design requirements and specifications in the future.
90
91
REFERENCES
Aalto, P., Kosunen, P., Lahti, M., Pere, T., Tarvainen, A-M., Toropainen, V., Pekkanen, J., Pöllänen, J., 2011. Drilling and Associated Drillhole Measurements of the Pilot Hole ONK-PH13. Posiva Working Report 2011-28. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 172 p.
Aaltonen, I. (ed.), Lahti, M., Engström, J., Mattila, J., Paananen, M., Paulamäki, S., Gehör, S., Kärki, A., Ahokas, T., Torvela, T. & Front, K. 2010. Geological Model of the Olkiluoto Site Version 2.0. Posiva Working Report 2010-70. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 580 p.
Andersson, J., Ahokas, H., Hudson, J. A., Koskinen, L, Luukkonen, A., Löfman, J., Keto, V., Pitkänen, P., Mattila, J., Ikonen, A. T. K., and Ylä-Mella, M. 2007. Olkiluoto Site Description 2006. Posiva Report 2007-03. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 229 + 313 p
Axelsson, M., Gustafson, G., Fransson, Å. & Funehag, J. 2008. Design Criteria for Permeation Grouting in Hard Rock at Great Depths. Chalmers University of Technology, Division of GeoEngineering. Proceedings World Tunnel Congress 2008, Underground facilities for better environment and safety, 1 s. 510-520.
Barton, N., Lien, R. & Lunde, J. 1974. Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Desing of Tunnel Support. Rock Mechanics. December 1974. Vol. 6 No. 4. Springger Verlag. Wien, New York. 189-236.
Barton, N. 2002. Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site characterization and tunnel design. International Journal of rock Mechanics & Mining Science 39 (2002), 185-216.
Bodén, A. & Sievänen, U. 2006. Low-pH Injection Grout for Deep Repositories. Summary Report from a Co-operation project Between NUMO (Japan), Posiva (Finland) and SKB (Sweden). Posiva Working Report 2005-24. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy.
Deere, D.U., Hendron, A.J., Patton, F.D. & Cording, E.J. 1967. Design of surface and near surface construction in rock. In Failure and breakage of rock, proc. 8th U.S. symp. rock mech., (ed. C. Fairhurst), 237-302. New York: Soc. Min. Engrs, Am. Inst. Min. Metall. Petrolm Engrs.
Engström, J. & Kemppainen, K. 2008. Evaluation of the geological and geotechnical mapping procedures in use in the ONKALO access tunnel. Posiva Working Report 2008-77. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 62 p.
Gardemeister, R., Johansson, S., Korhonen, P., Patrikainen, P., Tuisku, T. & Vähäsarja, P. 1976. Application of the Finnish engineering geological classification (in Finnish). Espoo, Finland: Technical Research Centre of Finland, Geotechnical laboratory, Research note 25, 39 p.
Grimstad, E. & Barton, N. 1993. Updating of the Q-System for NMT. Proceedings of Sprayed Concrete, 18-21 December 1993. Fagernäs. Norway.
92
Hoek, E. 1994. Strength of rock and rock masses. ISRM News Journal, 2 (2), 4-16.
Hellä, P. (ed.), Ikonen, A., Mattila, J., Torvela, T. & Wikström, L. 2009. RSC-Programme - Interim Report. Approach and basis for RSC development, layout determining features and preliminary criteria for tunnel and deposition hole scale. Working Report 2009-29. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 118 p.
Hollmèn, K., Sievänen, U., Funehag, J., Granberg, N., Lyytinen, T., Syrjänen, P. & Säippä, J. 2012. Colloidal silica-grouting in demonstration tunnel 2 in ONKALO. Posiva Working Report 2012-84. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. (In prep.).
Johansson, E., Siren, T., Hakala, M., Kemppainen, K., Hudson, J. 2013. ONKALO POSE experiment –Phase 1 & 2: Execution and monitoring, Posiva Working Report 2012-60. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. (In prep.).
Kärki, A. & Paulamaki, S. 2006. Petrology of Olkiluoto. Posiva Report 2006-02. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 77 p
Karvonen, T. H. 2012. Closure of the investigation boreholes at Olkiluoto in Eurajoki. Posiva Working Report WR-201X-XX. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. (In prep).
Kirkkomäki, T. 2013. Design and Stepwise Implementation of the Final Repository 2012. Working Report 2012-69. Posiva Oy, Eurajoki, Finland. (in Finnish)
Koivula, H., Kallio, U., Nyberg, S., Jokela, J., Poutanen, M., 2012. GPS Operations at Olkiluoto in 2011. Posiva Working Report 20012-36. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 58 p.
Korhonen, K-H., Gardemaister, R., Jääskeläinen, H., Niini, H. & Vähäsarja, P. 1974. Rakennusgeologinen kallioluokitus (The Engineering geological bedrock classification in Finnish). Technical Research Centre of Finland, Geotechnical laboratory, Research note 12, 78 p.
Kronlöf, A. 2005. Injection Grout for Deep Repositories - Low pH Cementitious Grout for Larger Fractures: Testing Technical Performance of Materials. Working Report 2005-45. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy.
Lahti, M. (ed.), Ahokas, T., Nordbäck, N., Paananen, M., Paulamäki, S. & Vaittinen, T. 2009. The ONKALO area model - Version 1.1. Working Report 2009-113. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy.. 130 p.
Mattila, J. (ed.), Aaltonen, I., Kemppainen, K., Wikström, L., Paananen, M., Paulamäki, S., Front, K., Gehör, S., Kärki, A. & Ahokas, T. 2008. Geological Model of the Olkiluoto Site, Version 1.0. Posiva Working Report 2007-92. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 510 p.
McEwen, T. (ed.), Aro, S., Kosunen, P., Mattila, J., Pere, T. Käpyaho, A. & Hellä, P, 2013. Rock Suitability Classification - RSC 2012, Posiva Working Report 2012-24. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 222 p.
93
Mellanen, S. (ed), Koskinen, L., Hellä, P., Löfman, J., Lanyon, B., Öhberg, A., Autio, J., Sacklén, N., Saukkonen, K., Saari, J., Lakio, A., Silvast, M., Wiljanen, B., Vuokko, J., Lyytinen, T. 2009. EDZ Programme, EDZ Studies in ONKALO 2007-2008. Posiva Working Report 2008-66. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 110 p.
Mellanen, S. (ed.), Aro, S., Gerlander, J., Hollmén, K., Joutsen, A., Kosunen, P., Mustonen, S. 2012. Underground Openings Line demonstrations Stage 1, 2012. Posiva Report 2012-33. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy.
Mustonen, S., Norokallio, J., Mellanen, S., Lehtimäki, T., Heikkinen, E, 2010. EDZ09 Project and Related EDZ Studies in ONKALO 2008-2010. Posiva Working Report 2010-27. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 404 p.
Mönkkönen, H., Hakala, M., Paananen, M., Laine, E. 2012. ONKALO Rock Mechanics Modell (RMM) Version 2.0. Posiva Working Report 2012-07. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 94 p.
Pere, T. (ed), Ahokas, H., Aro, S., Mattila, J., Vaittinen, T., Wikström, L. 2012. Layout determining features, their influence zones and respect distances at the Olkiluoto site. Posiva Report 2012-21. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 128 p.
Posiva. 2005. Olkiluoto Site Description 2004. Posiva Report 2005-03. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 444 p.
Posiva. 2009. Olkiluoto Site Description 2008. Posiva Report 2009-01. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 390 + 324 p.
Posiva 2012a. Olkiluoto Site Description 2011. Posiva Report 2011-01. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy.
Posiva 2012b. Monitoring at Olkiluoto - a Programme for the Period Before Repository Operation. Posiva Report 2012-01. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 188 p.
Posiva 2012c. Safety case for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel at Olkiluoto - Formulation of Radionuclide Release Scenarios 2012. Posiva Report 2012-08. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy.
Posiva 2012d. Safety case for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel at Olkiluoto - Assessment of Radionuclide Release Scenarios for the Repository System 2012. Posiva Report 2012-09. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy.
Posiva 2012e. Safety case for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel at Olkiluoto - Performance Assessment 2012. Posiva Report 2012-04. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy.
Posiva 2012f. Safety case for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel at Olkiluoto - Description of the Disposal System 2012. Posiva Report 2012-05. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy.
Posiva 2012g. Safety case for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel at Olkiluoto - Design Basis 2012. Posiva Report 2012-03. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy.
94
Posiva 2012h. Safety case for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel at Olkiluoto - Features, Events and Processes 2012. Posiva Report 2012-07. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy.
Posiva 2012i. Safety case for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel at Olkiluoto - Complementary considerations 2012. Posiva Report 2012-11. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy.
Posiva 2012j. YJH-2012 - Nuclear waste management at Olkiluoto and Loviisa power plants: Review of current status and future plans for 2013-2015 (in Finnish). Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 368 p.
Posiva 2012k. Buffer Production Line 2012 – Design, Production, and Initial State of the Buffer. Posiva Report 2012-17. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy.
Posiva 2012l. Backfill Production Line 2012-Design, production and initial state of the deposition tunnel backfill and plug Posiva Report 2012-18. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy.
Posiva 2012m. Closure Production Line 2012-Design, production and initial state of the underground disposal facility closure. Posiva Report 2012-19. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy.
Saanio, T. (ed.), Ikonen, A., Keto, P., Kirkkomäki, T., Kukkola, T., Nieminen, J., Raiko, H. 2013. Design of the Disposal Facility 2012, Posiva Working Report 2013-17. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. (In prep.).
Sacklén, N., Lampinen, H., Anttila, P., Hollmén, K., Johansson E., 2013. Site Engineering Report, Posiva Report 2012-23. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. (In prep.).
STUK 2001. Guide YVL 8.4. Long-term safety of disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority.
STUK 2011. Disposal of Nuclear Waste. Quide YVL D.5. (Draft 3, 23.2.2011).
Toropainen, V. 2012. Core Drilling of Deep Drillhole OL-KR56 at Olkiluoto in Eurajoki 2011-2012. Posiva Working Report 2012-52. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 283 p.
Vaittinen, T., Ahokas, H., Nummela, J. & Paulamäki, S. 2011. Hydrogeological Structure Model of the Olkiluoto Site - Update in 2010. Posiva Working Report 2011-65. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 330 p.
Valli, J., Hakala, M., Wanne, T., Siren, T. 2013. ONKALO POSE experiment –Phase 3: Execution and monitoring, Posiva Working Report 2013-xx. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. (In prep.).
Vuorinen, U., Lehikoinen, J., lmoto, H. Yamamoto, T. & Alonso, M. C. 2005. Injection Grout for Deep Repositories Subproject 1: Low-pH Cementitious Grout for Larger Fractures, Leach Testing of Grout Mixes and Evaluation of the Long-Term Safety. Posiva Working Report 2004-46. Eurajoki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 101 p.
