ML020290369

Part 20 of 22, Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Submittal of Non-Proprietary Calculation Packages, Attachment 7.2, to Calculation 52.27.100.733, Revision 0

ML020290369
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	12/21/2001
From:	Womack L F Pacific Gas & Electric Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
+sispmjr200505, -nr, -RFPFR, DIL-01-004 52.27.100.733, Rev 0
Download: ML020290369 (213)

Text

69-20132 03/07/01 NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION CF3.ID4 ATTACHMENT

7.2 Index

No. 402 Binder No.TITLE: CALCULATION COVER SHEET Unit(s): 1 & 2 File No.: 52.27 Responsible Group: Civil Calculation No.: 52.27.100.733 No. of Pages 3 pages + Index (4 pages) + 1 Design Calculation YES [x] NO [ I Attachment (134 pages) System No. 42C Quality Classification Q (Safety-Related)

Structure, System or Component:

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility

Subject:

Pseudostatic Wedge Analysis of DCPP ISFSI Cutslope (SWEDGE Analysis)

[GEO.DCPP.01.23, Rev. 0] Electronic calculation YES [ ] NO I x Computer Model Computer ID Program Location Date of Last Change Registered Engineer Stamp: Complete A or B A. Insert PE Stamp or Seal Below B. Insert stamp directing to the PE stamp or seal REGISTERED ENGINEERS' STAMPS AND EXPIRATION DATES ARE SHOWN ON DWG 063618 Expiration Date: NOTE 1: Update DCI promptly after approval.

NOTE 2: Forward electronic calculation file to CCTG for uploading to EDMS.1 Page 1 of 3 69-2UT-2 UJ/U51//UI Page 2 of 3 CF3.ID4 ATTACHMENT

7.2 TITLE

CALCULATION COVER SHEET CALC No. 52.27.100.733, RO RECORD OF REVISIONS Rev Status Reason for Revision Prepared LBIE LBIE Check LBIE Checked Supervisor Registered No. By: Screen Method* Approval Engineer Remarks Initials/

Yes/ Yes/ PSRC PSRC Initials/

Initials/

Signature/

LAN ID/ No/ No/ Mtg. Mtg. LAN ID/ LAN ID/ LAN ID/ Date NA NA No. Date Date Date ,- Dgte 0 F Acceptance of Geosciences Calc. AFT2 [ ] Yes [ ] Yes [ ] A N/A N/A N/A No. GEO.DCPP.01.23, Rev. 0. 7 [ No No]]B Calc. supports current edition of [1,0) ]JNo [ ]No I 10CFR72 DCPP License [x ]NA [x]NA [x]C 21 /3/0 Application to be reviewed by NRC / / prior to implementation.

Prepared per CF3. ID 17. I IYes I JYes IA INo I 1No I JB [ ]NA [ ]NA [ ]C [ ]Yes [ ]Yes [ IA [ INo [ ]No [ ]B [ ]NA [ ]NA [ ]C *Check Method: A: Detailed Check, B: Alternate Method (note added pages), C: Critical Point Check K 2

!I Pacific Gas and Electric Company Engineering

-Calculation Sheet Project: Diablo Canyon Unit ( )1 ( )2 (x) 1&2 SUBJECT Pseudostatic Wedge Analysis of DCPP ISFSI Cutslope (SWEDGE Analysis)

MADE BY A. Tafoya DATE 12/13/01 CHECKED BY Table of Contents: CALC NO. REV. NO. SHEET NO.69-392(10/92)

Engineering 52.27.100.733 0 3of 3 N/A DATE _____ ___Item Type 1 Index 2 Attachment A Title Cross-Index (For Information Only) Pseudostatic Wedge Analysis of DCPP ISFSI Cutslope (SWEDGE Analysis)Page Numbers 1-4 1 -134 3 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Engineering

-Calculation Sheet Project: Diablo Canyon Unit ( )1 ( ) 2 (x) 1&2 SUBJECT Pseudostatic Wedge Analysis of DCPP ISFSI Cutslope (SWEDGE Analysis)

MADE BY A. Tafoya K? DATE 12/13/01 CHECKED BY 69-392(10/92)

Engineering CALC. NO. 52.27.100.733 REV. NO. 0 SHEET NO. 1-1 of 4 N/A DATE 1- This table cross references between Geosciences calculation numbers and DCPP (Civil Group's) calculation numbers. This section is For Information Only. Cross-Index (For Information Only) Item Geoscience Caic. Title PG&E Caic. Comments No. No. No. 1 GEO.DCPP.01.01 Development of Young's 52.27.100.711 Modulus and Poisson's Ratios for DCPP ISFSI Based on Field Data 2 GEO.DCPP.01.02 Determination of 52.27.100.712 Probabilistically Reduced Peak Bedrock Accelerations for DCPP ISFSI Transporter Analyses 3 GEO.DCPP.01.03 Development of Allowable 52.27.100.713 Bearing Capacity for DCPP ISFSI Pad and CTF Stability Analyses 4 GEO.DCPP.01.04 Methodology for 52.27.100.714 Determining Sliding Resistance Along Base of DCPP ISFSI Pads 5 GEO.DCPP.01.05 Determination of 52.27.100.715 Pseudostatic Acceleration Coefficient for Use in DCPP ISFSI Cutslope Stability Analyses 6 GEO.DCPP.01.06 Development of Lateral 52.27.100.716 Bearing Capacity for DCPP CTF Stability Analyses 7 GEO.DCPP.01.07 Development of Coefficient 52.27.100.717 of Subgrade Reaction for DCPP ISFSI Pad Stability Checks 8 GEO.DCPP.01.08 Determination of Rock 52.27.100.718 Anchor Design Parameters for DCPP ISFSI Cutslope 9 GEO.DCPP.01.09 Determination of 52.27.100.719 Calculation to be Applicability of Rock Elastic replaced by letter Stress-Strain Values to Calculated Strains Under 1 0 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Engineering

-Calculation Sheet Project: Diablo Canyon Unit ( )1 ( )2 (x) 1&2 69-392(10/92)

Engineering CALM. NO. 52.27.100.733 REV. NO. 0 SHEET NO. 1-2 of 4 SUBJECT Pseudostatic Wedge Analysis of DCPP ISFSI Cutslope (SWEDGE Analysis)MADE BY A. Tafoya k" DATE 12/13/01 CHECKED BY N/A DATE Cross-Index (For Information Only) Item Geoscience Calc. Title PG&E CaIc. Comments No. No. No. DCPP ISFSI Pad 10 GEO.DCPP.01.10 Determination of SSER 34 52.27.100.720 Long Period Spectral Values 11 GEO.DCPP.01.11 Development of ISFSI 52.27.100.721 Spectra 12 GEO.DCPP.01.12 Development of Fling 52.27.100.722 Model for Diablo Canyon ISFSI 13 GEO.DCPP.01.13 Development of Spectrum 52.27.100.723 Compatible Time Histories 14 GEO.DCPP.01.14 Development of Time 52.27.100.724 Histories with Fling 15 GEO.DCPP.01.15.

