long-term development of the super-regional area of ... · jens-ove näslund (skb) safety...

P-06-302

Long-term development of the super-regional area of Olkiluoto/Forsmark/Laxemar

Minutes from the Posiva and SKB workshop, October 12–13, 2006 Rånäs Slott, Sweden

Tobias Lindborg, Lotta Rubio Lind (editors)

Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB

December, 2006

Svensk Kärnbränslehantering ABSwedish Nuclear Fueland Waste Management CoBox 5864SE-102 40 Stockholm Sweden Tel 08-459 84 00 +46 8 459 84 00Fax 08-661 57 19 +46 8 661 57 19

CM

Gru

ppen

AB

, Bro

mm

a, 2

007

ISSN 1651-4416

SKB P-06-302

A pdf version of this document can be downloaded from www.skb.se

Long-term development of the super-regional area of Olkiluoto/Forsmark/Laxemar

Minutes from the Posiva and SKB workshop, October 12–13, 2006 Rånäs Slott, Sweden

Tobias Lindborg, Lotta Rubio Lind (editors)

Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB

December, 2006

�

Contents

1 Introductionandbackground 51.1 Participantsandtheagenda 6

2 Summaryoftheparticipants’presentations 72.1 DescriptionsofthehistoricalandfuturedevelopmentintheBalticarea

(Tobias Lindborg) 72.2 Siteevolutionforaglacialcycle(Jens-Ove Näslund) 72.� SalinityvariationsintheBalticSea(Bo Gustafsson) 82.4 ThepracticaluseofmodelsforshorelinedisplacementandBalticSea

salinityfromahydrogeologicalperspective–theForsmarksite(Sven Follin) 9

2.5 Postglacialconceptualmodelusedinhydrochemistry(Marcus Laaksoharju) 9

2.6 TheQuaternarydescriptionofSweden(Gustav Sohlenius) 102.7 RecentbiosphereassessmentworkforPosiva(Ari Ikonen) 102.8 TerrainandecosystemdevelopmentatOlkiluoto(Ari Ikonen) 112.9 Unityinhistorical/futuredescriptions(Reija Haapanen) 112.10 GBIZ–overburdenandBalticSeasediments(Anne-Maj Lahdenperä) 1�2.11 TheInformationInfrastructureandKnowledgeQualityAssessment

inthePOSIVABiosphereAssessmentPortfolio(Thomas Hjerpe) 1�

3 Discussionsandconclusions 15�.1 Salinity 15�.2 Timescale 15�.� Shorelinedisplacement 15�.4 Modellingofecosystemsandtheirdevelopmentatthesites 16�.5 Naming/definitionsofwatertypesandgroundwaterchemistry 16�.6 Denudation 16�.7 HistoricaldevelopmentoftheBalticSea 17�.8 FuturedevelopmentoftheBalticSea 17�.9 Greenhousescenario 17�.10 Sedimentmodel 17�.11 Developmentofvegetation 18�.12 Icecover 18

References 21

5

1 Introductionandbackground

Thesitingprogramforarepositoryofspentfuelcurrentlycollectslargedatasetsfromthesurfaceecosystem,aswellfromthegeosphere.Theprogramforthesurfaceecosystemisdescribedin/LindborgandKautsky2000/and/LöfgrenandLindborg200�/,andthegeneralsitingprogramin/SKB2001/.Correspondingly,thePosivaprogrammeisdescribedin/Posiva200�ab,2005/and/McEwenandÄikäs2000/.Thecollecteddataisusedindifferentkindsofmodelling,mainlyforthesafetyassessmentfortherepositoryandforenvironmentalimpactassessment(EIA).Since,PosivaandSKBaresharingthesamesuperregionalareaintermsofhistoricalandfuturedevelopment,itisofgreatimportancetocoordinatethedescriptionsofthisareaanditspropertiestoavoiddiscrepanciesandtomakebetteruseofthedatacollectedatbothsites/countries.

Inordertoaccomplishthiscollaboration,aconsensuswasattainedonwhichproperties/param-eters/variablesthatwereimportanttoconsideranditwasdecidedwhichreferences,modelsandequationstobeuseinthesitedescriptions.Furthermore,possiblegapsintheunderstandingofthesitewereidentifiedanddiscussed.Aplanonhowtohandlethesegapswasmade,i.e.doweneedtoinitiatemoreresearch?Participantsfromthesiteinvestigationprogram,theanalysisgroup,safetyassessmentandresearchfromPosivaandSKBwereinvitedtotheworkshop.TheworkshopwasheldattheCastleofRånäsinRoslagenOctober12–1�,2006,andtheparticipantsareshowninTable1-1.Besidesthemajoraimoftheworkshop,otherimportantobjectivesweretoenhancethecommunicationbetweenPosivaandSKB,increasetheaware-nessofdifferentissueshandledatthesites/subjectarea,andtobuildabetterunderstandingforthemodels.Additionalitshouldbementionedthatthisisonlyarecordofinitialdiscussionsandtheremightbechangesinthepracticalimplementationduetoe.g.changeoffocuswithadvancesintheprogrammes.