Ohje Laatija: Antti Ikonen (Saanio & Riekkola Oy)
Tunnus: POS-010674
Organisaatio: Projekti Versio: 0.15
Laadittu: 25.06.2013 Sivu(t) 1 (4)
Sisäinen Julkaistu: 05.08.2013
Sähköisestä alkuperäiskappaleesta tulosti: 20.8.2013 / leinonen_ritva © Posiva Oy Tarkista asiakirjan ajantasaisuus Hyväksytty: Palonen Erkki / 09.07.2013
COMPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR UNDERGROUND ROCK OPENINGS (UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION OF THE FINNISH VERSION)
General Requirements and specifications for underground rock openings are determined in the following documents which complement each other:
Instruction: ”Suunnittelussa noudatettavat lait, asetukset ja ohjeet” (PLD-002517). 1) Requirement management system (VAHA-system):
requirements and specifications (DOORS data system, user id available from Posiva)*,
2) This document: ”Complementary requirements and specifications for underground rock openings” (ONK-001859)
* (VAHA-system status at the end of 2012 is published in “Design Basis” report, Posiva 2012a (requirements) and; Safety case for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel at Olkiluoto – Description of the Disposal System 2012”-report (specifications). (The on-line status of requirements and specifications is only available through the VAHA-system. Posiva 2012a and 2012b are updated less frequently.) Requirements and specifications for underground rock openings other than those mentioned in documents 1 &2 above are compiled in this document. Appendix 1 &2 document the requirements and specifications for underground rock openings that are not (yet) inserted in the VAHA-system. The hierarchy in this document follows the hierarchy of the VAHA-system which facilitates combining the data given here with the VAHA-system (if necessary). Level L4-L5 requirements and specifications (appendix 1-2) are in the form of the hierarchy presented in Figure 1. The same hierarchy is used in the VAHA-system. Requirements are specified in more detail in the lower levels and the lowest level is L5; design specifications. For example on level L4, several requirements for the extent of the demonstration tunnels are identified and the design value can then be found from the L5-level. For example, if one is interested in the personnel shaft requirements in this document, they are found from: - L4 / 1 General - L4/ 2.3.1 All subsurface rooms - L4/ 2.3.2 Personnel Shaft 1 - L5 / 1 General - L5/ 2.3.1 All subsurface rooms - L5/ 2.3.2 Personnel Shaft 1
95 APPENDIX A1
Ohje Laatija: Antti Ikonen (Saanio & Riekkola Oy)
Tunnus: POS-010674
Organisaatio: Projekti Versio: 0.15
Laadittu: 25.06.2013 Sivu(t) 2 (4)
Sisäinen Julkaistu: 05.08.2013
Sähköisestä alkuperäiskappaleesta tulosti: 20.8.2013 / leinonen_ritva © Posiva Oy Tarkista asiakirjan ajantasaisuus Hyväksytty: Palonen Erkki / 09.07.2013
When applying instructions and standards, the following hierarchy is observed: first; the Finnish constitution, second; the Nuclear Energy Act, third; the Government Decree, fourth; YVL-guides, fifth; the IAEA instructions and other nuclear standards and sixth; the Finnish Technical Standards. The most fundamental instructions and standards are given as requirements and specifications in the VAHA-system. These are completed in the present document (ONK-001859). If some requirement or specification needs to be changed, it needs to be checked if any other requirement/specification needs to be updated for the same reason (if any). Requirements are specified in more detail in the lower levels. If there are any contradictions between requirements, specifications, laws, decrees, YVL-guides standards or instructions, it must be brought to the attention of Posiva to be resolved (regardless of hierarchy). Any default value for order of precedence is not allowed to be used. Posiva is responsible for requirements and specifications.
L1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ L3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ L4
L5
Figure 1. Hierarchy of requirements and specifications.
Design specification
Design requirements
Subsystem requirements
System requirements
Stakeholder requirements
Designers
Facility responsible
Laws, owners, community
Facility responsible
Optional systems for
management of spent
nuclear fuel
Disposal facility of
Posiva (KBS-3V-consept)
Facility Subsystem
requirements
Subsystem components
Limitations Spent nuclear fuel
Site properties
Engineering barriers
Facility components
Technical systems
Operation Operational damages
Processes
96 APPENDIX A1
Ohje Laatija: Antti Ikonen (Saanio & Riekkola Oy)
Tunnus: POS-010674
Organisaatio: Projekti Versio: 0.15
Laadittu: 25.06.2013 Sivu(t) 3 (4)
Sisäinen Julkaistu: 05.08.2013
Sähköisestä alkuperäiskappaleesta tulosti: 20.8.2013 / leinonen_ritva © Posiva Oy Tarkista asiakirjan ajantasaisuus Hyväksytty: Palonen Erkki / 09.07.2013
Requirements and specifications are divided according to different types of underground rock facilities (See Figure 2).
Figure 2. Different types of underground rock facilities in the disposal facility. Red/ access tunnel, light blue/ technical rooms, yellow/ central tunnels, light grey/ disposal tunnels, dark blue/ canister shaft, orange/ exhaust air shaft 1, yellow/ personnel shaft, green/ inlet air shaft, dark grey/ exhaust air shaft 2 and purple/ low and intermediate level waste repository. In previous versions of this document overlapping requirements and specifications were reconciled with the VAHA-system (according to Posiva’s decision 5.6.2012, POS-013465, page. 2). In addition, HVAC, electricity and other requirements outside the scope were removed from the previous version of this document. In this version the updated sections are marked with bold text. Terminology changes are not marked with bold text.
Appendices
Appendix 1 Level 4 – Design Requirements – Technical Facilities (Design requirements of rock galleries .doc)
Appendix 2 Level 5 – Design Specifications – Technical Facilities (Design specifications of rock galleries .doc)
97 APPENDIX A1
Ohje Laatija: Antti Ikonen (Saanio & Riekkola Oy)
Tunnus: POS-010674
Organisaatio: Projekti Versio: 0.15
Laadittu: 25.06.2013 Sivu(t) 4 (4)
Sisäinen Julkaistu: 05.08.2013
Sähköisestä alkuperäiskappaleesta tulosti: 20.8.2013 / leinonen_ritva © Posiva Oy Tarkista asiakirjan ajantasaisuus Hyväksytty: Palonen Erkki / 09.07.2013
References
PLD-002517 Suunnittelussa noudatettavat lait, asetukset ja ohjeet. Posiva Oy. POS-013465 Kallion vaatimusten läpikäyminen. (In Vuojoki Mansion on Tuesday 5.6.2012.) Projekti 1129-4/2012. Posiva Oy 2012a. Design Basis report, DB-2012. Report POSIVA 2012-03. Posiva Oy. Posiva Oy 2012b. Safety case for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel at Olkiluoto – Description of the Disposal System 2012. Eurajoki, Finland. Posiva Oy. POSIVA Report 2012-05. (ISBN 978-951-652-186-5).
98 APPENDIX A1
ID
Lev
el 4
- D
esig
n R
equ
irem
ents
- T
ech
nic
al F
acili
ties
R
efer
ence
s
LIIT
E 1
L4
Tech
nic
al F
acili
ties
Des
ign
Req
s:
1
Gen
eral
YV
Lgui
delin
es s
hall
be f
ollo
wed
whe
re a
pplic
able
thr
ough
out
the
who
le s
erie
s 1.
X-8.
X ex
cept
gui
delin
es 1
.0, 1
.6 a
nd 2
.4
1.0,
1.6
and
2.4
are
not
sui
tabl
e fo
r Po
siva
’s f
acili
ties,
new
se
ries
A-F
repl
ace
the
curr
ent
guid
es in
201
3.
Ap
plic
able
law
s an
d re
gula
tions
mus
t be
follo
wed
. Exc
eptio
ns a
re p
rese
nted
to a
utho
ritie
s in
the
acc
epte
d ap
plic
atio
n fo
r bu
ildin
g pe
rmis
sion
and
in t
he a
nnua
l upd
ates
. Th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r O
NKA
LO c
onst
ruct
ion
perm
it fo
r m
unic
ipal
ity o
f Eur
ajok
i 20.
5.20
03 a
nd u
pdat
ed m
ain
draw
ings
. Ra
kenn
usla
utak
unta
/ E
uraj
oki,
2003
-007
4 (1
2.08
.200
3)
In
stru
ctio
ns a
nd r
egul
atio
ns s
tate
d in
doc
umen
t “S
uunn
ittel
ussa
nou
date
ttav
at la
it,
aset
ukse
t ja
ohj
eet”
sha
ll be
fol
low
ed.
Suun
nitt
elus
sa n
ouda
tett
avat
lait,
ase
tuks
et ja
ohj
eet,
PL
D-0
0251
7
1.
1 O
pera
tiona
l saf
ety
1.
2 Fi
re s
afet
y
1.
3 C
onst
ruct
ions
N
ew v
ersi
on o
f co
ncre
te r
egul
atio
ns B
4 sh
all b
e fo
llow
ed s
ince
14.
2.20
06
Suom
en r
aken
tam
ism
äärä
ysko
koel
ma
part
B4
Bet
onir
aken
teet
, cha
nge
valid
sin
ce 1
.1.2
005.
ON
KALO
n su
unni
ttel
ukok
ousm
uist
io n
ro 1
9 14
.2.2
006,
Grid
poin
t m
uist
io
126-
onk-
10 (
ON
K-0
0223
9, p
. 2)
1.
4 Ev
ents
1.
5 Sa
fegu
ards
2
Tech
nica
l Fac
ility
requ
irem
ents
2.
1 En
caps
ulat
ion
plan
t
2.
2 O
ther
abo
ve g
roun
d fa
cilit
ies
99 APPENDIX A2
ID
Lev
el 4
- D
esig
n R
equ
irem
ents
- T
ech
nic
al F
acili
ties
R
efer
ence
s
LIIT
E 1
2.3
Sub-
surf
ace
faci
litie
s
D
efin
ition
s
2.
3.1
All
sub-
surf
ace
room
s
In
ope
n ga
llerie
s, h
umid
ity a
nd t
empe
ratu
re s
hall
follo
w t
he s
tate
men
ts in
sys
tem
de
scrip
tion
P.74
4 (P
OS-
0080
70).
P.
744
Lopp
usijo
itusl
aito
ksen
tul
oilm
asto
intij
ärje
stel
mä,
jä
rjes
telm
äkuv
aus,
pos
-008
070
Pr
essu
risin
g th
e pe
rson
nel s
haft
and
dep
ress
uris
ing
the
cani
ster
sha
ft a
nd lo
w a
nd
inte
rmed
iate
leve
l was
te r
epos
itory
sha
ll be
don
e P.
744
Lopp
usijo
itusl
aito
ksen
tul
oilm
asto
intij
ärje
stel
mä,
jä
rjes
telm
äkuv
aus,
pos
-008
070
O
NKA
LO s
hall
be d
esig
ned
to s
erve
late
r as
par
t of
the
dis
posa
l fac
ility
W
R 20
10-5
0, p
. 48
2.
3.2
P.1
32 P
erso
nnel
sha
ft 1
Pe
rson
nel s
haft
is u
sed
as a
n at
tack
rou
te f
or f
ire b
rigad
e/ r
escu
e te
am a
nd a
s an
em
erge
ncy
exit
The
appl
icat
ion
for
ON
KALO
con
truc
tion
perm
it fo
r m
unic
ipal
ity
of E
uraj
oki 2
0.5.
2003
, app
endi
x 7,
onk
-104
947
D
ispo
sal f
acili
ty s
hall
incl
ude
a sm
alle
r lo
wer
cha
ract
eris
atio
n le
vel.T
he r
ealis
atio
n of
the
sc
hedu
le fo
r th
e lo
wer
cha
ract
eris
atio
n le
vel c
an b
e de
cide
d in
depe
nden
tly f
rom
the
res
t of
the
ON
KALO
WR2
010-
50, p
. 136
; W
R200
8-01
, p. 8
2
2.
3.3
P.1
36 C
anis
ter
shaf
t
D
ispo
sal f
acili
ty s
hall
incl
ude
a sm
alle
r lo
wer
cha
ract
eris
atio
n le
vel.T
he r
ealis
atio
n of
the
sc
hedu
le fo
r th
e lo
wer
cha
ract
eris
atio
n le
vel c
an b
e de
cide
d in
depe
nden
tly f
rom
the
res
t of
the
ON
KALO
WR2
010-
50, p
. 136
; W
R200
8-01
, p. 8
2
Ro
om f
or a
dro
p sh
ock
abso
rber
sha
ll be
exc
avat
ed fo
r su
ffic
ient
abs
orbe
r vo
lum
e Ku
kkol
a, T
. & T
örm
älä,
V-P
. 200
3. P
oltt
oain
ekap
selin
ku
iluva
imen
nink
okee
t. P
osiv
a O
y, O
lkilu
oto.
Työ
rapo
rtti
2003
-53,
pag
e 2
2.