Development of Young's 52.27.100.725 Modulus and Poisson's Ratio Values for DCPP ISFSI Based on Laboratory Data 16 GEO.DCPP.01.16 Development of Strength 52.27.100.726 Envelopes for Non-jointed Rock at DCPP ISFSI Based on Laboratory Data 17 GEO.DCPP.01.17 Determination of Mean and 52.27.100.727 Standard Deviation of Unconfined Compression Strengths for Hard Rock at DCPP ISFSI Based on Laboratory Tests 18 GEO.DCPP.01.18 Determination of Basic 52.27.100.728 Friction Angle Along Rock Discontinuities at DCPP ISFSI Based on Laboratory Tests 19 GEO.DCPP.01.19 Development of Strength 52.27.100.729 Envelopes for Jointed Rock Mass at DCPP ISFSI Using 2 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Engineering

-Calculation Sheet Project: Diablo Canyon Unit ( )1 ( ) 2 (x) 1&2 SUBJECT Pseudostatic Wedge Analysis of DCPP ISFSI Cutslooe (SWEDGE Analvwis69-392(10/92)

Engineering CALC. NO. 52.27.100.733 REV. NO. 0 SHEET NO. 1-3 of 4 MADE BY A. Tafoya k(\ DATE 12/13/01 CHECKED BY N/A DATE Cross-Index (For Information Only) Item Geoscience Caic. Title PG&E Calc. Comments No. No. No. Hoek-Brown Equations 20 GEO.DCPP.01.20 Development of Strength 52.27.100.730 Envelopes for Shallow Discontinuities at DCPP ISFSI Using Barton Equations 21 GEO.DCPP.01.21 Analysis of Bedrock 52.27.100.731 Stratigraphy and Geologic Structure at the DCPP ISFSI Site 22 GEO.DCPP.01.22 Kinematic Stability Analysis 52.27.100.732 for Cutslopes at DCPP ISFSI Site 23 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Pseudostatic Wedge 52.27.100.733 Analyses of DCPP ISFSI Cutslopes (SWEDGE Analysis) 24 GEO.DCPP.01.24 Stability and Yield 52.27.100.734 Acceleration Analysis of Cross Section I-I' 25 GEO.DCPP.01.25 Determination of Seismic 52.27.100.735 Coefficient Time Histories for Potential Siding Masses Above Cut Slopes Behind ISFSI Pad 26 GEO.DCPP.01.26 Determination of Potential 52.27.100.736 Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Potential Sliding Masses on DCPP ISFSI Slope 27 GEO.DCPP.01.27 Cold Machine Shop 52.27.100.737 Retaining Wall Stability 28 GEO.DCPP.01.28 Stability and Yield 52.27.100.738 Acceleration Analysis of Potential Sliding Masses Along DCPP ISFSI Transport Route 3 I Pacific Gas and Electric Company Engineering

-Calculation Sheet Project: Diablo Canyon Unit ( )1 ( ) 2 (x) 1&2 SUBJECT Pseudostatic Wedae Analysis of DCPP ISFSI Cutslope (SWEDGE Analysis)69-392(10/92)

Engineering CALC. NO. 52.27.100.733 REV. NO. 0 SHEET NO. 1-4 of 4 MADE BY A. Tafoya 10 DATE 12/13/01 CHECKED BY N/A DATE Cross-Index (For Information Only) Item Geoscience Calc. Title PG&E Calc. Comments No. No. No. 29 GEO.DCPP.01.29 Determination of Seismic 52.27.100.739 Coefficient Time Histories for Potential Sliding Masses on DCPP ISFSI Transport Route 30 GEO.DCPP.01.30 Determination of Potential 52.27.100.740 Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Potential Sliding Masses Along DCPP ISFSI Transport Route 31 GEO.DCPP.01.31 Development of Strength 52.27.100.741 Envelopes for Clay Beds at DCPP ISFSI 32 GEO. DCPP.01.32 Verification of Computer 52.27.100.742 Program SPCTLR.EXE 33 GEO.DCPP.01.33 Verification of Program 52.27.100.743 UTEXAS3 34 GEO.DCPP.01.34 Verification of Computer 52.27.100.744 Code -QUAD4M 35 GEO.DCPP.01.35 Verification of Computer 52.27.100.745 Code DEFORMP 36 GEO.DCPP.01.36 Reserved I 52,27.100.746 37 GEO.DCPP.01.37 Development of Freefield 5227.100.747 Ground Motion Storage Cask Spectra and Time Histories for the Used Fuel Storage Project 4 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page I of 134 PG&E Geosciences Department Departmental Calculation Procedure Title: Calculation Cover Sheet Page: 1 of 1 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY GEOSCIENCES DEPARTMENT CALCULATION DOCUMENT Calc Number: Revision:

Date: No. of Calc Pa Verification Met No. of Verificati GEO.DCPP.01.23 0 November 14, 2001 ges: 134 thod: A on Pages: "2 I 1 Tdr W A s fS IEn y TITLE Pseudostatic Wedge Analysis of DCPP ISFSI Cutslope (SWEDGE Analysis)PREPARED BY VERIFIED BY Jeffrey L. Bachhuber Printed Name Robert K. White Printed Name APPROVED BY DATE November 14, 2001 William Lettis & Associates, Inc. Organization DATE DATE Lloyd S. Cluff Printed Name Pacific &iLlectric Co., Geosciences Department Organization Pacific Gas &EIectric Co., Geosciences Department Organization LLOYD Z.- S. CLUFF No. EG567 CERTIFIED

"- ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST.

GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0:0=kl ) ?-h 3 1 .0)Pagel! of'134"";"%%'"" /. e-1 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 'I of 134 PG&E Geosciences Department Departmental Calculation Procedure Page: 1 of 1 Title: Record of Revision Calc Number: GEO.DCPP.01.23 Pseudostatic Wedge Analysis of DCPP ISFSI Cutslope (SWEDGE Analysis)GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Rev. No. Reason for Revision Revision Date 0 Initial issue 11/14/01 4I I I I L I F t I- I Page 2 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 'I of 134 DCPP ISFSI CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.23 Pseudostatic Wedge Analysis of DCPP ISFSI Cutslope (SWEDGE Analysis)

Revision 0 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 I Page 3 of 134 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _ of 134 DCPP ISFSI CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.23 Pseudostatic Wedge Analysis of DCPP ISFSI Cutslope (SWEDGE Analysis)

Revision 01 Table of Contents PURPO SE ........................................................................................................

5 IN PUTS ...........................................................................................................

6 A SSUM PTION S ................................................................................................

8 M ETHOD ........................................................................................................

10 SOFTW ARE ....................................................................................................

12 AN ALY SIS .......................................................................................................

14 RESULTS .........................................................................................................

16 CON CLUSION S ................................................................................................

18 REFERENCES

..................................................................................................