Theworkshopandthisreportoftheminutesweredelimitedinthedescriptionofthesurfacesystempartofthegeosphere-biospheresystemanditsdevelopmentintime,primarilyintermsofgeometryandseawatersalinity.However,noeffortwasmadetodiscussthegeologicalevolutionoftheareaoranyparameterinthebedrockseparately.Instead,thefocuswastolist,describeandsuggesttheparametersandvariablesofthesurfacesystemthatcanbedescribedinacommonwayforthethreesitesOlkiluoto,ForsmarkandLaxemar.

6

1.1 ParticipantsandtheagendaTable1-1. ParticipantsfromSwedenandFinlandattheworkshopatRånäs,October12–13.

Participants(Sw) Subject Participants(Fin) Subject

Ulrik Kautsky (SKB) Safety assessment and dose modelling

Ari Ikonen (Posiva) Biosphere assessment overall coordination,Terrain and ecosystem development

Tobias Lindborg (SKB) Project leader and ecologist

Anne-Maj Lahdenperä (Pöyry Environment) Overburden, Baltic Sea, Geosphere-biosphere interface

Björn Söderbäck (SKB) Limnic descriptions, limnic ecosystem, surface water chemistry

Reija Haapanen (Haapanen Forest Consulting) Olkiluoto Biosphere Description (report chief editor)

Jens-Ove Näslund (SKB) Safety assessment Jere Lahdenperä (Posiva) Environmental monitoring programme

Marcus Laaksoharju (Geopoint) Responsible for the description of hydrogeochemistry

Thomas Hjerpe (Saanio & Riekkola) Biosphere assessment documentation & Quality Assessment

Eva-Lena Tullborg (Terralogica) Description of hydrogeochemistry

Robert Broed (Facilia) Radionuclide transport modelling

Gustav Sohlenius (Geological Survey of Sweden, SGU) Description of Quaternary deposits

Sven Follin (SF Geologic AB) Hydrogeolocical modelling and description

Bo Gustafsson (Göteborgs University) Development of the Baltic Sea

Lotta Rubio Lind (SKB) Secretary

Table1-2. Agendaattheworkshop.

12October 13October

12:00 Lunch 08:00 Breakfast13:00 Welcoming and presentation of

participants08:30 Workshop: Results from day

one. Have we found all common parameters of interest? Do we have a good understanding of how we shall handle them in the future site descriptions and safety analyses?

13:15 Purpose, expectations and outcome of this meeting

11:00 Conclusions: Did we succeed with the task? How is this work best reported?

13:30 Description of present SKB work within meeting topic

12:00 Lunch

14:30 Description of present Posiva work within meeting topic

13:00 End of meeting

15:30 Coffee brake15:45 Workshop: Parameters of interest,

discussion, listing of references, future common handling between SKB/Posiva, writing a memo/report

18:00 End of workshop19:00 Dinner and informal discussions

7

2 Summaryoftheparticipants’presentations

2.1 DescriptionsofthehistoricalandfuturedevelopmentintheBalticarea(Tobias Lindborg)

TobiasLindborgstartedbywelcomingtheparticipantsandpresentingtheagenda(Table1-2)forthemeeting.Hepresentedtheaimoftheworkshop:tocoordinatethedescriptionsofthis“superregionalareaanditspropertiestoavoiddiscrepanciesandtomakebetteruseofthedatacollectedatbothsites/countries.

2.2 Siteevolutionforaglacialcycle(Jens-Ove Näslund)Jen-OveNäslundarguedthatitisnotpossibletopredictclimateina100,000-yeartimeperspectivewithenoughconfidenceforsafetyassessments.However,fromknowledgeongeneralclimatevariationsinFennoscandia,wecanidentifythreecharacteristicandrelevantclimatedomains;atemperatedomain,apermafrostdomain,andaglacialdomain.Inadditionsubmerged/non-submergedconditionsneedtobetakenintoaccount.Scenariosusedinthesafetyassessmentare:1)Thereferencescenarioisarepetitionoflastglacialcycleconditions(theWeichselianglaciation),2)exampleofcomplementaryscenariosisWarmerGreenhousescenarioandacolderscenarios(Figure2-1).

Eachclimatedomainincludesasetofprocessrelatedvariables,e.g.permafrost,icesheets.Forthefirst8,000yearsfrompresent,theshorelinedisplacementisextrapolatedfromobservedshorelinedata/Påsse2001/.After8,000years,therelativesealevelwasintheSR-CanscenariosmodelledbyusingaGlobalIsostaticAdjustment(GIA)model/SKB2006a/.

Figure2-1. The figures to the left shows the reference scenario and the figure to the right shows the greenhouse scenario from SR-Can. Green, temperate climate domain; Light blue, permafrost climate domain; White, glacial climate domain – basal frozen; Grey, glacial climate domain – basal melting; Dark blue, submerged conditions /SKB 2006a/.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120Time after repository closure (ka)


Temperate

P

erm

afro

st

Glac.

72%

23%

16%

65%

2

3%

9% 3

Temperate

Pe

rmaf

rost

Glacial S.

TemperatePermafrostGlacial basal frozen basal melting

Submerged

Climate domains

Forsmark

Laxemar



Temperate Permafrost

Gla

cial

S

ubmerged

35% 38%

1

6%

11%

26% 34%

24%

16%

Temperate Permafrost

G

laci

al

S

ubmerged

TemperatePermafrostGlacial basal frozen basal melting

Submerged

Climate domains

Forsmark

Laxemar

8

2.3 SalinityvariationsintheBalticSea(Bo Gustafsson)BoGustafssonpresentedtheresultsfrominvestigationsofsalinityvariationintheBalticSeapublishedforSKBin/Westmanetal.1999,GustafssonandWestman2002,Gustafsson2004ab/(Figure2-�).