3.4
P.1
33, P
.134
, P.1
35 A
ir sh
afts
D
ispo
sal f
acili
ty s
hall
incl
ude
a sm
alle
r lo
wer
cha
ract
eris
atio
n le
vel.T
he r
ealis
atio
n of
the
sc
hedu
le fo
r th
e lo
wer
cha
ract
eris
atio
n le
vel c
an b
e de
cide
d in
depe
nden
tly f
rom
the
res
t of
the
ON
KALO
WR2
010-
50, p
. 136
; W
R200
8-01
, p. 8
2
Th
e di
men
sion
ing
of in
let a
nd e
xhau
st a
ir sh
afts
is b
ased
on
the
volu
mes
of a
ir ne
cess
ary
for
the
smok
e ve
ntila
tion,
ven
tilat
ion
and
vent
ilatio
n of
exp
losi
on g
ases
req
uire
d by
the
di
spos
al f
acili
ty
WR2
008-
01, p
. 47
100 APPENDIX A2
ID
Lev
el 4
- D
esig
n R
equ
irem
ents
- T
ech
nic
al F
acili
ties
R
efer
ence
s
LIIT
E 1
2.3.
5 P
.131
Acc
ess
tunn
el
Ac
cess
tun
nel i
s us
ed a
s an
att
ack
rout
e fo
r fir
e br
igad
e/ r
escu
e te
am a
nd a
s an
em
erge
ncy
exit
The
appl
icat
ion
for
ON
KALO
con
truc
tion
perm
it fo
r m
unic
ipal
ity
of E
uraj
oki 2
0.5.
2003
, app
endi
x 7,
onk
-104
947
Ac
cess
tun
nel s
hall
be u
sed
as a
n em
erge
ncy
exit
and
exit
dist
ance
s ar
e al
low
ed t
o be
lo
nger
tha
n pr
esen
ted
in n
atio
nal b
uild
ing
code
(at
max
imum
the
leng
th o
f th
e lo
nges
t ac
cess
tun
nel l
oop)
The
appl
icat
ion
for
ON
KALO
con
truc
tion
perm
it fo
r m
unic
ipal
ity
of E
uraj
oki 2
0.5.
2003
, app
endi
x 7,
onk
-104
947
Pe
dest
rians
and
veh
icle
s sh
all b
e ab
le t
o pa
ss e
very
whe
re in
the
tun
nel
WR
2008
-01,
s. 4
3
One
lane
tun
nel i
s en
ough
(w
ith
pass
ing
plac
es)
TR 2
003-
03, p
49
D
ispo
sal f
acili
ty s
hall
enab
le d
rivin
g w
ith 3
V- &
3H
-can
iste
r tr
ansp
orta
tion
vehi
cle
(fro
m
grou
nd le
vel t
o th
e re
posi
tory
leve
l)
WR
2010
-50,
p. 6
In
det
erm
inin
g th
e di
men
sion
s of
the
und
ergr
ound
ope
ning
s, t
he r
equi
rem
ents
set
by
both
the
con
stru
ctio
n an
d th
e op
erat
ion
shal
l be
take
n in
to a
ccou
nt
WR2
008-
01, p
. 43,
98
D
ispo
sal f
acili
ty s
hall
incl
ude
a sm
alle
r lo
wer
cha
ract
eris
atio
n le
vel.T
he r
ealis
atio
n of
the
sc
hedu
le fo
r th
e lo
wer
cha
ract
eris
atio
n le
vel c
an b
e de
cide
d in
depe
nden
tly f
rom
the
res
t of
the
ON
KALO
WR2
010-
50, p
. 136
; W
R200
8-01
, p. 8
2
Th
ere
shal
l be
an e
ntra
nce
to th
e ca
nist
er s
haft
from
the
low
and
inte
rmed
iate
leve
l was
te
repo
sito
ry
WR2
009-
120,
p. 1
1
Lo
w a
nd in
term
edia
te le
vel w
aste
rep
osito
ry n
eed
to b
e no
ticed
at
-180
–le
vel
(con
nect
ions
) W
R 20
10-5
0, p
.7
W
ater
poo
l roo
m f
or t
he s
prin
kler
sys
tem
sha
ll be
exc
avat
ed f
or t
he s
uffic
ient
wat
er
volu
me
WR-
2008
-01,
ON
KALO
-Mai
n D
raw
ings
in 2
007,
p. 6
9
An
em
erge
ncy/
sed
imen
tatio
n po
ol r
oom
sha
ll be
exc
avat
ed f
or s
uffic
ient
wat
er v
olum
e W
R-20
08-0
1,O
NKA
LO-M
ain
Dra
win
gs in
200
7, p
. 53
Th
e pu
mpi
ng fa
cilit
ies
shal
l be
built
to
pum
p th
e ac
cum
ulat
ed w
ater
of t
he d
ispo
sal
faci
lity
up in
to
the
surf
ace.
W
R 2
009-
120,
p. 1
7
Th
ere
shal
l be
an e
mer
genc
y ex
it to
the
per
sonn
el s
haft
fro
m e
ach
acce
ss t
unne
l loo
p.
The
appl
icat
ion
for
ON
KALO
con
stru
ctio
n pe
rmit
for
mun
icip
ality
of
Eura
joki
20.
5.20
03, a
ppen
dix
7, o
nk-1
0494
7
2.3.
6 P
.122
Tec
hnic
al r
oom
s
Tu
nnel
sha
ll be
use
d as
a p
art o
f an
emer
genc
y ex
it &
att
ack
rout
e fo
r a
resc
ue te
am a
nd
exit
dist
ance
s ar
e al
low
ed t
o be
long
er t
han
pres
ente
d in
nat
iona
l bui
ldin
g co
de (
at
max
imum
the
leng
th o
f th
e lo
nges
t ac
cess
tun
nel l
oop)
The
appl
icat
ion
for
ON
KALO
con
truc
tion
perm
it fo
r m
unic
ipal
ity
of E
uraj
oki 2
0.5.
2003
, app
endi
x 7,
onk
-104
947
O
ne la
ne t
unne
l is
enou
gh (
wit
h pa
ssin
g pl
aces
) TR
200
3-03
, p 4
9
Ther
e sh
all b
e an
ent
ranc
e to
the
can
iste
r sh
aft
from
the
mai
n le
vel c
anis
ter
rece
ivin
g st
atio
n TR
2009
-120
, p. 7
, 18
101 APPENDIX A2
ID
Lev
el 4
- D
esig
n R
equ
irem
ents
- T
ech
nic
al F
acili
ties
R
efer
ence
s
LIIT
E 1
Dis
posa
l fac
ility
mus
t inc
lude
faci
litie
s fo
r tem
pora
ry o
ffic
e w
ork
in th
e co
ntro
lled
area
and
in
the
unc
ontr
olle
d ar
ea.
TR20
09-1
20, p
. 14
WR
200
9-12
0, p
. 14
D
ispo
sal f
acili
ty s
hall
incl
ude
a sm
alle
r lo
wer
cha
ract
eris
atio
n le
vel.T
he r
ealis
atio
n of
the
sc
hedu
le fo
r th
e lo
wer
cha
ract
eris
atio
n le
vel c
an b
e de
cide
d in
depe
nden
tly f
rom
the
res
t of
the
ON
KALO
WR2
010-
50, p
. 136
; W
R200
8-01
, p. 8
2
In
det
erm
inin
g th
e di
men
sion
s of
the
und
ergr
ound
ope
ning
s, t
he r
equi
rem
ents
set
by
both
the
con
stru
ctio
n an
d th
e op
erat
ion
shal
l be
take
n in
to a
ccou
nt
WR2
008-
01, p
. 43,
98
V
ehic
le c
onne
ctio
ns in
con
trol
led
area
sha
ll en
able
driv
ing
with
3V-
& 3
H-c
anis
ter
tran
spor
tatio
n ve
hicl
e W
R 20
10-5
0, p
. 6
D
ispo
sal f
acili
ty s
hall
inco
rpor
ate
a pe
rman
ent r
escu
e ch
ambe
r (on
e in
the
cont
rolle
d ar
ea
and
one
in t
he u
ncon
trol
led
area
) al
low
ing
all p
erso
ns u
nder
grou
nd t
o st
ay u
ntil
resc
ue
WR
200
9-12
0, p
. 14
Pe
rson
nel t
rans
port
to
the
disp
osal
faci
lity
shal
l be
done
mai
nly
with
the
per
sonn
el h
oist
. In
reg
ular
wor
king
situ
atio
ns t
he h
oist
sha
ll be
the
onl
y w
ay t
o th
e co
ntro
lled
area
. W
R 2
009-
120,
p. 9
In
reg
ular
wor
king
situ
atio
ns t
he f
ixed
res
cue
cham
bers
sha
ll be
use
d as
st
aff
room
s.
WR
200
9-12
0, p
. 14
Th
ere
shal
l be
enou
gh p
arki
ng s
pace
in t
he c
ontr
olle
d ar
ea a
nd in
the
unc
ontr
olle
d ar
ea
for
the
vehi
cles
of
the
pers
onne
l wor
king
und
ergr
ound
.
WR
200
9-12
0, p
. 14-
15, 1
7
Th
e w
ashi
ng a
nd r
efue
lling
roo
ms
(one
in th
e co
ntro
lled
area
and
one
in th
e un
cont
rolle
d ar
ea)
shal
l be
built
. W
R 2
009-
120,
p. 1
6
A
mai
nten
ace
area
sha
ll be
res
erve
d in
the
unc
ontr
olle
d ar
ea fo
r m
inor
mai
nten
ance
to
vehi
cles
(fo
r ex
ampl
e ch
ecki
ng t
he t
yre
pres
sure
s).
WR
200
9-12
0, p
. 15
Be
caus
e of
the
long
ser
vice
life
of
the
disp
osal
fac
ility
the
re s
hall
be c
apac
ity fo
r an
ex
tens
ion
of t
he p
arki
ng a
rea
and
the
stor
age
area
. W
R 2
009-
120,
p. 1
1
Th
ere
shal
l be
a st
orag
e ar
ea f
or t
he b
uffe
r bl
ocks
in t
he c
ontr
olle
d ar
ea.
WR
200
9-12
0, p
. 11
El
ectr
ical
roo
m n
eede
d sh
all b
e bu
ilt b
oth
in t
he c
ontr
olle
d ar
ea a
nd in
the
unc
ontr
olle
d ar
ea.
WR
200
9-12
0, p
. 38
2.
3.7
P.1
23 C
entr
al tu
nnel
s
Tu
nnel
sha
ll be
use
d as
a p
art
of a
n em
erge
ncy
exit
& a
n at
tack
rou
te fo
r a
resc
ue t
eam
an
d ex
it di
stan
ces
are
allo
wed
to
be lo
nger
tha
n pr
esen
ted
in n
atio
nal b
uild
ing
code
(at
m
axim
um t
he le
ngth
of
the
long
est
acce
ss t
unne
l loo
p)
Follo
ws
prin
cipa
l in
the
appl
icat
ion
for
ON
KALO
con
truc
tion
perm
it fo
r m
unic
ipal
ity o
f Eu
rajo
ki 2
0.5.
2003
, app
endi
x 7,
on
k-10
4947
One
lane
tun
nel i
s en
ough
(w
ith
pass
ing
plac
es)
TR 2
003-
03, p
49
Pe
dest
rians
and
veh
icle
s sh
all b
e ab
le t
o pa
ss e
very
whe
re in
the
tun
nel
WR
2008
-01,
p. 4
3
Tunn
el s
hall
enab
le d
rivin
g w
ith 3
V-ca
nist
er t
rans
port
atio
n ve
hicl
e (3
H-c
onta
iner
veh
icle
is
not
iced
in w
este
rn a
nd e
aste
rn p
anel
s)
Lopp
usijo
itusl
aito
ksen
luon
noss
uunn
itelm
a 20
09, T
R200
9-60
, p.