19 List of Tables Table 23-1. Pseudostatic SWEDGE Analyses Input Data, ISFSI Cutslope Table 23-2. Pseudostatic Probabilitistic SWEDGE Analyses of ISFSI South (Backcut)

Cutslope Table 23-3. Pseudostatic Probabilitistic SWEDGE Analyses of ISFSI East Cutslope Table 23-4. Pseudostatic Deterministic SWEDGE Analyses of ISFSI South (Backcut) and East Cutslopes List of Figures Figure 23-1. Configuration of ISFSI cutslopes Figure 23-2. Cutslope configuration used in SWEDGE analyses Figure 23-3. Kinematic plot of wedge potential in Westcut Figure 23-4. Kinematic plot of wedge potential in Backcut (South cutslope)

Figure 23-5. Kinematic plot of wedge potential in Eastcut Figure 23-6. Graphical calculation of anchors per area for 1.52 m anchor pattern List of Attachments Attachment 1 -SWEDGE program output files Attachment 2 -SWEDGE program verification runs GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 4 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 5, of 134 DCPP ISFSI GEOTECHNICAL CALCULATION PACKAGE Title: Pseudostatic wedge analysis of DCPP ISFSI cutslope (SWEDGE analysis)

Calc Number: GEO.DCPP.01.23 Revision:

Rev. 0 Author: Jeff L. Bachhuber Date: November 14, 2001 Verifier:

Robert K. White 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this Calculation Package is to evaluate the pseudostatic stability of the proposed DCPP ISFSI cutslopes.

The proposed cutslopes will be excavated in sandstone and dolomite bedrock of the Obispo Formation.

A pseudostatic stability analysis of the cutslope was performed to evaluate the potential for wedge sliding failures along discontinuities in the rock mass using the SWEDGE program (Rocscience, 1999). The results from these analyses will be used to help develop conceptual design support for the excavated slope (Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.08).

Figure 23-1 shows the general configuration and plan view of the proposed cutslopes (the Eastcut, Backcut, and Westcut), and Figure 23-2 shows the proposed cutslope profile. The cutslope geometry that was analyzed was obtained from PG&E/Enercon preliminary design drawing PGE 009-SK-001, dated 9/22/01, and transmitted by A. Tafoya on 9/27/01. The preparation of this calculation package was performed under the WLA Work Plan (Rev. 2) dated November 28, 2000 using data collected under that Work Plan, and a second WLA Work Plan (Rev. 1) dated September 19, 2001. I GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 5 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 4 of 134 SWEDGE is a computer program for the analyses of translational slip of surface wedges in a rock slope. Rock block wedges are defined by two intersecting discontinuity planes (joints, faults, bedding), a slope face, and an optional tension crack parallel to the slope face. The program performs analyses using two techniques:

probabilistic analyses (probability of failure), and deterministic analyses (factor of safety). For probabilistic analyses, variation or uncertainty in discontinuity orientation and strength values can be accounted for, resulting in calculated safety factor distributions and predictions of failure probability.

For deterministic analyses, a factor of safety is calculated for a specified wedge geometry and discontinuity shear strength condition.

Both types of analyses can also factor influences of water pressure from accumulated rainfall or groundwater accumulation within the wedges, external/seismic forces, and effects of rock anchor reinforcement.

The stability method used in SWEDGE is explained in Hoek and Bray (1981), and is based on limit equilibrium methodology.

Kinematic analyses using discontinuity data for the cutslope area (ISFSI SAR Section 2.6 Topical Report Appendix F) were performed for each of the proposed cutslopes bounding the southeast Backcut (South), Westcut (southwest), and Eastcut (northeast) margins of the ISFSI pad and stereonet plots of the data are presented in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.22.

Each potentially unstable wedge identified on the stereonet plots in the kinematic analyses was modeled with the SWEDGE program to evaluate the probability and relative risk of failure. Figures 23-3 through 23-5 are kinematic plots from GEO.DCPP.0 1.22 showing potential wedges in each cutslope.

2.0 INPUTS

Input parameters used for the modeling are shown in Table 23-1, and were obtained as follows:

• Dip and dip direction average-values and ranges for wedge forming discontinuities were obtained from Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.22.

GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 6 of 1374 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page j of 134" Discontinuity shear strength values were obtained using the Barton method from Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.20. " Preliminary cutslope geometry is shown on PG&E/Enercon Drawing PGE-009 SK-001, dated 9/12/01, and transmitted by W.D. Page on 10/12/01.

The design consists of two 700 cutslopes separated by a 25-foot-wide bench. The height of the cutslope risers below the bench varies from 20.5 to 23.3 feet high (Backcut, Eastcut), and the upper cut slope riser in the Backcut is a maximum of 31.8 feet high.. The maximum composite height for the benched cut is in the Backcut, and is 52.3 feet high. This was determined by overlying the cutslope geometry drawing on the ISFSI site topographic map drawing (GEO.DCPP.01.21 Figure 21-4). The preliminary design includes a drainage system consisting of culvert pipes with inlet risers. The culvert is to be installed in a backfilled ditch at the back of the mid-slope bench, as per Enercon Drawings PGE-009-SK-340 and 341 (R. White memo, Nov. 9, 2001). We have assumed maximum drainage ditch width of 3 feet, and a maximum depth of 7 feet. The ditch location and geometry do not significantly change slope heights or conditions for stability analyses, and potential wedges daylighting in the ditch would be constrained by compacted backfill and rock in the opposite ditch wall. Therefore, critical wedges were modeled to daylight at the toe of the cutslope above the drainage ditch. " The minimum required factor of safety of 1.3 for dynamic loading of wedges was used, as recommended by ASCE (1982) for design and analysis of nuclear safety related earth structures induced by the vibratory ground motion. " The pseudostatic horizontal acceleration coefficent of 0.5 was obtained from Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.05.

Seismic forces were assumed to act in a horizontal inclination at an azimuth perpendicular to the slope face. The dip and dip direction of wedge-forming discontinuities were given variation ranges of 5 and 10 degrees, respectively, to capture the possible range of natural variation in field measurements that are not at the exact locations of the cutslopes and is based on examination of field variability of discontinuity geometry.

The frictional strength of each discontinuity set was based on strength criteria developed using the Barton equation as GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page 7 oF 134.

Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page J of 134 presented in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.20.

Different strengths were used for joints and fault planes in dolomite and sandstone, respectively, according to the respective Barton shear strength curves selected values are shown on Table 23-1. The friction angles were assigned a range in values that correspond to the upper and lower bound strength curves developed using the Barton equations.

The SWEDGE program probabilistic analyses allows input of mean and minimum/maximum ranges of values for discontinuity dip and dip direction, and shear strength (cohesion and friction angle). These values are varied within the designated range by the program using user-selected statistical distribution models, and Monte Carlo simulation.

For analyses of the ISFSI cutslope stability, a normal distribution was selected, and 1000 Monte Carlo iterations were performed per stability run. Only the mean values for input parameters are shown on Table 23-2. 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions were included in the pseudostatic stability analyses:

1. The pseudostatic analysis method models forces in the slope related to the stability of rock wedges. The basis for this assumption is presented in Hoek and Bray (1981), and is considered to be a reasonable assumption.