Theeffectofpastmorphometric(sealevel)andclimatevariationsontheoverallsalinityintheBalticProperiscurrentlywellquantifiedandunderstood.ThenextscientificstepwillbetoinvestigatethetemporalandspatialvariabilityinsalinityintheBalticSea,andtoforecasttheeffectofchangesinmajorexternaldrivers,e.g.freshwatersupplyfromrivers,storminessandclimate-inducedsealevelvariations.

Figure2-2. Numerical simulations for scenario analyses of ice sheets, isostatic changes, and permafrost /SKB 2006a in press/.

Input:

Ice sheet:- thickness- extent- basal temperature

Ice sheet:- thickness- extent

Relative sea level

Air temperature

Ice sheet model GIA model Permafrost model

Air temperature

Ice sheet:- thickness- basal temperature

Relative sea level

Output: PermafrostFrozen ground

Figure2-3.Salinity development of the Baltic proper 8,500 years BP to present /Westman et al. 1999, Gustafsson and Westman 2002/. The salinity variations are estimated from proxy data.

9

2.4 ThepracticaluseofmodelsforshorelinedisplacementandBalticSeasalinityfromahydrogeologicalperspective–theForsmarksite(Sven Follin)

SvenFollinstartedbyshowingamapoverboreholesatForsmark.HecontinuedwithanillustrationofJacob’sandPeter’sinterferencetest.Hethenpresentedthewatertypeprofileinthehangwallrockmass,footwallrockmass,andintheboardersofthefootwallrockmassofZFMNE00A2(Figure2-4),anddiscussedourconceptualunderstandingofthehydrogeologicalpatternsattheForsmarksite.

2.5 Postglacialconceptualmodelusedinhydrochemistry(Marcus Laaksoharju)

MarcusLaaksoharjupresentedthepostglacialconceptualmodelforForsmarkandLaxemar.In order to detect the origin of groundwater it is possible to use e.g. Cl, δ18OandMg.TheresultsfromthemodellingarepresentedinasitedescriptivemodelforForsmark/SKB2005/,seeFigure2-5.FourmaingroundwatertypesarefoundattheForsmarksite.InadditiontotherecenttoyoungNa-HCO�typegroundwaterandolderNa-CaCl(SO4)typeground-water(withaLitorinaSeaandglacialsignature),thereexistatgreaterdepths(KFM0�A;645m)anevenoldersalineNa-Ca-Cltypegroundwaterwithasmallglacialcomponent(δ18O=–11.6‰SMOW;D=–84.�‰SMOW).Atevengreaterdepth(KFM0�A:990m)thegroundwaterchangestoahighersalineCa-Na-Cltype,characterisedbyanevengreaterglacialsignature (δ18O=–1�.6‰SMOW;D=–98.5‰SMOW).HealsoshowedhowinfluencesfromtheBalticSeacouldincreaseHCO�anddecreaseSO4concentrationstroughmicrobialsulphatereduction.

Figure2-4. The water type profile in the hang wall rock mass, foot wall rock mass and the borders of the foot wall rock mass of ZFMNE00A2 /Hartley et al. 2006 in press/.

10

2.6 TheQuaternarydescriptionofSweden (Gustav Sohlenius)GustavSohleniusstartedbyshowingdeepsearecordsofQuaternarydepositsbasedon/AndersenandBorns1997,Mangerud1991/.Thereaftertwodifferentversionsoftheicesheetfluctuationsby/LokrantzandSohlenius2006inpress/,wasillustrated(Figure2-6).

HealsoshowedthedeglaciationofthesouthernpartsofSweden/Fredén2002/,thedevelop-mentoftheBalticSea/Fredén2002/,theshorelinedisplacementcurvesforForsmarkandSimpevarp/Påsse2001/,andthesalinitydevelopmentoftheBalticproperby/Westmanetal.1999/.

2.7 RecentbiosphereassessmentworkforPosiva (Ari Ikonen)AriIkonenpresentedtherecentworkforthebiosphereassessmentbyPosiva,whichincludestheOlkiluotoBiosphereDescription,geosphere-biosphereinterface(overburdenandBalticSeasediments),terrainandecosystemsdevelopment,andknowledgequalityassessmentinthebio-sphereassessment.HepresentedthemainobjectivesandtheworkplanofPosiva/Ikonen2006/.Theworkisprimarilyfocusingontheestablishmentofasolidbasementbycomprehensivedescriptionofthesiteandtheprocesses,secondarilytodescriberealisticallythedevelopmentofthesiteduringthetime,andonlyafterthattoconsiderthedoseimplicationsfromtherepository.Allthisisputtogetherbyapplyingknowledgequalityassessmentprocedures(seealsosection2.11)inallthesteps.

Figure2-5. Schematic 2D groundwater model of Forsmark /SKB 2005/, integrating the major struc-tures, the major groundwater flow directions and the variation in groundwater chemistry (Types A–D) from the sampled boreholes (indicated in blue). The blue arrows are estimated groundwater flow directions and their respective lengths reflect relative groundwater flow velocities (short = low flow; longer = greater flow).