135
, lai
toss
uunn
ittel
ukok
ous
8.2.
2012
(PL
D-0
0233
7)
102 APPENDIX A2
ID
Lev
el 4
- D
esig
n R
equ
irem
ents
- T
ech
nic
al F
acili
ties
R
efer
ence
s
LIIT
E 1
In t
he c
entr
al t
unne
l the
cro
ss s
ectio
n sh
all b
e de
fined
by
equi
pmen
t di
men
sion
s: 3
,8 m
fr
ee r
ide
heig
ht s
hall
be t
he d
esig
n va
lue
for
all e
quip
men
t to
be
used
in t
he t
unne
l (3
H-c
onta
iner
veh
icle
is n
otic
ed in
wes
tern
and
eas
tern
pan
els)
SUO
LA-p
roje
kti,
suun
nitt
eluk
okou
s 8/
09, 2
5.11
.200
9 s.
3
(PLD
-000
468)
, lai
toss
uunn
ittel
ukok
ous
8.2.
2012
(PL
D-0
0233
7)
2.
3.8
P.1
41 D
epos
ition
tunn
els
In
rep
osito
ry s
cale
layo
ut d
esig
n (t
he n
umbe
r of
) de
posi
tion
hole
loca
tions
will
be
asse
ssed
thr
ough
util
isat
ion
degr
ee
WR
2009
-29
(RSC
Int
erim
rep
ort)
, pag
e 10
0
Tu
nnel
sha
ll be
use
d as
an
exit
to
the
cent
ral t
unne
l and
exi
t dis
tanc
es a
re a
llow
ed
to b
e lo
nger
tha
n pr
esen
ted
in n
atio
nal b
uild
ing
code
(at
max
imum
the
leng
th o
f th
e lo
nges
t ac
cess
tun
nel l
oop)
Follo
ws
prin
cipa
l in
the
appl
icat
ion
for
ON
KALO
con
truc
tion
perm
it fo
r m
unic
ipal
ity o
f Eu
rajo
ki 2
0.5.
2003
, app
endi
x 7,
on
k-10
4947
(in
dire
ctly
)
Dep
ositi
on t
unne
l mus
t be
abl
e to
acc
omm
odat
e 3V
-can
iste
r tr
ansf
er a
nd in
stal
latio
n ve
hicl
e (3
H-c
onta
iner
veh
icle
is n
ot n
otic
ed)
and
depo
sitio
n ho
le b
orin
g m
achi
ne u
sage
. Tr
ansp
orta
tion
and
othe
r eq
uipm
ent
need
to
be a
ccom
mod
ated
by
the
tunn
el s
ize
Lopp
usijo
itusl
aito
ksen
luon
noss
uunn
itelm
a 20
09, T
R200
9-60
, s.
135
; D
emot
iloje
n ka
t-to
teut
ussu
unni
telm
ien
kats
elm
us
16.9
.201
0, O
NK-
1065
11
2.
3.9
P.1
42 D
epos
ition
hol
es
2.
3.10
Dem
onst
ratio
n tu
nnel
s
O
NKA
LO s
hall
incl
ude
min
imum
of
2 de
mon
stra
tion
tunn
els,
4 h
oles
/ tu
nnel
and
1 p
lug
rese
rvat
ion
for
one
tunn
el to
ena
ble
perf
orm
ing
the
nece
ssar
y sy
stem
test
s fo
r re
posi
tory
op
erat
ion
PS-k
okou
s nr
o 19
, 20.
5.20
10, o
nk-1
0568
9
O
NK
ALO
sha
ll in
clud
e m
inim
um d
emon
srat
ion
tunn
els
num
ber
3 &
4 fo
r a
plug
te
st
Tulp
patu
nnel
it –
DO
PA
S –
PO
PLU
EU
-pro
jekt
i, P
RJ-
0059
33
O
NKA
LO s
hall
incl
ude
min
imum
of
40 m
dem
onst
ratio
n tu
nnel
and
with
a m
inim
um o
f 4
hole
s fo
r ba
ckfil
ling
and
clos
ure
test
s Ka
lliot
ilat
pros
essi
n de
mon
stra
atio
n lä
htöt
ieto
jen
kats
elm
us
4.5.
2010
PRJ
-002
595,
liite
1, s
.2
D
emon
stra
tion
tunn
el le
ngth
nee
ded
for
othe
r te
sts/
dem
onst
ratio
ns is
als
o su
ffic
ient
for
drill
ing,
gro
utin
g an
d bl
astin
g pa
tter
n te
sts
Dem
otilo
jen
kat-
tote
utus
suun
nite
lmie
n ka
tsel
mus
16.
9.20
10,
onk-
1065
11
D
epos
ition
hol
e bo
ring
mac
hine
and
8 m
tru
ck m
ust
be a
ble
to t
urn
at c
ross
roa
ds o
f de
mon
stra
tion
tunn
els.
In
dem
onst
rati
on t
unne
ls 3
& 4
(fo
r pl
ug t
est)
dep
osit
ion
ho
le b
orin
g m
achi
ne is
not
nee
ded.
Kalli
otila
t pr
oses
sin
dem
onst
raat
ion
läht
ötie
toje
n ka
tsel
mus
4.
5.20
10 P
RJ-0
0259
5, li
ite 1
, s.3
; D
rill j
umbo
San
vik
DT9
20i
(PR
J-00
3532
) (P
orau
slai
ttee
n tu
lee
void
a kä
änty
ä va
in s
ella
isiin
de
mot
unne
leih
in, j
oihi
n po
rata
an k
oelo
ppus
ijoitu
srei
kiä)
. Tu
lppa
tunn
elit
– D
OPA
S –
POPL
U E
U-p
roje
kti,
PRJ-
0059
33.
O
ther
leve
l 4-r
equi
rem
ents
of
dem
onst
ratio
n tu
nnel
s an
d ho
les
are
desc
ribed
in s
ectio
ns
2.3.
8 P.
141
Dep
ositi
on t
unne
ls a
nd 2
.3.9
P.1
42 D
epos
ition
hol
es.
(Not
a r
equi
rem
ent,
for
info
rmat
ion)
103 APPENDIX A2
104 APPENDIX A2
ID
Lev
el 5
- D
esig
n S
pec
ific
atio
ns
- T
ech
nic
al F
acili
ties
R
efer
ence
s
LIIT
E 2
Tech
nic
al F
acili
ty D
esig
n S
pec
s:
1
Gen
eral
1.
1 O
pera
tiona
l saf
ety
1.
2 Fi
re s
afet
y
1.
3 C
onst
ruct
ions
1.
4 Ev
ents
1.
5 Sa
fegu
ards
2
Tec
hn
ical
Fac
ility
Des
ign
Sp
ecs
2.
1 En
caps
ulat
ion
plan
t
2.
2 O
ther
abo
ve g
roun
d fa
cilit
ies
2.
3 Su
b-su
rfac
e fa
cilit
ies
D
efin
ition
s
2.
3.1
All
sub-
surf
ace
room
s
D
ispo
sal f
acili
ty s
hall
inco
rpor
ate
relo
cata
ble
resc
ue c
ham
bers
Th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r O
NKA
LO c
onst
ruct
ion
perm
it fo
r m
unic
ipal
ity o
f Eu
rajo
ki 2
0.5.
2003
. Rak
ennu
slau
taku
nta
/ Eu
rajo
ki, 2
003-
0074
(1
2.08
.200
3), a
ppen
dix
7, o
nk-1
0494
7
Beca
use
mos
t m
ater
ials
sha
ll be
non
-fla
mm
able
and
hea
t re
sist
ant
the
surf
ace
laye
rs s
hall
be a
t m
inim
um o
f m
ater
ial f
ire c
lass
B2-
s1, d
0. (
Min
or
surf
aces
min
imum
D-S
2, d
2 is
allo
wed
).
The
appl
icat
ion
for
ON
KALO
con
stru
ctio
n pe
rmit
for
mun
icip
ality
of
Eura
joki
20.
5.20
03. R
aken
nusl
auta
kunt
a /
Eura
joki
, 200
3-00
74
(12.
08.2
003)
, app
endi
x 7,
p. 6
, onk
-104
947.
Pal
otek
nine
n su
unni
telm
a (O
NK-
1049
47).
105 APPENDIX A3
ID
Lev
el 5
- D
esig
n S
pec
ific
atio
ns
- T
ech
nic
al F
acili
ties
R
efer
ence
s
LIIT
E 2
Fire
com
part
men
t st
ruct
ures
sha
ll be
min
imum
of
mat
eria
l fir
e cl
ass
A2-
s1, d
0.
Palo
tekn
inen
suu
nnite
lma
(ON
K-10
4947
).
Al
l exi
ts s
hall
be c
ompa
rtm
enta
lised
acc
ordi
ng t
o fir
e cl
ass
EI 6
0.
The
appl
icat
ion
for
ON
KALO
con
stru
ctio
n pe
rmit
for
mun
icip
ality
of
Eura
joki
20.
5.20
03. R
aken
nusl
auta
kunt
a /
Eura
joki
, 200
3-00
74
(12.
08.2
003)
, app
endi
x 7,
onk
-104
947;
ON
KALO
-Mai
n D
raw
ings
in
2007
, s.7
1, W
orki
ng r
epor
t 20
08-0
1
Fixe
d re
scue
cha
mbe
rs, e
lect
rical
roo
ms
and
rem
arka
ble
fire
load
s (f
uel
stor
age
room
) sh
all b
e co
mpa
rtm
enta
lised
acc
ordi
ng t
o fir
e cl
ass
EI 1
20.
The
appl
icat
ion
for
ON
KALO
con
stru
ctio
n pe
rmit
for
mun
icip
ality
of
Eura
joki
20.
5.20
03. R
aken
nusl
auta
kunt
a /
Eura
joki
, 200
3-00
74
(12.
08.2
003)
, app
endi
x 7,
p 3
, onk
-104
947;
ON
KALO
-Mai
n D
raw
ings
in
200
7, s
.71,
Wor
king
rep
ort
2008
-01
Th
e ch
emic
al c
hang
es d
ue t
o fo
reig
n m
ater
ials
in t
he r
ock
and
grou
nd
wat
er p
rope
rtie
s in
the
dis
posa
l fac
ility
mus
t be
pre
dict
ed a
nd m
anag
ed
Onk
-000
804
“Vie
raid
en a
inei
den
halli
nta”
and
onk
-005
456
“Vie
raid
en
aine
iden
val
vont
a” m
ust
be f
ollo
wed
. Thi
s is
req
uire
d in
onk
-004
094
:ssa
“Ra
kent
amis
mää
räyk
set,
ase
tuks
et ja
ohj
eet O
NKA
LOss
a” s
ectio
n 4
”Han
keko
htai
set
asia
kirj
at ja
ohj
eet”
Seep
age
wat
er p
H v
aria
tion
7-8
shal
l be
take
n in
to c
onsi
dera
tion
whe
n se
lect
ing
the
mat
eria
ls f
or o
pen
unde
rgro
und
galle
ries
Hen
kilö
nost
olai
tese
lost
us, p
. 4 (
onk-
1035
72)
Se
epag
e w
ater
chl
orid
e co
nten
t va
riatio
n 70
00-1
0000
mg
/ l s
hall
be t
aken
in
to c
onsi
dera
tion
whe
n se
lect
ing
the
mat
eria
ls f
or o
pen
unde
rgro
und
galle
ries
Hel
lä, P
., Pi
tkän
en, P
., Lö
fman
, J.,
Part
amie
s, S
., W
ersi
n, P
., Vu
orin
en,
U. &
Sne
llman
, M. 2
013.
Saf
ety
case
for
the
disp
osal
of
spen
t nu
clea
r fu
el a
t O
lkilu
oto
- D
efin
ition
of
refe
renc
e gr
ound
wat
ers
and
boun
ding
w
ater
s, a
nd b
uffe
r an
d ba
ckfil
l por
ewat
ers.