2. The presence and geometry of discontinuities forming possible wedge failures have been identified by the kinematic analyses in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.22.

The large data set of measured discontinuities (William Lettis & Associates, Inc., 2001, Diablo Canyon ISFSI Data Report F) is sufficient to identify critical wedges, and individual data sets were developed for each cutslope face to account for local variations in geometry.

Variations in discontinuity dip and dip direction are assumed to follow a normal distribution.

GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 8 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _%_ of 134 3. Rock mass shear strength estimated by the Barton method (Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.20) is appropriate for shear strength of the discontinuities bounding modeled wedges and provides conservative values for the in-situ rock friction.

This is discussed in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.22.

Variations in shear strength values were assumed to follow a normal distribution.

Cohesion was conservatively neglected in the analyses to factor the possibility of existing parting surfaces or partly disturbed and dilated rock mass conditions.

4. Groundwater and infiltrated rainwater will not collect in rock mass discontinuities greater than half the height of the wedge. This assumption is based on three factors: (1) field observations of the ISFSI site area that noted the slope to be free of wet areas, springs, and only temporal evidence of a local perched water table (William Lettis & Associates, Inc., 2001, Diablo Canyon ISFSI Data Report B); (2) observations from borings drilled in the ISFSI site area, all of which were dry to depths of over 100 feet below the proposed ISFSI site pad grade; (3) measured water levels in borings 98BA-1 and 91BA-3 that were finished with piezometer casings (William Lettis & Associates, Inc., 2001, Diablo Canyon ISFSI Data Report B); and (4) the recommended installation of drains in the ISFSI cutslopes that will prevent temporary perched water tables during winter rains. Thus, the assumption of the slopes filled with water to half the cutslope height is conservative for most of the year and reasonable during and immediately following heavy rains. 5. The maximum depth (into the rock slopes) of the modeled wedges is about 20 feet (7 meters). Field observations of joint spacing and bed thickness show that intact rock blocks at the surface in the ISFSI site have dimensions less than about 14 feet, and typically are on the order of 2 to 3 feet in maximum dimension (William Lettis & Associates, Inc., 2001, Diablo Canyon ISFSI Data Report F). Thus, the assumption of rock blocks extending up to 20 feet deep into the slope is conservative and accommodates the potential for multiple-block composite wedge slides.GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 9 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page L of 134 6. In all cases, the failure mode of the wedge is assumed to be translational slip; rotational slip and toppling are not modeled. Kinematic analyses in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.22, and field observations of the rock mass and exploratory trench sidewall stability, suggest that wedge sliding is the most likely failure mode for small-to-moderate size (generally 2 to 3 feet and up to 14 feet) failures into the ISFSI pads cutslope.

Potentially larger slab or planar rock slides along clay beds in the slope are modeled separately in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.24.

7. For purposes of determining the rock anchor force required to achieve wedge stability at the required factor of safety, rock anchors are assumed to be spaced in a staggered pattern at 5-foot (1.52 m) intervals (Figure 23-6), which is reasonable, and typical construction practice.

Only half the wedge face area is assumed available for anchoring, which conservatively neglects the contribution to stability from anchors located at or very near the edge of the wedge that would not provide sufficient penetration of the wedge to ISFSI sliding.

8. Seismic forces are modeled in a horizontal inclination with an azimuth perpendicular to the slope face. This is a reasonably conservative assumption and typical approach for slope stability analyses.

9. Drainage ditches located at the back of the midslope bench were considered as possible tension crack locations.

Hlowever, iterative analyses showed that joint intersections likely would not extend back to the drainage ditch location for most wedge configurations.

4.0 METHOD

Each potential wedge identified in kinematic analyses (Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.22) was modeled probabilistically with the SWEDGE program to evaluate the relative risk of failure. Figures 23-3 through 23-5 present stereographic plots GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 10 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page t\ of 134 showing potential wedges in each cutslope.

Input parameters used for the modeling are shown in Table 23-1., and are explained under the Inputs section of this Calculation Package (see above). The step-by-step methodology used for the pseudostatic wedge stability analyses is presented below: 1. Identification of wedge geometries of potential failure, and selection of parameters for the pseudostatic analyses;

2. Probabilistic analyses of each wedge geometry to identify the most critical unstable wedge and the probability of failure associated with that wedge; and, 3. Deterministic analyses of these hazardous wedges to determine the required anchor forces to achieve the required factor of safety of 1.3 for dynamic loading.

Step 1 The potentially unstable wedges in each ISFSI cutslope was defined in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.22.

No potential wedge failures were identified for the Westcut, while four potential wedges were identified for the Backcut, and three potential wedges were identified for the Eastcut. Each wedge is defined in SWEDGE using the mean orientations of the discontinuity sets identified above. Each discontinuity set is also assigned a mean friction angle and distribution to be used in the probabilistic analyses.

These friction angles were determined by the Barton criteria, as presented in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.20.

Wedges encompassing a single cut face between benches, and wedges that extend from the base of the cut to the top of the cut and fail through the benches, are considered (Figure 23-2B). Step 2 For each wedge geometry defined above, several probabilistic analyses are run which vary input parameters such as water conditions, seismic forces, and the presence of a tension crack. Probability of failure and mean factor of safety are calculated for each GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page I1I of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page t___of 134 model. This step allows for the calculation of the least stable scenario for each wedge geometry.

Step 3 The scenario with the highest probability of failure for each wedge geometry in each cutslope is analyzed deterministically in SWEDGE. The geometry of each modeled wedge was evaluated to determine if it was consistent with dimensional limitations described in Assumption No. 5, and with observed field rock mass conditions.

In some cases, a tension crack was modeled to limit the dimensions of the wedge as described later in Section 7.0. Wedge sizes were determined by the SWEDGE program based on the largest (least stable) wedge that could daylight in the defined cutslope.

The deterministic analyses calculate a discrete factor of safety for the given wedge, which serves as confirmation of the results from the probabilistic analyses.

External support forces are then added in order to assess the effects of rock anchors on the factor of safety of the wedge. Per-anchor forces can then be calculated using the face area of the wedge and an assumed rock anchor pattern.

5.0 SOFTWARE

Analysis of the potential wedge failures in the ISFSI cutslopes was performed using SWEDGE, v.3.06 (Rocscience, 1999) on a DELL Inspiron model 8000 laptop computer running the Microsoft Windows ME operating system. The software was purchased by and is licensed to William Lettis & Associates, Inc. (WLA), and all analyses were performed by WLA. The program has not been modified from the version purchased from Rocscience.

Probabilistic and deterministic pseudostatic stability analyses were performed using standard SWEDGE functions.

SWEDGE examples presented in Rocscience (1999) were used to verify the SWEDGE functions, using method 1 of PG&E Geosciences Department, GEO.001, Rev. 4, Development and Independent Verification of Calculations for Nuclear Facilities, GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 12 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page of 134 Section 4.4.2.2. Input parameters from the examples were entered into the program provided to WLA, and the output was compared with the example output. The program successfully reproduced example solutions.