Water type C: Saline 10–15 g/L TDS; δ18O = ~–11.6 to –13.6‰ SMOW (only 3 samples); Na-Ca-Cl to Ca-Na-Cl; Glacial – DeeperSaline mixtureMain reactions: Ion exchange, microbial reactionsRedox conditions: Reducing

Water type B: Brackish 5–10 g/L TDS; δ18O = –11.5 to –8.5‰ SMOW; Na(Ca,Mg)-Cl(SO 4 ) to Ca-Na(Mg)-Cl(SO4); Marine (Strong Littorina Sea component) ±Meteoric; Glacial ± Deeper Saline component. Main reactions: Ion exchange, pptn. of calcite, redox and microbial reactions Redox conditions: Reducing

Water type A: Dilute 0.5–2 g/L TDS; δ18O = –11.7 to –9.5‰ SMOW; Na-HCO3; mainly MeteoricMain reactions: Weathering, ion exchange, dissolution of calcite, redox reactions, microbial reactions Redox conditions: Oxidising – reducing

Water type D: Strongly saline > 20 g/L TDS; Ca-Na-Cl;Deep saline origin (Field observations)Main reactions: Long term water rock interactionsRedox conditions: Reducing

A1

A2 ZFMNE0065

A3

A4

A5

A6

KFM02A HFM14/15 HFM18 KFM03AB HFM06

HFM08 KFM05A KFM01B HFM19 HFM01

KFM01A Vicinity of Baltic Sea

Bolundsfjärden

1000 m

NW SE

Scale: 2 km

Ca-Na-Cl

Na-Ca-Cl

Na-Ca-Cl(SO4)

1500 m

500 m

ZFMNE0062A, B

ZFMNE0401 KFMNE0061

00B4

B

C

D

A

11

Fromoutsidethebiosphereassessment,preparationofareportontheexpectedevolutionoftherepository/Posiva2006/washighlightedasamajoradvance.

2.8 TerrainandecosystemdevelopmentatOlkiluoto(Ari Ikonen)

AriIkonenshowedtheTESMmethodology,andpresentedtheterrainandecosystemdevelop-mentmodelatOlkiluotosite,version2006.HeshowedtheBalticandregionaldevelopmentatpresentandatyear4,000AD,andadraftofthebasescenario(noanthropogenicclimatewarming)(Figure2-7).Thepresentationwasendedwithasummaryonthemethodologyforvegetationforecasts.

2.9 Unityinhistorical/futuredescriptions(Reija Haapanen)ReijaHaapanenpresentedthecurrentworkconcerningOlkiluotobiospheredescriptionreport,whichistobepublishedinlate2006.TheOlkiluotospecificdata(Figure2-8)availablefromtheterrestrialandseaecosystemswasshown,exceptforoverburdenandseasediments(coveredbyAnne-MajLahdenperä,section2.10).Lackofsitespecificdatawaslisted.Thecalculationoffinalestimatesofcarbonpoolsandfluxeswasshortlypresented.Alsosomeideasconcerningthebasisforuseofcommonmodels,equations,andparameters/variablesofinterestforbothcountrieswerediscussed.Itwassuggestedthateffortscouldbecombinedinthecasesofmostlaboriousmeasurementssuchasinventoriesofsoilfauna.

Figure2-6. Two different versions of the ice sheet fluctuation for the European continent, the middle of Sweden, and the mountains of Sweden /Lokrantz and Sohlenius 2006 in press/.

12

Figure2-8. The forest monitoring plots at the Olkiluoto site.

Figure2-7. The Olkiluoto base scenario (draft) at 0 metre of relative sea level change (net uplift; both isostatic and eustatic) at present, 7.5 metres in ~1,500 years, and 25 metres in ~6,000 years AD.

1�

Figure2-9. The main overburden data at Olkiluoto (modified by Ari Ikonen 2006, Posiva Oy).

2.10 GBIZ–overburdenandBalticSeasediments(Anne-Maj Lahdenperä)

Anne-MajLahdenperäpresentedthecurrenttopographyintheOlkiluotoarea,whichisrelativelyflatwithanaverageelevationof5metresabovesealevel.Thehighestpointsoftheinvestigationsitearearound12–18meters.Theoverburdendataintheareashowsathicknessof2–4metres(12–16meterthicklayershavebeenobserved)(Figure2-9).TheOlkiluotoIslandischaracterisedbylandupliftsincelastdeglaciationandthepresentupliftrateis6.8mm/yr/Kahmaetal.2001/.OlkiluotoIslandformsahydrologicalunitofitsown;thesurfacewaterflowsdirectlyintothesea.Onlyafewpercent,atthemost,infiltratesintothedeeperpartsofthebedrock/Posiva200�a/.Thesea-floordepositspresentsaveryfragmentarypatterninthesurroundingsoftheOlkiluotoIsland/Rantataro2001,2002,Posiva200�a/.ThemostcommonQuaternarysedimentontheOlkiluotooffshorebottomsistill(about�0–40%)coveredbypost-glacialclay.ChangesinclimateandgeologicalenvironmentshavehadasignificanteffectonlocalpalaeohydrogeologicalandgroundwatercompositionconditionsatOlkiluotosite.ThesalinityoftheBaltichaschangedduringpasticeagesandisexpectedtodosoalsointhefuture/e.g.Pitkänenetal.1994,1999ab,2004/.