Eur
ajok
i, Fi
nlan
d: P
osiv
a O
y. W
orki
ng R
epor
t (in
pre
p.).
Serv
ice
life
of e
ach
open
tun
nel /
sha
ft s
hall
be n
otic
ed w
hen
mat
eria
ls f
or
stru
ctur
es a
re c
hose
n. I
f th
e se
rvic
e lif
e of
a s
truc
ture
is lo
wer
tha
n th
e op
en r
oom
whe
re it
is lo
cate
d, it
mus
t be
not
iced
in m
aint
enan
ce a
nd
repl
acin
g pr
ogra
m.
Syst
em d
escr
iptio
ns:
P.13
2 H
enki
löku
ilu (
POS-
0058
20)
P.13
3 Tu
loilm
akui
lu 1
(PO
S-00
5821
) P.
134
Pois
toilm
akui
lu 1
(PO
S-00
6456
) P.
131
Ajot
unne
li (P
OS-
0058
19)
P.12
2 Te
knis
et t
ilat
(PO
S-00
6404
) P.
136
Kaps
elik
uilu
(PO
S-01
3109
) P.
135
pois
toilm
akui
lu 2
(PO
S-01
3108
) P.
123
Kesk
ustu
nnel
i (PO
S-01
3107
) P.
141
Lopp
usijo
itust
unne
li (P
OS-
0131
10)
P.14
2 Lo
ppus
ijoitu
srei
kä (
POS-
0131
11)
Tw
o st
orey
dis
posa
l fac
ility
min
imum
dis
tanc
e is
100
m.
Ther
mal
ana
lysi
s of
spe
nt n
ucle
ar fu
el re
posi
tory
. Pos
iva
Oy,
Olk
iluot
o.
POSI
VA 2
003-
04, p
. 59
If
nee
ded
(acc
ordi
ng t
o O
NK
-005
466)
, a p
ress
ure-
tight
wat
er p
roof
ing
stru
ctur
e ca
n be
mad
e of
con
cret
e to
lim
it th
e se
epag
e w
ater
to
an
onk-
0008
02 ”
Turv
allis
uusk
riitt
iste
n to
imin
toje
n la
adun
varm
istu
s,
vesi
eris
tysr
aken
teet
”
106 APPENDIX A3
ID
Lev
el 5
- D
esig
n S
pec
ific
atio
ns
- T
ech
nic
al F
acili
ties
R
efer
ence
s
LIIT
E 2
ac
cept
able
leve
l (no
t in
the
dep
osit
ion
tunn
els
and
depo
siti
on h
oles
)O
NK
-005
466
”ON
KA
LOn
turv
allis
uusk
riit
tise
t to
imin
not
– vu
otov
esie
n ha
llint
a”
D
esig
n di
stan
ce f
rom
dep
osit
ion
tunn
el t
o th
e pa
ralle
l cen
tral
tu
nnel
or
tech
nica
l roo
ms
shal
l be
min
imum
50
m (
to a
void
th
erm
al d
amag
e ca
used
by
spen
t fu
el in
dep
osit
ion
hole
s)
PO
S-01
5512
”Lo
ppus
ijoi
tusl
aito
ksen
layo
utsu
unni
telm
an
kats
elm
oint
i”, 2
5.4.
201
3, p
age
3
2.
3.2
P.1
32 P
erso
nnel
sha
ft 1
Se
rvic
e lif
e sh
all b
e 12
0 ye
ars
(ope
n sh
aft)
P.
132
Hen
kilö
kuilu
, jär
jest
elm
äkuv
aus
(PO
S-00
5820
)
Rain
wat
er n
eeds
to
be is
olat
ed f
rom
acc
ess
rout
es t
o en
sure
val
id g
roun
d w
ater
sam
plin
g an
d m
easu
rem
ents
W
R200
8-01
Onk
alo-
Mai
n D
raw
ings
in 2
007,
p. 9
9
Se
epag
e w
ater
sul
phat
e co
nten
t 50
0 m
g/l s
hall
be t
aken
into
con
side
ratio
n w
hen
sele
ctin
g th
e m
ater
ials
for
ope
n sh
afts
H
enki
löno
stol
aite
selo
stus
, p.4
(on
k-10
3572
)
M
easu
ring
dam
s an
d w
ater
rin
gs o
r si
mila
r sh
all b
e bu
ilt a
ccor
ding
to in
flow
ra
te/
mon
itorin
g ne
ed:
exac
t lo
catio
ns a
re d
eliv
ered
by
rese
arch
uni
t W
R200
8-01
Onk
alo-
Mai
n D
raw
ings
in 2
007,
p. 4
4-45
; Ch
ange
s ca
used
in r
ock
and
grou
nd w
ater
sta
te s
hall
be r
ecor
ded
durin
g th
e lif
etim
e of
dis
posa
l fac
ility
: O
nk-0
0547
3 “V
uoto
vesi
mitt
auks
et ja
tar
kast
ukse
t” m
ust
be f
ollo
wed
(st
ated
in
onk-
0040
94 :
ssa
“Rak
enta
mis
mää
räyk
set,
ase
tuks
et ja
ohj
eet
ON
KALO
ssa”
sec
tion
4 ”H
anke
koht
aise
t as
iaki
rjat
ja o
hjee
t”)
2.
3.3
P.1
36 C
anis
ter
shaf
t
Se
rvic
e lif
e sh
all b
e 12
0 ye
ars
(ope
n sh
aft)
P.
136
Kaps
elik
uilu
, jär
jest
elm
äkuv
aus
(PO
S-01
3109
)
Rain
wat
er n
eeds
to
be is
olat
ed f
rom
acc
ess
rout
es t
o en
sure
val
id g
roun
d w
ater
sam
plin
g an
d m
easu
rem
ents
W
R200
8-01
Onk
alo-
Mai
n D
raw
ings
in 2
007,
p. 9
9
Se
epag
e w
ater
sul
phat
e co
nten
t 50
0 m
g/l s
hall
be t
aken
into
con
side
ratio
n w
hen
sele
ctin
g th
e m
ater
ials
for
ope
n sh
afts
H
enki
löno
stol
aite
selo
stus
, p.4
(on
k-10
3572
). R
easo
nabl
e nu
mbe
r al
so
for
all u
nder
grou
nd g
alle
ries
clos
e to
gro
und
surf
ace.
Mea
surin
g da
ms
and
wat
er r
ings
or
sim
ilar
shal
l be
built
acc
ordi
ng to
inflo
w
rate
/ m
onito
ring
need
: ex
act
loca
tions
are
del
iver
ed b
y re
sear
ch u
nit
WR2
008-
01 O
nkal
o-M
ain
Dra
win
gs in
200
7,p.
44-
45;
Chan
ges
caus
ed in
roc
k an
d gr
ound
wat
er s
tate
sha
ll be
rec
orde
d du
ring
the
lifet
ime
of D
ispo
sal f
acili
ty:
Onk
-005
473
“Vuo
tove
sim
ittau
kset
ja t
arka
stuk
set”
mus
t be
fol
low
ed (
stat
ed in
on
k-00
4094
:ss
a “R
aken
tam
ism
äärä
ykse
t, a
setu
kset
ja o
hjee
t O
NKA
LOss
a” s
ectio
n 4
”Han
keko
htai
set
asia
kirj
at ja
ohj
eet”
)
2.3.
4 P
.133
, P.1
34, P
.135
Air
shaf
ts
Se
rvic
e lif
e sh
all b
e 12
0 ye
ars
(ope
n sh
aft)
P.
133
Tulo
ilmak
uilu
1, j
ärje
stel
mäk
uvau
s (P
OS-
0058
21);
P.1
34
Pois
toilm
akui
lu 1
, jär
jest
elm
äkuv
aus
(PO
S-00
6456
); P
.135
107 APPENDIX A3
ID
Lev
el 5
- D
esig
n S
pec
ific
atio
ns
- T
ech
nic
al F
acili
ties
R
efer
ence
s
LIIT
E 2
po
isto
ilmak
uilu
2, j
ärje
stel
mäk
uvau
s (P
OS-
0131
08)
Ra
inw
ater
nee
ds t
o be
isol
ated
fro
m a
cces
s ro
utes
to
ensu
re v
alid
gro
und
wat
er s
ampl
ing
and
mea
sure
men
ts
WR2
008-
01 O
nkal
o-M
ain
Dra
win
gs in
200
7,p.
99
Se
epag
e w
ater
sul
phat
e co
nten
t 50
0 m
g/l s
hall
be t
aken
into
con
side
ratio
n w
hen
sele
ctin
g th
e m
ater
ials
for
ope
n sh
afts
H
enki
löno
stol
aite
selo
stus
, p.4
(on
k-10
3572
)
M
easu
ring
dam
s an
d w
ater
rin
gs o
r si
mila
r sh
all b
e bu
ilt a
ccor
ding
to in
flow
ra
te/
mon
itorin
g ne
ed:
exac
t lo
catio
ns a
re d
eliv
ered
by
rese
arch
uni
t W
R200
8-01
Onk
alo-
Mai
n D
raw
ings
in 2
007,
p. 4
4-45
; Ch
ange
s ca
used
in r
ock
and
grou
nd w
ater
sta
te s
hall
be r
ecor
ded
durin
g th
e lif
etim
e of
Dis
posa
l fac
ility
: O
nk-0
0547
3 “V
uoto
vesi
mitt
auks
et ja
tar
kast
ukse
t” m
ust
be f
ollo
wed
(st
ated
in
onk-
0040
94 :
ssa
“Rak
enta
mis
mää
räyk
set,
ase
tuks
et ja
ohj
eet
ON
KALO
ssa”
sec
tion
4 ”H
anke
koht
aise
t as
iaki
rjat
ja o
hjee
t”)
Fi
xed
mai
nten
ance
cag
e in
inle
t ai
r sh
aft
1 LS
-kok
ous
1/20
11, P
LD-0
0174
9. (
In o
ther
air
shaf
ts r
eser
vatio
n fo
r au
tocr
ane
oper
atio
n w
ith c
age
box
from
gro
und
leve
l.)
Sa
me
airs
sha
fts
are
used
for
the
smok
e ve
ntila
tion,
ven
tilat
ion
and
vent
ilatio
n of
exp
losi
on g
ases
TR
2009
-51,
p. 5
-6
2.
3.5
P.1
31 A
cces
s tu
nnel
Ra
inw
ater
nee
ds t
o be
isol
ated
fro
m a
cces
s ro
utes
to
ensu
re v
alid
gro
und
wat
er s
ampl
ing
and
mea
sure
men
ts
WR2
008-
01 O
nkal
o-M
ain
Dra
win
gs in
200
7,p.
99
Ac
cess
tun
nel s
ervi
ce li
fe s
hall
be 1
20 y
ears
(op
en t
unne
l) P.
131
Ajot
unne
li, jä
rjes
telm
äkuv
aus
(PO
S-00
5819
)
M
ax 6
cha
ract
eris
atio
n ni
ches
are
nee
ded
alon
g ac
cess
tun
nel
Dra
win
g ar
k-67
8-10
, ON
K-00
0957
Seep
age
wat
er s
ulph
ate
cont
ent
500
mg/
l sha
ll be
tak
en in
to c
onsi
dera
tion
whe
n se
lect
ing
the
mat
eria
ls f
or o
pen
acce
ss t
unne
l H
enki
löno
stol
aite
selo
stus
, p.4
(on
k-10
3572
) . R
easo
nabl
e nu
mbe
r als
o fo
r al
l und
ergr
ound
gal
lerie
s cl
ose
to g
roun
d su
rfac
e.