Verification examples and computer output are included in Attachment

2. The following program items were also identified as part of the verification process; a) Program name: SWEDGE b) Program version: 3.06 c) Program revision:

not applicable d) Computer platform compatibility:

Windows ME e) Program capabilities and limitations:

The program performs analyses using two techniques:

probabilistic analyses (probability of failure), and deterministic analyses (factor of safety). For probabilistic analyses, variation or uncertainty in discontinuity orientation and strength values can be accounted for, resulting in calculated safety factor distributions and predictions of failure probability.

For deterministic analyses, a factor of safety is calculated for a specified wedge geometry and discontinuity shear strength condition.

Analyses results are valid when ranges of input values are within those described in Rocscience (1999). f) Program test cases: described in Attachment

2. Includes tension crack, water, seismic/dynamic loads. g) Instructions for use: input values for two intersecting discontinuity planes (joints, faults, fractures), a slope face, and an optional tension crack parallel to the slope face as described in Rocscience (1999). h) Program owner: Rocscience, Inc. i) Identification of individual responsible for controlling the software or executables:

See PG&E Geosciences QA procedure CF2.GEI.

j) Change control: See PG&E Geosciences QA procedure CF2.GEI.

k) Verification methods used: PG&E Geosciences GEO.001, Rev. 3, 4.2.2, method I as shown in Attachment 2.GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Pagye 13 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _Lof 134 6.0 ANALYSIS Separate analyses were performed for each of the two walls (Backcut and Eastcut) of the ISFSI site excavation indicated by kinematic analyses in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.22 to be susceptible to wedge failure. For each potentially hazardous wedge geometry identified in the kinematic analyses, models were run that included variations in joint surface shear strength, water conditions, seismic loading, and the presence of a tension crack in the slope behind the rock face. Models were run using a 31.8 feet (9.7 meters) high cutslope between the bench and top of cut in the proposed ISFSI site excavation as shown on Figure 23-2A. In addition, analysis of the Backcut cutslope included models using a 52.3 feet (15.9 meters) high cutslope to investigate the stability of larger wedges extending through both cutslopes and the bench to the top of the excavation.

As shown in Figure 23-2B, the 52.3-foot-high cutslope was modeled using an "average" slope profile without an intermediate bench, as SWEDGE is unable to model the composite slope profile with the bench. This scenario models possible composite wedge failures involving multiple single rock blocks. Each model was run probabilistically using Monte Carlo simulation with 1,000 iterations.

After determining the worst-case wedge geometries using the probabilistic analyses, deterministic analyses of these worst-case wedges were then run to determine the rock anchor support required to achieve a factor of safety of 1.3. The SWEDGE program calculates a maximum wedge weight and the wedge face area that is available for rock anchor support. Per-anchor forces can then be calculated using the assumed rock anchor design pattern given above in the Assumptions Section of this Calculation Package, and shown in Figure 23-6. The geometry (dip and dip direction) and frictional shear strength of discontinuities in the SWEDGE model in some cases are somewhat different than those shown in the kinematic analysis in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.22, because in some cases, where kinematic analyses showed that the discontinuity intersection was close to, but not quite, daylighting in the slope, the dip or dip direction mean values were changed to permit a daylighting condition to accommodate possible variations in the discontinuity geometry.

The friction angles for fault planes as determined in Calculation GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page 14 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page (5 of 134 Package GEO.DCPP.01.20 were used for discontinuities oriented parallel to the trend of ISFSI site faults, rather than the higher friction angles as determined for clean rock-rock discontinuities (about 280) that were used for kinematic analyses.

Westcut Kinematic analyses demonstrate that the rock mass in the area of the westcut does not exhibit persistent discontinuities that form daylighting wedge intersections in the proposed cutslope (Figure 23-3). Therefore, SWEDGE analyses were not performed for this cutslope.

Backcut The Backcut will be excavated in sandstone, dolomite, and friable sandstone and friable dolomite bedrock of Units Tofb_2 , TOfb-2a, Tofb-1, and Tofb-la (Figure 23-1). Strength values for sandstone, which are lower than for dolomite, were used for the analyses (WEDGE modeling is not applicable for cuts in the friable rock which does not exhibit well-developed intersecting joint wedges). The kinematic analyses show that four discontinuity sets, as referenced in GEO.DCPP.01.20, form potential wedge sliding intersections for the Backcut (Figure 23-4). The discontinuity sets are: (1) NNW striking, steeply W dipping; (2) NW striking, steeply SW dipping; (3) WNW striking, near vertical; and (4) NW striking, shallowly SW dipping. The intersections between sets 2-3, 1-3, and 2-4 are those that are potentially unstable in the backcut. Each of these potential wedge intersections was modeled probabilistically and deterministically with the SWEDGE program to evaluate the probability and relative risk of failure. Two of the discontinuities are parallel to site faults, and were modeled using friction angles for fault planes. The other two discontinuities were assumed to exhibit rock-rock frictional strength (Table 23-1). Strength curves for sandstone and dolomite bedrock were used in the analyses (refer to Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.20).

Tension cracks were modeled at the approximate location of the mid-slope bench drainage ditches for some models (i.e. runs Backcut D9R, DIOR) to emulate possible GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 15 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page ((, of 134 development of tension cracks or dislocation surfaces caused by the drainage ditch excavation.

Eastcut The Eastcut will be excavated in dolomite bedrock of Unit Tofb.I (Figure 23-1). The kinematic analyses show that three discontinuity sets form potential wedge sliding intersections for the Eastcut (Figure 23-5). The discontinuity sets, as reference in GEO.DCPP.01.20, are: (1) NNE striking, near vertical; (2) NW striking, steeply SW dipping; and (3) E-W striking, steeply N dipping (Joint Set No. 2 from GEO.DCPP.01.20 is not analyzed because it is at too gentle of an angle to be prone to wedge sliding).

The intersections between sets 2-4 and 1-2 are potentially unstable in the Eastcut. Each of these potentially unstable wedge intersections was modeled probabilistically and deterministically with the SWEDGE program to evaluate the probability and relative risk of failure. One of the discontinuity sets is parallel to site faults, and was modeled using a fault plane frictional strength (Table 23-1). The other two discontinuities were modeled using rock-rock frictional strength.

Strength curves for dolomite bedrock were used in the analyses (refer to Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.20).

7.0 RESULTS

The results from SWEDGE probabilistic analyses are summarized in Tables 23-2 Backcut and 23-3 Eastcut. Results from the deterministic analyses for both the Backcut and Eastcut, including evaluations of required anchor forces to achieve a dynamic Factor of Safety (FOS) of 1.3, are summarized in Table 23-4. SWEDGE program output files are included in Attachment

1. Backeut Probabilistic analyses were run for 19 different cases that included the four potentially hazardous wedge geometries (Table 23-2). Each run included 1000 Monte Carlo GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 16 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 11 of 134 iterations that varied the input parameters for discontinuity dip and dip direction, and frictional strength, within the specified ranges (Table 23-1) and using a normal distribution.