2.11 TheInformationInfrastructureandKnowledgeQualityAssessmentinthePOSIVABiosphereAssessmentPortfolio(Thomas Hjerpe)

ThomasHjerpepresentedtheinformationinfrastructureandtheknowledgeassessment(KQA)workandhowtheKQAaddsdimensionstothetraditional2D-uncertaintyassessment.HecontinuedbydiscussinghowawellfunctioninginfrastructureisthefoundationforagoodKQAandhowtoachievethis.

15

3 Discussionsandconclusions

3.1 SalinityPosivaandSKBhaveusedthesamesalinitymodel(basedontheworkbyGustafssonandWestman,seesection2.�).Themajorissueisifthecurrentsalinitymodelusedinversion1.2isstillvalidorifthereareanynewfindingsinthismattertoconsider.Moreover,itisimportanttoverifyifthereareobviousgapsinthemodelthatneedfurtherinvestigation.Themodelhastobeacceptablefromascientificpointofviewanduncertaintiesinthemodelmustbeclearlypresented.

Concerningtheuncertainties,theyarealreadypresentedanddiscussed,atleastfortheBalticProper,inthereportcoveringthistopic/Gustafsson2004a/.Asacomplement,somemoreworkmaybedoneforthedifferentbasins.VerticalvariationsintheForsmarkarea,i.e.whethertheForsmarkareaduringanytimeperiodafterthelatestglaciationhasbeensituatedbelowthehalocline,maybeofinteresttoinvestigatefurther.WhenitcomestoseparatetheBalticintoaNorthandSouthpart,thishasalreadybeendoneforthesurfacewater.

Conclusions:Althoughtheparticipantsdofindthesalinitymodelvalid,itwasdecidedthataliteraturereviewshouldbeperformedtoensurethattherearenonewdataonthehistoricaldevelopmentoftheBalticthatmightchangethemodel.Moreover,itshouldbeevaluatedwhetherthesitesatanytimeduringthedevelopmenthavebeenlocatedbelowthehalocline.

Contactpersons:GustavSohlenius(SKB/SGU)andAriIkonen(Posiva).

3.2 TimescaleThedifferenttimescalesusedinthereportsareconfusingandsometimesmisleading.Itisthereforeveryimportanttoagreeonacommontimescale.Thediscussionwasfocusingonthecarbon-14yearsandwhetheritwaspossibletoconvertcarbon-14yearstoBC.Themajorconcernwasthattheconversionmayleadtolargererrorsinanalreadyuncertaintimescale.However,withouttheconversionitwouldnotbepossibletousethedatainthemodels.

Conclusions:ThedecisionwastouseBC/ADforthetimeperiod(+/–)10,000yrsfromtoday,inordertoavoidmisunderstandingsinfuturereports.

Contactpersons:TobiasLindborg(SKB)andAriIkonen(Posiva).

3.3 ShorelinedisplacementDifferentversionsofthePåsseequation,forcalculatingtheshorelinedisplacement,havebeenused.TheSafetyAssessmentatSKBhasusedtheequationfrom2001and2005,whereastheAnalysisgroupatSKB/Posivahasusedtheversionfrom1997.AnotherconcernwashowfarinthefuturethePåsseequationshouldbeused.

Thefirstconcernwaswhetherthereareanyimportantdifferencesbetweenthe2001andthe2005versions/Påsse2001,PåsseandAndersson2005/,buttheconclusionwasthatitisinallessentialthesamemodelpresentedinthetwopapers.Påsse’slatestpublishedpaperonshorelinedisplacement(2005)includessomecontroversialconclusionswhichmaybecriticised.Inordertoavoidthatquestioningoftheseconclusionsimpliesthatalsotheshorelinedisplacementmodelisquestioned,itmightbebettertorefertothe2001version.

16

Conclusions:ItwasdecidedthatthePåsseequationfrom2001shouldbeusedduringtheperiodfromthelatestdeglaciationuntil10,000AD.Thereaftertheisostaticmodel,GlobalIsostaticAdjustments(GIA)/SKB2006a/developedintheUK,Durham,shouldbeused.Thetransitionbetweenmodelshastobehandledinaproperway.

Contactpersons:Jens-OveNäslund(SKB)andAriIkonen(Posiva).

3.4 Modellingofecosystemsandtheirdevelopmentatthesites

1. Terraindevelopment(whichfactors/processesareneededtobeincludedintheforecastmodellingofshorelinedisplacement,emergenceanddevelopmentoflakesandwetlands(andrivers),vegetationtypesandtypicalfauna,andwhichonesarebettertobeomitted).

2. Ecosystemmodel(commonbackgroundmodelsandprocedures,commondata,uncertainties).

�. Genericdatalist(useofsitedatafromanothersiteasthebestreference,forwhichparametersthiscanbedoneandwherethedataisreported).

Conclusions:Anewmeetingisneededforthistopic,focusingontheecosystemmodelling,andAndersLöfgrenfromSKBshouldbepresentatthismeeting.Themeetingistobeheldinlatespring2007andPosivawillbethehost.

Contactpersons:AndersLöfgren(SKB)andReijaHaapanen(Posiva/HaapanenForestConsulting).