Vi
sits
dur
ing
cons
truc
tion:
onl
y fo
r VI
Ps, m
ax g
roup
of
9 (in
clud
ing
guid
e an
d dr
iver
), s
mal
l die
sel v
ehic
le w
ith 4
W d
rive
for
1+8
peop
le, v
isit
to fi
xed
rese
arch
nic
he, w
here
rem
ovab
le r
escu
e ch
ambe
r is
siz
ed f
or v
isito
rs t
oo
ON
KALO
-pro
jekt
in o
hjau
sryh
män
kok
.pk
2/02
, onk
-P-2
3/02
Co
ver
plat
es o
f flo
or d
ucts
are
par
t of
the
pav
emen
t.
P.13
1 Aj
otun
neli,
järj
este
lmäk
uvau
s (P
OS-
0058
19)
M
eetin
g po
ints
and
two
tunn
els’
inte
rsec
tions
dim
ensi
oned
for t
wo
8 m
long
lo
rrie
s (o
ne s
tops
with
out
reve
rsin
g) a
nd f
or o
ne 1
6,5
m lo
ng s
emitr
aile
r (p
rese
nt v
ehic
le s
tand
ard)
WR
2008
-01,
s. 4
3 TR
200
3-66
, s.3
3
Tu
nnel
cur
ves
for
two
8 m
long
lorr
ies
to m
eet
(with
out
stop
ping
) an
d fo
r on
e 16
,5 m
long
sem
itrai
ler
(pre
sent
veh
icle
sta
ndar
d)
WR
2008
-01,
s. 4
3 TR
200
3-66
, s.3
3
Mee
ting
vehi
cles
’ spe
ed a
nd v
isib
ility
mus
t al
low
sto
ppin
g be
fore
col
lisio
n an
d w
et c
ondi
tions
mus
t be
not
iced
O
nkal
on a
jotu
nnel
in g
eom
etria
n to
imiv
uust
arka
stel
ut, S
&R
mui
stio
, pr
ojek
ti 93
1-10
/201
0
108 APPENDIX A3
ID
Lev
el 5
- D
esig
n S
pec
ific
atio
ns
- T
ech
nic
al F
acili
ties
R
efer
ence
s
LIIT
E 2
Acce
ss t
unne
l cur
ve m
inim
um in
ner
radi
us is
26
m. A
cces
s tu
nnel
: m
ax
incl
inat
ion
1:10
(in
inne
r ra
dius
of t
unne
l), F
ree
traf
fic
lane
rid
e w
idth
in
door
s 4,
4 m
.
WR2
008-
01 O
nkal
o-M
ain
Dra
win
gs in
200
7, p
. 43-
44
ON
KALO
-pro
jekt
in o
hjau
sryh
män
kok
.pk
2/02
, onk
-P-2
3/02
Ac
cess
tunn
el c
urve
min
imum
inne
r rad
ius
is 2
0 m
, but
6 m
mar
gina
l is
used
(in
Äsp
ö 20
m w
ithou
t m
argi
nal i
s us
ed).
Acc
ess
tunn
el f
ree
traf
fic
lane
rid
e he
ight
is 4
,5 m
. O
NK
ALO
-pro
jekt
iryh
män
kok
ous
pk 2
/02,
ON
K-P
-23/
02.
M
easu
ring
dam
s an
d w
ater
rin
gs o
r si
mila
r sh
all b
e bu
ilt a
ccor
ding
to in
flow
ra
te/
mon
itorin
g ne
ed:
exac
t lo
catio
ns a
re d
eliv
ered
by
rese
arch
uni
t W
R200
8-01
Onk
alo-
Mai
n D
raw
ings
in 2
007,
p. 4
4-45
; Ch
ange
s ca
used
in r
ock
and
grou
nd w
ater
sta
te s
hall
be r
ecor
ded
durin
g th
e lif
etim
e of
Dis
posa
l fac
ility
: O
nk-0
0547
3 “V
uoto
vesi
mitt
auks
et ja
tar
kast
ukse
t” m
ust
be f
ollo
wed
(st
ated
in
onk-
0040
94 :
ssa
“Rak
enta
mis
mää
räyk
set,
ase
tuks
et ja
ohj
eet
ON
KALO
ssa”
sec
tion
4 ”H
anke
koht
aise
t as
iaki
rjat
ja o
hjee
t”)
As
sum
ing
that
the
hall
ceili
ng o
f the
rep
osito
ry fo
r the
low
and
inte
rmed
iate
le
vel w
aste
is s
hape
d as
a h
alf-
ellip
se, t
he t
otal
vol
ume
of t
he h
all i
s 54
00
m3
Paun
onen
, M.,
Kelo
kask
i, P.
, Eur
ajok
i, T.
and
Kyl
löne
n, J
. Was
te
Stre
ams
at t
he E
ncap
sula
tion
Plan
t. P
osiv
a W
orki
ng r
epor
t 20
12-7
0.
Po
ol r
oom
for
the
spr
inkl
er s
yste
m s
hall
be d
imen
sion
ed f
or 2
00 m
3 of
sp
rinkl
er w
ater
W
R-20
08-0
1,O
NKA
LO-M
ain
Dra
win
gs in
200
7, s
ectio
n 9.
3.2,
p. 6
9
A
sedi
men
tatio
n po
ol s
hall
be d
imen
sion
ed fo
r a
pum
ping
inte
rrup
tion
of 4
8 ho
urs.
W
R-20
08-0
1,O
NKA
LO-M
ain
Dra
win
gs in
200
7, s
ectio
n 8.
6, p
. 53
2.
3.6
P.1
22 T
echn
ical
roo
ms
Se
rvic
e lif
e sh
all b
e 12
0 ye
ars
(ope
n tu
nnel
s)
P.12
2 Te
knis
et t
ilat,
järj
este
lmäk
uvau
s (P
OS-
0064
04),
WR2
009-
120,
p.
13
M
eetin
g po
ints
and
two
tunn
els’
inte
rsec
tions
dim
ensi
oned
for t
wo
8 m
long
lo
rrie
s (o
ne s
tops
with
out
reve
rsin
g) a
nd f
or o
ne 1
6,5
m lo
ng s
emitr
aile
r (p
rese
nt v
ehic
le s
tand
ard)
WR
2008
-01,
s. 4
3 TR
200
3-66
, s.3
3
Tu
nnel
cur
ves
for
two
8 m
long
lorr
ies
to m
eet
(with
out
stop
ping
) an
d fo
r on
e 16
,5 m
long
sem
itrai
ler
(pre
sent
veh
icle
sta
ndar
d)
WR
2008
-01,
s. 4
3 TR
200
3-66
, s.3
3
Mee
ting
vehi
cles
’ spe
ed a
nd v
isib
ility
mus
t al
low
sto
ppin
g be
fore
col
lisio
n an
d w
et c
ondi
tions
mus
t be
not
iced
O
nkal
on a
jotu
nnel
in g
eom
etria
n to
imiv
uust
arka
stel
ut, S
&R
mui
stio
, pr
ojek
ti 93
1-10
/201
0
Tunn
el c
urve
min
imum
inne
r ra
dius
sha
ll be
20
m, e
xcep
tiona
lly c
lose
to
dem
otun
nels
26
m
WR
2009
-120
, s. 1
3; O
NKA
LOn
suun
nitt
eluk
okou
s nr
o 69
, s.3
, (o
nk-1
0571
3)
D
ispo
sal f
acili
ty s
hall
inco
rpor
ate
a pe
rman
ent
resc
ue c
ham
ber
for
100
pers
ons
in t
he u
ncon
trol
led
area
and
50
pers
ons
in t
he c
ontr
olle
d ar
ea
TR20
09-1
20, p
. 14
Vi
sits
dur
ing
cons
truc
tion:
onl
y fo
r VI
Ps, m
ax g
roup
of
9 (in
clud
ing
guid
e an
d dr
iver
), s
mal
l die
sel v
ehic
le w
ith 4
W d
rive
for
1+8
peop
le, v
isit
to fi
xed
ON
KALO
-pro
jekt
in o
hjau
sryh
män
kok
.pk
2/02
, onk
-P-2
3/02
109 APPENDIX A3
ID
Lev
el 5
- D
esig
n S
pec
ific
atio
ns
- T
ech
nic
al F
acili
ties
R
efer
ence
s
LIIT
E 2
re
sear
ch n
iche
, whe
re r
emov
able
res
cue
cham
ber
is s
ized
for
vis
itors
too
Visi
ts w
hen
ON
KALO
is c
ompl
eted
: fo
r in
tere
st g
roup
vis
itors
, max
gro
up o
f 13
(in
clud
ing
guid
es),
vis
it to
fixe
d re
sear
ch n
iche
or
dem
onst
ratio
n tu
nnel
s on
mai
n ch
arac
teriz
atio
n le
vel,
whe
re r
emov
able
and
fixe
d re
scue
cha
mbe
r ar
e si
zed
for
visi
tors
too
The
appl
icat
ion
for
ON
KALO
con
stru
ctio
n pe
rmit
for
mun
icip
ality
of
Eura
joki
20.
5.20
03. R
aken
nusl
auta
kunt
a /
Eura
joki
, 200
3-00
74
(12.
08.2
003)
, up
to d
ate
appe
ndix
7, o
nk-1
0494
7
Vi
sits
whe
n D
ispo
sal f
acili
ty is
com
plet
ed:
in n
on-c
ontr
olle
d ar
ea a
s ab
ove,
in
con
trol
led
area
ano
ther
inte
rest
gro
up m
ax 1
3 pe
ople
(in
clud
ing
guid
es,
no b
us t
rans
port
atio
n).
WR2
008-
01 O
NKA
LO M
ain
Dra
win
gs in
200
7, p
. 100
.
Co
ver
plat
es o
f flo
or d
ucts
are
par
t of
the
pav
emen
t.
P.13
1 Aj
otun
neli,
järj
este
lmäk
uvau
s (P
OS-
0058
19)
Te
chni
cal r
oom
s fr
ee t
raff
ic la
ne r
ide
heig
ht is
4.5
m
ON
KALO
-pro
jekt
iryhm
än k
okou
s pk
2/0
2, O
NK-
P-23
/02
M
ax in
clin
atio
n 1:
10 (
in in
ner
radi
us o
f tu
nnel
) an
d w
idth
in t
raff
ic la
ne
door
s m
inim
um 4
,4 m
W
R 20
08-0
1, p
. 44;
ON
KALO
-pro
jekt
iryhm
än k
okou
s pk
2/0
2,
ON
K-P-
23/0
2
Mea
surin
g da
ms
and
wat
er r
ings
or
sim
ilar
shal
l be
built
acc
ordi
ng to
inflo
w
rate
/ m
onito
ring
need
: ex
act
loca
tions
are
del
iver
ed b
y re
sear
ch u
nit
WR2
008-
01 O
nkal
o-M
ain
Dra
win
gs in
200
7,p.
44-
45;
Chan
ges
caus
ed in
roc
k an
d gr
ound
wat
er s
tate
sha
ll be
rec
orde
d du
ring
the
lifet
ime
of D
ispo
sal f
acili
ty:
Onk
-005
473
“Vuo
tove
sim
ittau
kset
ja t
arka
stuk
set”
mus
t be
fol
low
ed (
stat
ed in
on
k-00
4094
:ss
a “R
aken
tam
ism
äärä
ykse
t, a
setu
kset
ja o
hjee
t O
NKA
LOss
a” s
ectio
n 4
”Han
keko
htai
set
asia
kirj
at ja
ohj
eet”
)
Unc
ontr
olle
d ar
ea s
taff
roo
m s
hall
be d
imen
sion
ed fo
r 35
peo
ple
(incl
udin
g w
ater
clo
sets
, sho
wer
, min
i kitc
hen,
din
ing
area
and
cle
anin
g su
pply
roo
m)
WR
2009
-120
, p. 1
4
Co
ntro
lled
area
sta
ff r
oom
sha
ll be
dim
ensi
oned
for
24
peop
le (
incl
udin
g w
ater
clo
sets
, sho
wer
, min
i kitc
hen,
din
ing
area
and
cle
anin
g su
pply
roo
m.