Only the mean values are reported on Table 23-2. The calculated probability of failure for the 17 cases varies between zero (no probability of failure) to 1.0 (certain failure).

In most cases, the wedges are stable under dry and non-seismic conditions, but have a high probability of failure under high seismic loads and/or the accumulation of temporary groundwater.

Maximum wedge weight for the maximum 31.8-foot high upper cutslope riser varies from 10.8 kips (wedge 1-3) to 11,991.8 kips (wedge 3-4). Maximum wedge weight for the 52.3-foot high composite benched cut varies from 3243.9 kips (sets 3-4 with tension crack) to 21,826.2 kips tons (sets 3-4 without tension crack), depending on how deep the wedge extends into the slope. Model runs P6-R, and P1 4-R included very long (on the order of 100 feet), narrow (on the order of tens of feet) wedges that are believed to be unrealistic based on the intensity ofjointing in the rock mass that suggests maximum rock block depths of 20 feet and maximum block dimensions of about 14 feet (see Assumption No. 5). These wedges likely would separate along joints several feet to a maximum of 20 feet behind the slope face. We, therefore, modeled tension cracks about 20 feet behind the slope face to limit the dimension of these wedges to a realistic size consistent with our field observations and discontinuity data (DCPP ISFSI SAR Section 2.6 Topical Report Appendix F). Modeled wedges for the lower 20.5-foot high cutslope riser ranged between 9.7 and 1751.6 kips, much smaller than those for the higher upper cutslope riser. For each modeled wedge geometry, the deterministic analyses confirmed the high probability of failure and low factor of safety for the cutslopes under seismic and/or water accumulation loading conditions (Table 23-4). The deterministic models also incorporated support forces to simulate the effects of rock anchors on the cutslope stability.

The analyses indicate that stabilization with rock anchors will raise the factor of safety above the target goal of 1.3. Estimated per-anchor capacity for the Backcut cutslope range between 9.4 and 33.9 tons for a 5-foot by 5-foot staggered pattern.

Estimated minimum anchor lengths of between about 4 and 23 feet are required to GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 17 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page i of 134 penetrate possible wedge basal surfaces, assuming that anchors are inclined at an angle of 150 below horizontal.

Eastcut Probabilistic analyses were run for 7 different cases that included the two potentially hazardous wedge geometries (Table 23-3). Each run included 1000 Monte Carlo iterations with varying dip and dip direction and shear strength parameters as discussed previously for the Backcut results. The calculated probability of failure for the 7 models varies between 0.12 (low probability of failure) to 1.0 (certain failure).

As in the Backcut, a high probability of failure (low factor of safety) is associated with high seismic loads and/or the temporary presence of groundwater in the slope. Maximum wedge weight varies from 23.8 kips (wedge 1-2) to 34.0 kips (wedge 2-4). For both modeled wedge geometries, the deterministic analyses confirmed the high probability of failure and low factor of safety for seismic and combined or partly saturated and seismic conditions.

With the addition of rock anchor support forces, the analyses indicate that stabilization will raise the factor of safety above the target goal of 1.3. Estimated per-anchor capacity for the Eastcut are about 8.4 to 9.0 kips for a 5- by 5 foot pattern. An estimated minimum anchor length of about 3 feet is required to penetrate possible wedge basal surfaces.

This reflects the small size of the wedges on this cutslope.

It should be noted that these anchor lengths do not include bonding lengths into the intact rock behind the wedges.

8.0 CONCLUSION

S Tables 23-2 through 23-4 summarize the results of the SWEDGE modeling of potential rock wedges at the ISFSI site. The results from pseudostatic wedge stability analyses show that both the Backcut and the Eastcut have the potential for rock wedges that are stable under dry, non-seismic conditions but potentially fail under seismic loads and/or accumulation of temporary water in the slope. The analyses show that the ISFSI GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 18 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 4 of 134 cutslopes will require engineered support to meet a factor of safety of at least 1.3 under earthquake loads and/or water accumulation in the slope. Possible failure wedges and rock masses are up to 25 feet thick and weigh up to to,&.s 4474.6 kips. Individual rock anchors will need to be able to support up to 33.9 kips, based on a 5-foot by 5-foot staggered pattern, in order to achieve a factor of safety of 1.3.

9.0 REFERENCES

ASCE, 1982, Guideline for design and analysis of nuclear safety related earth structures, ASCE Standard N-725, January 1, 1988 (ANSI/ASCE 1-82, ANSI approved Nov. 5, 1986). Hoek, E., and Bray, J.W., 1981, Rock Slope Engineering, 3 rd edition, Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, 402 pages. Rocscience, 1999, SWEDGE: Probabilistic analysis of the geometry and stability of surface wedges, version 3.06, Toronto, 64 pp. William Lettis & Associates, Inc., 2001, Letter to Robert White, PG&E Geosciences from Robert C. Witter, November 5, 2001, Completion of Data Reports transmitting Data Reports A through K to PG&E Geosciences Department; Diablo Canyon ISFSI Data Report B -Borings in ISFSI Site Area, Rev. 0, November 5, 2001, prepared by J. Bachhuber, 244 p. Diablo Canyon ISFSI Data Report D -Trenches in the ISFSI Site Area, Rev. 0, November 5, 2001, prepared by J. Bachhuber, 66 p. Diablo Canyon ISFSI Data Report F -Field Discontinuity Measurements, Rev. 0, November 5, 2001, prepared by C. Brankman and J. Bachhuber, 85 p. Geosciences Calculation packages GEO.DCPP.01.05 Determination of psuedostatic acceleration coefficient for use in DCPP ISFSI cutslope GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 19 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 2a of 134 GEO.DCPP.01.08 GEO.DCPP.0 1.20 GEO.DCPP.01.21 GEO.DCPP.0 1.22 GEO.DCPP.0 1.24 Determination of rock anchor design parameters for DCPP ISFSI cutslope and CTF guy lines Development of strength envelopes for shallow discontinuities at DCPP ISFSI using Barton equations Analysis of bedrock stratigraphy and geologic structure at the DCPP ISFSI site Stereographic-kinematic analysis of DCPP ISFSI cutslope (DIPS analysis) and laboratory data Determination of critical rock slides on DCPP ISFSI slope (UTEXAS3 analysis)PG&E Memorandums and Design Drawing Page, W.D., October 12,.2001, Transmittal of requested drawings, DCPP used fuel storage projects, for Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.21, Analysis of bedrock stratigraphy and geologic structure at the DCPP ISFSI site, including PG&E/Enercon Drawing PGE-009-SK-001, 9/27/01.

White, R.K., November 9, 2001, Transmittal of Enercon drawings showing drainage design for DCPP ISFSI site, including PG&E/Enercon Drawings PGE-009-SK 340 and PGE-009-SK-341.

QA Documents PG&E Quality Assurance Procedure GEO.001, Development and Independent Verification of Calculations for Nuclear Facilities PG&E Quality Assurance Procedure CF2.GE1, Verification and Change Control of Quality-related Software GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 20 o " IS4-Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page v of 134 Table 23-1. Pseudostatic SWEDGE Analyses Input Data, ISFSI Cutslopes BACKCUT Orientation:

700/3300 Geometry:

Benched cut with 20.5 and 31.8-fl-high risers Geology: Sandstone (Tofb.2) and Dolomite (Tofb.l).