3.5 Naming/definitionsofwatertypesandgroundwaterchemistry

Thereissomeconfusionaboutcertaindefinitionsconcerningwatertypesandgroundwaterchemistry.ChemNethasdiscussedthiswithinthegroupandfindsitnecessarytogothroughitagain.Onequestionishowtodefineshallowgroundwater.ChemNetdidalsoaddressthattheylacksedimentsamplesforanalyses.

Conclusions:ItwasdecidedthatChemNetshouldberesponsiblefornaminganddefiningthewatertypesandgroundwaterchemistry.ArepresentativeforPosiva(PetteriPitkänen)shouldbeinvolvedintheprocess.

Contactpersons:MarcusLaaksoharju(SKB/Geopoint),Eva-LenaTullborg(SKB/Terralogica)andPetteriPitkänen(Posiva/VTT).

3.6 DenudationItisimportantfortheSafetydescriptiontogiveaproperandcredibledescriptionofhowmuchofthebedrockthatdisappearsthrougherosionandweatheringovertime,eventhoughtheresultwillshowthatdenudationdoesnothaveanimpactonrepositorysafety.SKBandPosivasharethisopinionandfinditnecessarytodescribethedenudationinaproperway.

Conclusions:AdecisionwasmadethatJens-OveNäslundwillreviewtheSKB/Posivareportsinthetopic,andhewillalsocommunicatedirectlytoAnne-MajLahdenperäconcerningthis.

Contactpersons:Jens-OveNäslund(SKB)andAnne-MajLahdenperä(Posiva/PöyryEnvironment).

17

3.7 HistoricaldevelopmentoftheBalticSeaDependingonwhichtimescalethatisused,theperiodsoftheBalticSeadifferin,forexamplehowlongtherehasbeenbrackishwaterintheBaltic.Ifcalibratedyearsareused,ashorterperiodofbrackishwaterisobservedthenifcarbon-14isused.

Conclusions:ItwasdecidedthattheSwedishNationalAtlas/Fredén2002/shouldbeusedasastandardforthedescriptionofthehistoricaldevelopment.Allmapsshouldbecalibratedintocalendaryears.

Contactpersons:GustavSohlenius,AnnaHedenström(SKB/SGU)andAriIkonen(Posiva).

3.8 FuturedevelopmentoftheBalticSeaTherewillbemorphologicalchangesintheBalticdueto,forexampleupliftoftheearthcrust,andeventuallytheBalticwillgetisolatedfromthesea.Thisissuewillbehandledinthesafetyassessmentdescription.

Conclusions:Posivawillinvestigatethisfurther(2007/2008)withhelpofexpertsandSKBwillusethePosivaresults.SKBmightconductfurtherGIAmodellingstudiestoresolvespecificquestionsrelatedtothefuturedevelopmentoftheBaltic.


3.9 GreenhousescenarioTheresultsfromanincreasedgreenhouseeffectareconsideredtobethemainuncertaintyinassessmentsoffutureshorelinedisplacement,affectingforexamplethehandlingintheGIA-model.Thisisanimportantissuealsowhenconstructingtheclimatescenariosforthesafetyassessments.SKBandPosivahavedifferentpracticalapproaches/SKB2006a,Posiva2006,Cedercreutz2004/concerningthegreenhousescenario.Inordertohandlethis,bothSKBandPosivafeelthatcontinuedcooperationisneeded.

Conclusions:TohandlethegreenhousescenariositwasdecidedthatJens-OveNäslundandAriIkonenwillformaworkinggroupofrelevantpersonstodiscusstheissueandtoseekforacommonapproachforthenextversionsofthesafetycasedocumentation.RegularmeetingsbetweenSKBandPosivaarealsoimportantinordertofacilitatethecooperation.


3.10 SedimentmodelAdiscussionconcerningdifferencesintheamountofglacialclayattheseabottomandonlandisimportant.ThefactthatitismoreglacialclayontheseabottomthanonlandhastobefurtherstudiedbothattheSwedishsitesandatOlkiluoto.

Conclusions:ItwasdecidedthatGustavSohleniuswillinvestigatethisissueinmoredetailandthatSvenFollinhastoformulateaspecificquestion.Posivawillbeinformedwhenan“explana-tionmodel”isready.

Contactpersons:GustavSohlenius(SKB/SGU)andAriIkonen(Posiva).

18

3.11 DevelopmentofvegetationThelarge-scalevegetationdevelopment(atgivenlatitude)isexpectedtobesimilarforSwedenandFinland.Todescribethelarge-scalevegetationdevelopment,SKBusestheSwedishNationalAtlasdescription.

Conclusions:ItwasdecidedthatPosivaandSKBwilluseasimilardescriptionofthelarge-scalevegetationdevelopment,basedonthedescriptiongivenintheSwedishNationalAtlas/Fredén2002/.

Contactpersons:AndersLöfgren(SKB)andReijaHaapanen(Posiva/HaapanenForestConsulting).

3.12 IcecoverConcerningicesheetconfigurationsatdifferenttimesthroughoutthelastglacialcycle,SKBhaveusedamodelthathassomewhatothericeconfigurationsthanwhatispresentedintheSwedishNationalAtlas.SKBusedastandardnumericalicesheetmodel(UniversityofMaineIceSheetModel)forcedbyaproxyairtemperaturecurvefromtheGRIPicecore,acommonwayofconductingsimulationsofthelastFennoscandiaicesheet.Furtherdescriptionsandrefer-encesfortheicesheetmodelisprovidedin/SKB2006ab/.