WR
2009
-120
, p. 1
4
St
orag
e ar
ea f
loor
for
the
buff
er b
lock
s sh
all b
e 15
0 m
2 and
fre
e h
eigh
t 4,
5 m
in t
he c
ontr
olle
d ar
ea.
WR
200
9-12
0, p
. 17
Co
ntro
lled
area
: an
und
ergr
ound
par
king
hal
l sha
ll be
dim
ensi
oned
for
ten
2,
75*6
m s
pots
and
for
fiv
e 4*
10 s
pots
, ref
uelli
ng a
nd w
ashi
ng h
all m
in.
wid
th 6
m a
nd le
ngth
14
m.
WR
2009
-120
, p. 1
6-17
U
ncon
trol
led
area
: an
und
ergr
ound
par
king
hal
l sha
ll be
dim
ensi
oned
for
th
irty
2,75
*6m
spo
ts a
nd fo
r on
e 4*
10 s
pot,
ref
uelli
ng a
nd w
ashi
ng h
all
min
. wid
th 6
m a
nd le
ngth
20
m, f
uel t
ank
room
for
one
2-3
m3 c
onta
iner
.
WR
2009
-120
, p. 1
5-16
O
NK
-104
947
“Pal
otek
nine
n su
unni
telm
a”
R
efue
lling
and
was
hing
hal
ls a
nd f
uel t
ank
room
mus
t go
thr
ough
A
TEX
eva
luat
ion.
V
Na
576/
2003
. The
ATE
X (
atm
osph
ères
ex
plos
ible
s)re
gula
tion
is a
Eur
opea
n di
rect
ive
whi
ch r
equi
res
all h
eads
of
orga
niza
tion
s to
ful
ly u
nder
stan
d th
e ri
sks
rela
ted
to c
erta
in e
xplo
sive
env
iron
men
ts. T
o do
thi
s, a
n ev
alua
tion
of
the
risk
of
expl
osio
n in
a c
ompa
ny is
req
uire
d in
110 APPENDIX A3
ID
Lev
el 5
- D
esig
n S
pec
ific
atio
ns
- T
ech
nic
al F
acili
ties
R
efer
ence
s
LIIT
E 2
or
der
to id
enti
fy a
ny lo
cati
ons
whe
re e
xplo
sive
env
iron
men
ts
coul
d fo
rm, a
nd t
hen
to p
ut in
pla
ce t
he m
eans
to
avoi
d ex
plos
ion.
For
the
need
s of
reg
ular
wor
king
in t
he D
ispo
sal f
acili
ty t
here
sha
ll be
a
UPS
-cen
tre,
a U
PS-b
atte
ryro
om, a
tel
ecom
mun
icat
ion
room
, a
sprin
kler
-cen
tre
and
a st
orag
e ro
om f
or c
ompr
esse
d ai
r bo
ttle
s in
the
un
cont
rolle
d ar
ea.
WR
200
9-12
0, p
. 14
Th
e m
aint
enan
ce p
lace
sha
ll be
dim
ensi
oned
as
6 x
10 m
in t
he
unco
ntro
lled
area
. W
R 20
09-1
20, p
. 15
2.
3.7
P.1
23 C
entr
al tu
nnel
s
Se
rvic
e lif
e va
ries
(acc
ordi
ng t
o pa
nel s
ize
and
loca
tion
) in
diff
eren
t ce
ntra
l tun
nels
and
sha
ll be
20-
60 y
ears
(op
en t
unne
ls)
P.12
3 Ke
skus
tunn
eli,
järj
este
lmäk
uvau
s
Co
ver
plat
es o
f flo
or d
uct
are
part
of
the
pave
men
t.
P.12
3 Ke
skus
tunn
eli,
järj
este
lmäk
uvau
s (P
OS-
0131
07)
M
eetin
g po
ints
and
two
tunn
els’
inte
rsec
tions
dim
ensi
oned
for t
wo
8 m
long
lo
rrie
s (o
ne s
tops
with
out
reve
rsin
g) a
nd f
or o
ne 1
6,5
m lo
ng s
emitr
aile
r (p
rese
nt v
ehic
le s
tand
ard,
sem
itrai
ler
can
be r
ever
sed
from
cen
tral
tun
nel)
WR
2008
-01,
s. 4
3 TR
200
3-66
, s.3
3 P.
123
Kesk
ustu
nnel
i, jä
rjes
telm
äkuv
aus
(PO
S-01
3107
)
Tunn
el c
urve
s fo
r tw
o 8
m lo
ng lo
rrie
s to
mee
t (w
ithou
t st
oppi
ng)
and
for
one
16,5
m lo
ng s
emitr
aile
r (p
rese
nt v
ehic
le s
tand
ard,
sem
itrai
ler
can
be
reve
rsed
fro
m c
entr
al t
unne
l)
WR
2008
-01,
s. 4
3 TR
200
3-66
, s.3
3 P.
123
Kesk
ustu
nnel
i, jä
rjes
telm
äkuv
aus
M
eetin
g ve
hicl
es’ s
peed
and
vis
ibili
ty m
ust
allo
w s
topp
ing
befo
re c
ollis
ion
and
wet
con
ditio
ns m
ust
be n
otic
ed
Onk
alon
ajo
tunn
elin
geo
met
rian
toim
ivuu
star
kast
elut
, S&
R m
uist
io,
proj
ekti
931-
10/2
010
Tu
nnel
min
fre
e tr
affi
c la
ne r
ide
high
t is
3,8
m (
4,5
m w
here
KBS
-3H
is
prep
ared
for
) an
d fr
ee w
idth
in d
oors
is m
inim
um 3
,5 m
La
itoss
uunn
ittel
ukok
ous
8.2.
2012
(PL
D-0
0233
7)
M
ax in
clin
atio
n 1:
10 (
in in
ner r
adiu
s of
tunn
el),
tunn
el c
urve
min
imum
inne
r ra
dius
is 2
0 m
W
R 20
09-1
20, s
. 13
In
clin
atio
n m
in 1
:100
tow
ards
tec
hnic
al r
oom
s an
d se
dim
enta
tion
pool
W
R 20
09-1
20, s
. 13
M
easu
ring
dam
s an
d w
ater
rin
gs o
r si
mila
r sh
all b
e bu
ilt a
ccor
ding
to in
flow
ra
te/
mon
itorin
g ne
ed:
exac
t lo
catio
ns a
re d
eliv
ered
by
rese
arch
uni
t W
R200
8-01
Onk
alo-
Mai
n D
raw
ings
in 2
007,
p. 4
4-45
; Ch
ange
s ca
used
in r
ock
and
grou
nd w
ater
sta
te s
hall
be r
ecor
ded
durin
g th
e lif
etim
e of
Dis
posa
l fac
ility
: O
nk-0
0547
3 “V
uoto
vesi
mitt
auks
et ja
tar
kast
ukse
t” m
ust
be f
ollo
wed
(st
ated
in
onk-
0040
94 :
ssa
“Rak
enta
mis
mää
räyk
set,
ase
tuks
et ja
ohj
eet
ON
KALO
ssa”
sec
tion
4 ”H
anke
koht
aise
t as
iaki
rjat
ja o
hjee
t”)
In
pan
el a
rea
cent
ral t
unne
l con
nect
ions
bet
wee
n tw
o ce
ntra
l tun
nels
ro
ughl
y ev
ery
100
met
ers
for
esca
pe r
oute
W
R200
6-94
Pre
limin
ary
desi
gn o
f th
e re
posi
tory
, sta
ge 2
, p.3
2 (E
scap
e di
stan
ces
can
chan
ge a
fter
new
sm
oke
mod
ellin
g re
sults
.)
111 APPENDIX A3
ID
Lev
el 5
- D
esig
n S
pec
ific
atio
ns
- T
ech
nic
al F
acili
ties
R
efer
ence
s
LIIT
E 2
In p
anel
are
a 20
m b
edro
ck th
ickn
ess
betw
een
two
cent
ral t
unne
ls a
llow
for
turn
ing
poin
t of
veh
icle
s W
R200
6-94
Pre
limin
ary
desi
gn o
f th
e re
posi
tory
, sta
ge 2
, p.3
3
2.
3.8
P.1
41 D
epos
ition
tunn
els
Se
rvic
e lif
e sh
all b
e m
ax 2
0 ye
ars
(ope
n tu
nnel
). S
ervi
ce li
fe o
f th
e (s
hort
) pa
rt b
etw
een
the
plug
and
cen
tral
tunn
el s
hall
be 2
0-60
yea
rs (
acco
rdin
g to
ce
ntra
l tun
nel)
P.14
1 Lo
ppus
ijoitu
stun
neli,
järj
este
lmäk
uvau
s (P
OS-
0131
10)
M
easu
ring
dam
s an
d w
ater
rin
gs o
r si
mila
r sh
all b
e bu
ilt a
ccor
ding
to in
flow
ra
te/
mon
itorin
g ne
ed:
exac
t lo
catio
ns a
re d
eliv
ered
by
rese
arch
uni
t W
R200
8-01
Onk
alo-
Mai
n D
raw
ings
in 2
007,
p. 4
4-45
; Ch
ange
s ca
used
in r
ock
and
grou
nd w
ater
sta
te s
hall
be r
ecor
ded
durin
g th
e lif
etim
e of
Dis
posa
l fac
ility
: O
nk-0
0547
3 “V
uoto
vesi
mitt
auks
et ja
tar
kast
ukse
t” m
ust
be f
ollo
wed
(st
ated
in
onk-
0040
94 :
ssa
“Rak
enta
mis
mää
räyk
set,
ase
tuks
et ja
ohj
eet
ON
KALO
ssa”
sec
tion
4 ”H
anke
koht
aise
t as
iaki
rjat
ja o
hjee
t”)
Th
ere
mus
t be
a s
yste
m (
colla
r /
floor
) ar
ound
the
dep
ositi
on h
ole
to
prev
ent
any
grav
el fr
om fa
lling
into
the
hol
e du
ring
the
cani
ster
inst
alla
tion
proc
ess
WR2
008-
38 P
relim
inar
y D
esig
n fo
r Sp
ent
Fuel
Can
iste
r H
andl
ing
Syst
ems
in a
Can
iste
r Tr
ansf
er a
nd I
nsta
llatio
n Ve
hicl
e, s
. 44
In
the
dep
ositi
on t
unne
l the
cha
mfe
r sh
all b
e di
men
sion
ed f
or t
urni
ng
cani
ster
tra
nsfe
r an
d in
stal
latio
n ve
hicl
e.
Dis
posa
l Fac
ility
at O
lkilu
oto,
Out
line
desi
gn fi
gure
s an
d dr
awin
gs, F
eb
2010
, Lai
toss
uunn
ittel
ukok
ous
8.2.
2012
(PL
D-0
0233
7)
In
the
dep
ositi
on t
unne
l the
fre
e rid
e he
ight
sha
ll be
3,8
m a
nd f
ree
ride
wid
th (
also
in d
oors
) sh
all b
e 3,
5 m
La
itoss
uunn
ittel
ukok
ous
8.2.
2012
(PL
D-0
0233
7)
M
axim
um le
ngth
of t
he d
epos
ition
tunn
el is
350
m (
from
the
doo
r to
th
e tu
nnel
end
), b
ecau
se o
f sm
oke
rem
oval
rea
sons
. W
R200
6-94
Pre
limin
ary
desi
gn o
f th
e re
posi
tory
, sta
ge 2
, p.6
4
G
ravi
ty d
rain
age:
ther
e sh
all b
e in
clin
atio
n (1
:50)
tow
ard
the
cent
ral t
unne
lD
ispo
sal F
acili
ty a
t Olk
iluot
o, O
utlin
e de
sign
figu
res
and
draw
ings
, Feb
20
10
2.
3.9
P.1
42 D
epos
ition
hol
es
Al
low
ed a
reas
to lo
cate
dep
ositi
on h
oles
sha
ll be
del
iver
ed b
y RS
C-pr
ogra
m.