Zones of friable sandstone (TOfb-2 a) and friable Dolomite (Tofb-,,)

also occur but these weathered and/or altered rocks do not contain significant fractures and were not modeled.

Rock unit weight: 0.071 US tons/ft 3 (based on William Lettis & Associates, Inc., 2001, Diablo Canyon ISFSI Data Report I). Potential wedges formed by combinations of four discontinuities(')

Discontinuity Mean Dip/Dip Relative Range in Mean Friction Relative Range in Direction(2)

Dip/Dip Direction Angle 3) Friction Angle 1. joint 7 5-7 7/2 6 1 t +/-5/1+/-0 30.5 -12 to +15.5 2. fault/joint 69/220 +/-5/+/-10 26.5 -10.5 to +15.5 3. fault 7 5-8 8/1 2 E +/-5/1+/-10 26.5 -10.5 to +15.5 4. joint 24/232 +/-51+/-10 30.5 -12 to +15.5 EASTCUT Orientation:

70'/2400 Geometry:

23.3-ft-high cut with a small bench at top Geology: Dolomite (Tofb-) (zones of friable Dolomite (Tofb-la) also occur but is weathered and/or altered soil does not contain significant fractures).

Rock unit weight: 0.071 US tons/ft 3 Potential wedges formed by combinations of three discontinuities()

Note: Discontinuity set 2 from GEO.DCPP.01.22 not modeled because it is too shallow to form potential wedge sliding intersection.

Discontinuity Mean Dip/Dip Relative Range in Mean Friction Relative Range in Direction(2)

Dip/I)ip Direction Angle(3) Friction Angle 1. joint 88/98 +/-5!t 10 36.0 -17.0 to+16.0 3. joint 67/239 +/-5/+/- 10 36.0 -17.0 to +16.0 4. fault 70-76/08t

+/-5'+/- 10 35.0 -17.5 to +19.0 WESTCUT -no wedge intersections defined b) kinematic analyses.

NOTES: (')Potential wedge intersections defined by kinematic analyses presented in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.22 (2)Mean dip/dip direction obtained by DIPS program in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.0 1.22, except where noted with a .For the exceptions, the dip and/or dip direction were changed to permit the mean value to daylight in the slope face. The lower value of dip is the changed value in these cases. Ranges estimated based on typical variations in discontinuity orientations observed in the field at the ISFSI site (e.g., DCPP ISFSI SAR Section 2.6 Topical Report Appendix D). (3"Friction angle (Phi) mean values and ranges taken from Barton equation analyses of discontinuity shear strength described in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.20.

GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 21 of 134

( /(Table 23-2 Pseudostatic Probabilistc SWEDGE Analyses of ISFSI Backcut Run (Suit" Discontinuity t 2 J Discontinuityt 2 1 Meantt Tensiont 4) Seismict5 Water(6) Unit Probability Factor Wedge Wedge Height A B Friction Crack Distance Force (g) Weight of Failure of Weight Face (ft) Angle (ft) (kips*/fi3)

Safety (kips*) Area (ft2) Backcut PIR 31.8 69/220(2) 88/12(3) 26.5 (A/B) None None None 0.036 1.39 40.1 101.8 Backcut P2R 31.8 69/220 (2) 88/12 (3) 26.5 (A/B) 3.3 None None 0.007 1.39 25.1 101.8 Backcut P3R 31.8 69/220(2) 88/12(3) 26.5 (A/B) None None 0.031 0.978 0.27 40.1 101.8 Backcut P4R 31.8 69/220 (2) 88/12(3) 26.5 (A/B) None 0.50 None 1.0 0.49 40.1 101.8 Backcut PSR 31.8 69/220(2) 88/12(3) 26.5 (A/B) None 0.50 0.031 1.0 0 40.1 101.8 Backcut P6R 31.8 88/12(3) 24/232 (4) 26.5(A)30.5(B)

None None None 0 2.74 11,991.8 1059.9 Backcut P7R 31.8 88/12(3) 24/232(4) 26.5(A)30.5(B) 11.5 None None 0 2.74 915.9 1059.9 Backcut P8R 31.8 88/12(3) 24/232(4) 26.5(A)30.5(B) 23.0 None None 0 2.74 1783.8 1059.9 Backcut P9R 31.8 88/12(3) 24/232(4) 26.5(A)30.5(B) 23.0 None 0.031 0 1.44 1783.8 1059.9 Backcut PIOR 31.8 88/12 (3) 24/232 (4) 26.5(A)30.5(B) 23.0 0.50 None 0.90 0.92 1783.8 1059.9 Backcut PI IR-R 31.8 88/12 (3) 24/232 (4) 26.5(A)30.5(B) 23.0 0.50 0.031 1.0 0.62 1783.8 1059.9 Backcut P12R 31.8 75/12 (3) 75/261 (1) 26.5(A)30.5(B)

None None None 1.0 0.43 10.8 77.5 Backcut PI3R 31.8 75/12 (3) 75/261 (1) 26.5(A)30.5(B)

None 0.50 0.031 1.0 0 10.8 77.5 Backcut PI4R 52.3 88/12 (3) 24/232(4) 26.5(A)30.5(B)

None None None 0 2.74 21,836.2 2649.1 Backcut P15R 52.3 88/12 (3) 24/232 (4) 26.5(A)30.5(B) 11.5 None None 0 2.74 3243.9 2649.1 Backcut PI6R 52.3 88/12 (3) 24/232 (4) 26.5(A)30.5(B) 23.0 None None 0 2.74 4474.6 2649.1 Backcut P17R 52.3 88/12 (3) 24/232 (4) 26.5(A)30.5(B) 23.0 0.50 0.031 1.0 0.63 4474.6 2649.1 Backcut PI8R 20.5 69/220(2) 88/12(3) 26.5(A/B) 4.9 0.50 0.031 1.0 0.42 9.7 42.2 Backcut P19R 20.5 88/12(3) 24/232(4) 26.5(A)30.5(B) 4.9 0.50 0.031 1.0 0.71 1,751.6 1,059.9

• 1kip = 1000 pounds (1) Cut height geometry from PG&E/Enercon Drawing PGE-009-SK-001, 9/12/01, transmitted by A. Tafoya, 9/27/01.

(2) Mean dip and dip direction of intersecting joints (set number indicated in parentheses) that were identified by kinematic analyses in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.22 as forming potential wedges. Geometry of discontinuity is defined by the dip/dip direction convention.

Refer to Table 23-1. Numbers in brackets refer to Joint Set identification on Table 23-1 and in GEO.DCPP.01.20.

(3) Mean rock discontinuity friction angle determined by Barton Equation as developed in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.20.

(4) Tension crack distance is the distance between the top of the wedge block crest and tension crack location measured along strike of discontinuity A. Wedges modeled in Runs P6-Pi1 and P14-P17 consisted of unrealistically long, narrow wedges when tension cracks were not included.