Conclusions:PosivaandSKBwillusethesameicesheetmodel.


Property Unit Reference Additionalcomments Recommendation/Decision

Contactpersons

Timescale BP or BC Occurs in the context of calendar years and carbon-14 years with different meaning (1950, 2000 and 2006).

BC/AD is to be used and is valid for the time period (+/–) 10,000 yrs from now (see section 3.2).

Tobias Lindborg (SKB) and Ari Ikonen (Posiva)

Shoreline displacement model

m/year /Påsse 2001, SKB 2006a/

Sea level components, greenhouse effect.

/Påsse 2001/ is to be used until 10,000 yr, thereafter GIA model. The transition must be handled in a proper way (see section 3.3).

Jens-Ove Näslund (SKB) and Ari Ikonen (Posiva)

Ice cover (stages) UMISM-model

Sveriges Nationalatlas, /SKB 2006ab/

Development in Fen-noscandia during the last glacial cycle.

SKB and Posiva will use the same ice sheet model (see section 3.11).


Future develop-ment of the Baltic

Posiva work (planned, a joint project will be proposed)

Shoreline, salinity, overall description.

SKB will use the Posiva version. SKB Might conduct further GIA modelling studies to resolve specidic questions (see section 3.8).


Historical Development of the Baltic Sea

Sveriges Nationalatlas

Four main stages which characterize the development of the Baltic Sea since the latest deglaciation.

Sveriges Nationalat-las is to be used for the description of the historical develop-ment. All maps should be calibrated into calendar yr (see section 3.7).

Gustav Sohlenius/ Anna Hedenström (SKB/SGU) and Ari Ikonen (Posiva)

19

Property Unit Reference Additionalcomments Recommendation/Decision

Contactpersons

Salinity develop-ment in the Baltic Sea

g/L /Westman et al. 1999, Gustafsson 2004a/

Estimated range for the salinity development in the Baltic Sea from the onset of the Litorina period until today.

The present model will be used, and some specific questions will be investigated further (see section 3.1).

Gustav Sohlenius (SKB/SGU) and Ari Ikonen (Posiva)

Denudation m/myr Quantification of bedrock denudation over the past millions of years.

Jens-Ove Näslund will review the reports from Posiva/SKB and give some refer-ences to Anne-Maj Lahdenperä (see section 3.6).

Jens-Ove Näslund (SKB)/Anne-Maj Lahdenperä (Posiva/Pöyry Environment) Ari Ikonen (Posiva)

Sedimentation conceptual model (glacial clay etc)

Different stages of prop-erties, when? Gustav Sohlenius and Sven Follin will investigate further.

Gustav Sohlenius will investigate this issue and Sven Follin will formulate a specific question (see section 3.10).

Gustav Sohlenius (SGU/SKB) and Ari Ikonen (Posiva)

Greenhouse scenario

/SKB 2006a/ The results from an increased greenhouse effect are considered to be the main uncertainty in the assessment of future shoreline displace-ment.

Jens-Ove Näslund and Ari Ikonen will form a working group to discuss the issue. Regular meetings between SKB and Posiva are to be held (see section 3.9).


Naming/defining of watertypes and endmem-bers

Water type should be based on the composi-tion and end-member names on origin. Use unique words for any category.

ChemNet will give strict definitions of the different types and involve Posiva in the work (see section 3.5).

Marcus Laaksoharju (SKB/ Geopoint)/ Eva-Lena Tullborg (SKB/Terralogica) and Petteri Pitkänen (Posiva)

Generic ecosys-tem data list

Site specific data from SKB’s and Posiva’s investigations & relevant data from Finnish and Swedish Forest research.

Will be handled within a meeting late spring -07. Posiva will host the meeting (see section 3.11).

Anders Löfgren (SKB) and Reija Haapanen (Posiva/Haapanen Forest Consulting)/ Ari Ikonen (Posiva)

Landscape development (Carbon models (forest, mire))

Combination and further development of works in e.g. R-04-71, R-05-03, Olkiluoto Biosphere description 2006 etc.



Future veg-etation model (Posiva model)

SKB work e.g. in R-01-09, from Posiva first future vegetation literature study report in preparation /Haapanen et al. 2006/.



21

References

AndersenB,BornsH,1997.Theiceageworld.AnintroductiontoQuaternaryhistoryandresearchwithemphasisonNorthAmericaandEuropeduringthelast2.5millionyears.Oslo:ScandinavianUniversityPress.

CedercreutzJ,2004.FutureclimatescenariosforOlkiluotowithemphasisonpermafrost.POSIVA2004-06,PosivaOy.

FredénC(red),2002.Bergochjord.SverigesNationalatlas.Thirdedition.208pp.

GustafssonB,WestmanP,2002.OnthecausesforsalinityvariationsintheBalticSeaduringthelast8,500years.Paleoceanography17(�),1040,USA.

GustafssonB,2004a.MillennialchangesoftheBalticSeasalinity.Studiesofthesensibilityofthesalinitytoclimatechange.SKBTR-04-12,SvenskKärnbränslehanteringAB.

GustafssonB,2004b.SensitivityofBalticSeasalinitytolargeperturbationsinclimate.ClimateResearchVol.27,pp.2�7–251.