WR
2009
-20
RSC-
prog
ram
me-
inte
rim r
epor
t
Serv
ice
life
(hol
e op
en)
shal
l be
max
3 y
ears
. P.
142
Sijo
itusr
eikä
, jär
jest
elm
äkuv
aus
(PO
S-01
3111
)
All c
anis
ter
type
s: d
epos
ition
hol
e di
stan
ce t
oler
ance
fro
m e
ach
othe
r is
+
0.5
m
Ikon
en, K
. & R
aiko
, H. 2
012.
The
rmal
Dim
ensi
onin
g of
Olk
iluot
o Re
posi
tory
for
Spe
nt F
uel.
Wor
king
rep
ort
2012
-56.
Pos
iva
Oy.
Last
hol
e m
inim
um d
ista
nce
shal
l be
5,5
m f
rom
dep
ositi
on t
unne
l end
to
the
mid
dle
of t
he h
ole
P.43
1 Ka
psel
in s
iirto
- ja
ase
nnus
ajon
euvo
, jär
jest
elm
äkuv
aus
D
epos
ition
hol
e le
ngth
tol
eran
ce is
0..+
50 m
m f
or f
ull d
iam
eter
ver
tical
se
ctio
n LS
-rei
kien
mito
itusk
okou
s (P
OS-
0091
05)
D
epos
ition
hol
e st
artin
g po
int
max
imum
allo
wed
dev
iatio
n pe
rpen
dicu
lar
to
LS-r
eiki
en m
itoitu
skok
ous
(pos
-009
105)
112 APPENDIX A3
ID
Lev
el 5
- D
esig
n S
pec
ific
atio
ns
- T
ech
nic
al F
acili
ties
R
efer
ence
s
LIIT
E 2
tu
nnel
axi
s is
+ 5
0 m
m
M
axim
um a
llow
ed h
oris
onta
l dev
iatio
n be
twee
n st
artin
g po
int
at t
unne
l flo
or a
nd n
omin
al c
entr
e of
hol
e at
bot
tom
is 2
5 m
m
WR
2009
-131
, Des
crip
tion
of b
asic
des
ign
for
buff
er, t
able
3-1
, s.1
5;
LS-r
eiki
en m
itoitu
skok
ous
(pos
-009
105)
2.3.
10 D
emon
stra
tion
tunn
els
O
NKA
LO s
hall
incl
ude
4 de
mon
stra
tion
tunn
els
(hor
izon
tal l
engt
h 47
,627
m
+ 1
05 m
+23
m +
20
m),
4 d
epos
ition
dem
onst
ratio
n ho
les/
de
mot
unne
ls 1
&2
and
1 pl
ug r
eser
vatio
n fo
r de
mot
unne
l 3 o
r 4
OVA
-mee
ting
4/20
12, P
OS-
0129
95
PS-k
okou
s nr
o 19
, 20.
5.20
10, O
NK-
1056
89
OVA
-mee
ting
1/20
11, P
OS-
0099
90
OVA
-mee
ting
6/20
11, P
OS-
0112
66
Tulp
an d
emon
stra
atio
töid
en a
ikat
aulu
tus
ja t
arpe
et, P
OS-
0116
84,
Tulp
patu
nnel
it –
DO
PA
S –
PO
PLU
EU
-pro
jekt
i, P
RJ-
0059
33
Fr
ont
of d
emon
stra
tion
tun
nels
in v
ehic
le c
onne
ctio
n 11
ther
e sh
all
be s
pace
for
5 sm
all v
ehic
les,
2.5
x 6
m s
edim
enta
tion
box,
dry
toi
let,
and
po
rtab
le r
escu
e ch
ambe
r fo
r 12
peo
ple
Dem
oalu
een
suun
nitt
eluv
aatim
ukse
t PR
J-00
2595
D
emon
stra
tion
tunn
els’
firs
t lif
e cy
cle
shal
l be
10 y
ears
for
rei
nfor
cem
ent
P.12
2 Te
knis
et t
ilat,
järj
este
lmäk
uvau
s (P
OS-
0064
04);
Ka
lliot
ilat
pros
essi
n de
mon
stra
atio
n lä
htöt
ieto
jen
kats
elm
us 4
.5.2
010
prj-
0025
69, l
iite
1, s
.4
D
emo
tunn
el c
ham
fer
shal
l be
3 x
3 m
(m
inim
um)
for
borin
g m
achi
ne
Not
dim
ensi
onin
g, (
Dem
o-tu
nnel
it, s
uunn
ittel
un lä
htöt
iedo
t –
KapR
e-TP
3, p
rj-0
0251
8)
Th
ere
are
no r
equi
rem
ents
for
the
allo
wed
spa
lling
aft
er c
losu
re in
de
mot
unne
ls a
nd d
emoh
oles
(th
ere
will
nev
er b
e an
y sp
ent
fuel
insi
de t
he
dem
otun
nels
or
–hol
es).
EDZ-
vaat
imus
ten
kiin
nitt
ämin
en d
emot
iloill
e –
koko
usm
uist
io
(pos
-009
124)
In
dem
o tu
nnel
s (1
&2)
the
cham
fer
(in c
ross
ing
tunn
els)
sha
ll pr
ovid
e ro
om f
or c
ompa
rtm
ent
wal
ls.
Dem
ovaa
timus
koko
us 2
3.9.
2010
, onk
-106
516
(Kos
kee
dem
otun
nele
ita 1
ja 2
)
Oth
er s
peci
ficat
ions
of
dem
onst
ratio
n tu
nnel
s an
d ho
les
are
desc
ribed
is
sect
ions
2.3
.8 P
.141
Dep
ositi
on t
unne
ls a
nd 2
.3.9
P.1
42 D
epos
ition
hol
es.
113 APPENDIX A3
114 APPENDIX A3
115 APPENDIX 4
116 APPENDIX 4
117 APPENDIX 4
118 APPENDIX 4
119 APPENDIX 4
120 APPENDIX 4
121 APPENDIX 4
122 APPENDIX 4
123 APPENDIX 4
124 APPENDIX 4
125 APPENDIX 4
126 APPENDIX 4
127 APPENDIX 4
128 APPENDIX 4
129 APPENDIX 4
130 APPENDIX 4
131 APPENDIX 4
132 APPENDIX 4
133 APPENDIX 4
134 APPENDIX 4
135 APPENDIX 4
136 APPENDIX 4
137 APPENDIX 4
138 APPENDIX 4
139 APPENDIX 4
140 APPENDIX 4
141 APPENDIX 4
142 APPENDIX 4
143 APPENDIX 4
144 APPENDIX 4
145 APPENDIX 4
146 APPENDIX 4
147 APPENDIX 4
148 APPENDIX 4
149 APPENDIX 4
150 APPENDIX 4
151 APPENDIX 4
152 APPENDIX 4
153 APPENDIX 4
154 APPENDIX 4
155 APPENDIX 4
156 APPENDIX 4
157 APPENDIX 4
158 APPENDIX 4
159 APPENDIX 4
160 APPENDIX 4
LIST OF REPORTS
POSIVA-REPORTS 2012
_______________________________________________________________________________________
POSIVA 2012-01 Monitoring at Olkiluoto – a Programme for the Period Before Repository Operation Posiva Oy ISBN 978-951-652-182-7 POSIVA 2012-02 Microstructure, Porosity and Mineralogy Around Fractures in Olkiluoto
Bedrock Jukka Kuva (ed.), Markko Myllys, Jussi Timonen, University of Jyväskylä Maarit Kelokaski, Marja Siitari-Kauppi, Jussi Ikonen, University of Helsinki Antero Lindberg, Geological Survey of Finland Ismo Aaltonen, Posiva Oy ISBN 978-951-652-183-4
POSIVA 2012-03 Safety Case for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel at Olkiluoto - Design Basis 2012 Posiva Oy ISBN 978-951-652-184-1 POSIVA 2012-04 Safety Case for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel at Olkiluoto - Performance Assessment 2012 Posiva Oy ISBN 978-951-652-185-8 POSIVA 2012-05 Safety Case for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel at Olkiluoto - Description of the Disposal System 2012 Posiva Oy ISBN 978-951-652-186-5 POSIVA 2012-06 Olkiluoto Biosphere Description 2012 Posiva Oy ISBN 978-951-652-187-2 POSIVA 2012-07 Safety Case for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel at Olkiluoto - Features, Events and Processes 2012 Posiva Oy ISBN 978-951-652-188-9 POSIVA 2012-08 Safety Case for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel at Olkiluoto - Formulation of Radionuclide Release Scenarios 2012 Posiva Oy ISBN 978-951-652-189-6
POSIVA 2012-09 Safety Case for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel at Olkiluoto - Assessment of Radionuclide Release Scenarios for the Repository System 2012 Posiva Oy ISBN 978-951-652-190-2 POSIVA 2012-10 Safety case for the Spent Nuclear Fuel Disposal at Olkiluoto - Biosphere Assessment BSA-2012 Posiva Oy ISBN 978-951-652-191-9 POSIVA 2012-11 Safety Case for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel at Olkiluoto - Complementary Considerations 2012 Posiva Oy ISBN 978-951-652-192-6 POSIVA 2012-12 Safety Case for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel at Olkiluoto - Synthesis 2012 Posiva Oy ISBN 978-951-652-193-3 POSIVA 2012-13 Canister Design 2012 Heikki Raiko, VTT ISBN 978-951-652-194-0 POSIVA 2012-14 Buffer Design 2012 Markku Juvankoski, VTT ISBN 978-951-652-195-7 POSIVA 2012-15 Backfill Design 2012 Posiva Oy ISBN 978-951-652-196-4 POSIVA 2012-16 Canister Production Line 2012 – Design, Production and Initial State of the Canister Heikki Raiko (ed.), VTT Barbara Pastina, Saanio & Riekkola Oy Tiina Jalonen, Leena Nolvi, Jorma Pitkänen & Timo Salonen, Posiva Oy ISBN 978-951-652-197-1 POSIVA 2012-17 Buffer Production Line 2012 – Design, Production, and Initial State of the Buffer Markku Juvankoski, Kari Ikonen, VTT Tiina Jalonen, Posiva Oy ISBN 978-951-652-198-8
POSIVA 2012-18 Backfill Production Line 2012 - Design, Production and Initial State of the Deposition Tunnel Backfill and Plug Paula Keto (ed.), Md. Mamunul Hassan, Petriikka Karttunen, Leena Kiviranta, Sirpa Kumpulainen, B+Tech Oy Leena Korkiala-Tanttu, Aalto University Ville Koskinen, Fortum Oyj Tiina Jalonen, Petri Koho, Posiva Oy Ursula Sievänen, Saanio & Riekkola Oy ISBN 978-951-652-199-5 POSIVA 2012-19 Closure Production Line 2012 - Design, Production and Initial State of Underground Disposal Facility Closure Ursula Sievänen, Taina H. Karvonen, Saanio & Riekkola Oy David Dixon, AECL Johanna Hansen, Tiina Jalonen, Posiva Oy ISBN 978-951-652-200-8 POSIVA 2012-20 Representing Solute Transport Through the Multi-Barrier Disposal System by Simplified Concepts Antti Poteri. Henrik Nordman, Veli-Matti Pulkkanen, VTT Aimo Hautojärvi, Posiva Oy Pekka Kekäläinen, University of Jyväskylä, Deparment of Physics ISBN 978-951-652-201-5 POSIVA 2012-21 Layout Determining Features, their Influence Zones and Respect Distances at the Olkiluoto Site Tuomas Pere (ed.), Susanna Aro, Jussi Mattila, Posiva Oy Henry Ahokas & Tiina Vaittinen, Pöyry Finland Oy Liisa Wikström, Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB ISBN 978-951-652-202-2 POSIVA 2012-22 Underground Openings Production Line 2012 – Design, Production and Initial State of the Underground Openings Posiva Oy ISBN 978-951-652-203-9