HaapanenR,AroL,KareinenT,LahdenperäA-M,MykräS,IkonenAKT,2006.OlkiluotoBiosphereDescription2006.PosivaOy.Posivareport2006-XXinpreparation.

HartleyL,HoltonD,McCarthyR,RobertsD,2006(inpress).Hydrologicalpre-modellingforForsmarkversion2.2:TestingtheconceptualmodeldevelopmentforForsmarkpriortoDataFreeze2.2usingnumericalmodelingwithCONNECTFLOW.SKBR-06-XX,SvenskKärnbränslehanteringAB.

IkonenATK,2006(inpress).PosivaBiosphereAssessment:Revisedstructureandstatus2006.POSIVAreport,PosivaOy.

KahmaK,JohanssonM,BomanH,2001.MerivedenpinnankorkeudenjakaumaLoviisanjaOlkiluodonrannikollaseuraavien�0vuodenaikana.Merentutkimuslaitos,Helsinki,Finland.28p.(InFinnish).

LindborgT,KautskyU,2000.Variableriolikaekosystemtänkbaraattbeskrivavidenplatsundersökningförettdjupförvar.SKBR-00-19,SvenskKärnbränslehanteringAB.

Lokrantz,SohleniusG,2006(inpress).(referencewillbeupdatedinnextversionofthispaper,untilthen,pleasecontactGustavSohleniusSGUSweden,forinformation).

LöfgrenA,LindborgT,2003.Adescriptiveecosystemmodel–astrategyformodeldevelop-mentduringsiteinvestigations.SKBR-0�-06,SvenskKärnbränslehanteringAB.

MangerudJ,1991.TheScandinavianIceSheetthroughthelastinterglacial/glacialcycle.KlimageschichtlicheProblemederletzten,Stuttgart:Fischerpp.�07–��0.

McEwenT,ÄikäsA,2000.ThesiteselectionprocessforaspentfuelrepositoryinFinland–Summaryreport.POSIVA2000-15,PosivaOy.

PitkänenP,SnellmannM,Leino-ForsmanH,VuorinenU,1994.GeochemicalmodellingofthegroundwaterattheOlkiluotosite.NuclearWasteCommissionofFinnishPowerCompanies,Helsinki,Finland.ReportYJT-94-10,78p.

PitkänenP,LuukkonenA,RuotsalainenP,Leino-ForsmanH,VuorinenU,1999a.GeochemicalmodellingofgroundwaterevolutionandresidencetimeattheOlkiluotosite.PosivaOy,Eurajoki,Finland.PosivaReport98-10,184p.

22

PitkänenP,LöfmanJ,KoskinenL,Leino-ForsmanH,SnellmanM,1999b.Applicationofmass-balanceandflowsimulationcalculationstointerpretationofmixingatÄspö,Sweden.AppliedGeochemistry,Vol.14.892–905.

PitkänenP,PartamiesS,LuukkonenA,2004.HydrogeochemicalinteroperationofbaselinegroundwaterconditionsattheOlkiluotosite.PosivaOy.POSIVA200�-07.

Posiva,2003a.BaselineConditionsatOlkiluoto.POSIVA200�-02,PosivaOy.

Posiva,2003b.ProgrammeofmonitoringatOlkiluotoduringconstructionandoperationoftheONKALO.POSIVA200�-05,PosivaOy.

Posiva,2005.Olkiluotositedescription2004.POSIVA2005-0�,PosivaOy.

Posiva,2006(inpress).EvolutionofaspentfuelrepositoryatOlkiluoto.POSIVAreport,PosivaOy.

PåsseT,2001.Anempiricalmodelofglacio-isostaticmovementsandshore-leveldisplacementinFennoscandia.SKBR-01-41,SvenskKärnbränslehanteringAB.

PåsseT,AnderssonL,2005.Shore-leveldisplacementinFennoscandiacalculatedfromempiricaldata.GeologiskaFöreningensFörhandlingar127(4):25�–268.

RantataroJ,2001.Acoustic-seismicresearchintheseaareanearOlkiluotointheyear2000(inFinnishwithanEnglishabstract).PosivaWorkingReport2002-19.

RantataroJ,2002.Theestimationofsedimentaryrockcoveredareasaswellassupplementaryinterpretationofacoustic-seismicresearchinOlkiluotoarea.(InFinnishwithanEnglishabstract).WorkingReport2002-�8.11p.14Annexes.

SKB,2001.Platsundersökningar.Undersökningsmetoderochgenerelltgenomförandeprogram.SKBR-01-10,SvenskKärnbränslehanteringAB.

SKB,2005.Hydrogeochemicalevaluation.Preliminarysitedescription,Forsmarkarea–Version1.2.SKBR-05-17,SvenskKärnbränslehanteringAB.

SKB,2006a.ClimateandclimaterelatedissuesforthesafetyassessmentSR-Can.SKBTR-06-2�,SvenskKärnbränslehanteringAB.

SKB,2006b.ModelsummaryreportforthesafetyassessmentSR-Can,SKBTR-06-26,SvenskKärnbränslehanteringAB.

WestmanP,WastegårdS,SchoningK,GustafssonB,OmstedtA,1999.SalinitychangesintheBalticSeaduringthelast8,500years:evidence,causesandmodels.SKBTR99-�8,SvenskKärnbränslehanteringAB.

long-term development of the super-regional area of ... · jens-ove näslund (skb) safety...

Documents