Final runs, therefore, include a tension crack at 23 ft behind slope face. (5) Seismic force recommended for pseudostatic wedge analyses as defined in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.05.

(6) Water unit weight of 0.031 kips/ft represents approximately a condition with water collecting half-way up wedge-bounding discontinuities.

GEO DCPP.01.23 Rev 0 41 Page 22 of 134 Table 23-3. Pseudostatic Probabilistic SWEDGE Analyses of ISFSI Eastcut Run Cut Discontinuity(2)

Discontinuity(2)

Mean Tension Seismic Water Unit Probability Factor of Wedge Wedge Height()A Friction Crack Force(5) Weight(6) of Failure Safety Weights Face Area (Ft) (phi) Distancesk 4 i Fft/ Angle (3) (ft) (g) Eastcut P1 23.3 76/08 (4) 67/239 (2) 35.0 (A) None None None 0.20 1.08 33.96 446.0 36.0 (B) Eastcut P2 23.3 76/08 (4) 67/239 (2) 35.0 (A) 1.64 None None 0.12 1.08 33.96 446.0 36.0 (B) Eastcut P3 23.3 76/08 (4) 67/239 (2) 35.0 (A) None None 0.031 0.31 1.02 33.96 446.0 36.0 (B) Eastcut P4 23.3 76/08 (4) 67/239 (2) 35.0 (A) None 0.50 None 1.0 0.65 33.96 446.0 36.0 (B) Eastcut P5 23.3 76/08 (4) 67/239 (2) 35.0 (A) None 0.50 0.031 1.0 0.54 33.96 446.0 36.0 (B) 23.3 Eastcut P6 23.3 88/98 (1) 67/239 (2) 36.0 (A) None None None 0.97 0.31 23.81 469.8 36.0 (B) Eastcut P7 23.3 88/98 (1) 67/239 (2) 36.0 (A) None 0.50 0.031 0.99 0 23.81 469.8 36.0 (B) NOTES: (1)Cut geometrics from PG&E/Eneron drawing, PGE-009-SK-001, 9/12/01, transmitted by A. Tafoya, 9/27/01.

(2)Mean dip and dip direction of intersecting joints (set number indicated in parentheses) that were identified by kinematic analyses in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.0 1.22 as forming potential wedges. Geometry of discontinuity is defined by the dip/dip convention.

Refer to Table 23- 1. Numbers in brackets refer to Joint Set identification on Table 23-1 and in GEO.DCPP.01.22, (3)Mean rock discontinuity friction angle determined by Barton equation as developed in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.20.

(4)Tension crack distance is the distance between the top of the wedge block crest and tension crack location measured along strike of discontinuity A. (5)Seismic force recommended for pseudostatic wedge analyses as defined in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01,05.

(6)Water pressure of 0.031 kips/ft 3 approximates a condition with water collecting half-way up wedge-bounding discontinuities.

GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev 0 Page 23 of 134 i auc z3a-4 rseuuostanc vetermlnstic nIx_ E Analyses of ISFSI Backcut and Eastcut.-uv .0J.UB)(Run Cut(' Discontinuity Discontinuity(')

Mean3 Tension(4)

Seismic (5) Waterý Bolt (7) Factor Wedge Wedge P eationr Per Height (2) Friction Crack Force Unit Weight Force of Weight Face Anchor Anchor (ft) A B Angle Distance (g) (kips*/ft ) (kips*) Safety (kips*) Area (ft2) Length (9) Force (ft) (kips*) Backcut DIRR 31.8 691220 (2) 88/12 (3) 26.5 (A/B) None 0.5 0.031 None 0 40.1 101.8 Backcut D2R 31.8 69/220 (2) 88/12 (3) 26.5 (A/B) None 0.5 0.031 41.8 1.39 40.1 101.8 6.6 18.6 Backcut D3R 31.8 88/12 (3) 24/232(4) 26.5(A)30.5(B) 23.0 0.5 0.031 None 0.62 1783.8 1059.9 Backcut D4R 31.8 88/12(3) 24/232(4) 26.5(A)30.5(B) 23.0 .0.5 0.031 796.4 1.30 1783.8 1059.9 13.1 33.9 Backcut D5R 52.3 88/12 (3) 24/232(4) 26.5(A)30.5(B) 23.0 0.5 0.031 None 0.63 4474.6 2649.1 Backcut D6R 52.3 88/12 (3) 24/232(4) 26.5(A)30.5(B) 23.0 0.5 0.031 1881.0 1.30 4474.6 2649.1 23.0 32.1 Backcut D7R 20.5 69/220(2) 88/12 (3) 26.5 (A/B) 4.92 0.5 0.031 0.27 10.12 41.94 Backcut D8R 20.5 69/220(2) 88/12(3) 26.5 (AIB) 4.92 0.5 0.031 8.8 1.67 10.12 41.94 3.9 9.4 Backcut D9R 20.5 88/12 (3) 24/232(4) 26.5(A)30.5(B) 20.0 1 A n0 -, ...5.0 88/12 4 Ro.4.,,fll~t 7~ t QQ~inx ~ .,,i,,x ~ + ~ ... 4 ... .1 .1 14 2U.U 0.5 0.031 189.2 1.31 5 .2 4,40. Easeut3 DI1 2. 76/08 (4) 67/239 () 3.()60B oeNn oe 10 39 4.40.1 None U.o 0.031 None 0.54 Eastcut D3R 23.3 76/08 (4) 67/239(2) 35.0(A)36.0(B)

None 0.5 0.031 81.6 1.34 33.98 446.0 F2aotr,,t r)ktn "t "l 22/03 (1\ 6'7I"'1 r 9 I / (0 , t ...0..0 161.4 d .v None None None None 0.31 23.81 469.8. Ft~itr)Pl 3 880/98(l) 67/2320()

36t~ D ~ ... + ..~ ... 111___.( A/B)None U0.0.031 None 0 238.8OI Easteut D6RI 23.3_ 88/98 (1) 67/239 (2) 36.0 (A/B) None j 0503283.8 j 1.43 [ 23.81 J 469.833*1 kip= 1000lbs 8.4 ,-,, CjP (1) Cut height estimated from PG&E Drawing Fig 4.2-6, Rev. A. (2) Mean dip and dip direction of intersecting joints (set number indicated in parentheses) that were identified by kinematic analyses in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.22 as forming potential wedge. Geometry of discontinuity is defined by the dip/dip direction convention.

Refer to Table 23-I.Numbers in brackets refer to Joint Set identification on Table 23-1 and in GEO.DCPP.01.22.

(3) Mean rock discontinuity friction angle determined by Barton Equation as developed in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.20.

(4) Tension crack distance is the distance between the top of the wedge block crest and tension crack location measured along strike of discontinuity A. Wedges modeled in runs D3-D6 were unrealistically long and narrow when tension cracks were not included.

Final runs therefore include tension cracks at 23 feet behind the slope face. (5) Seismic force recommended for pseudostatic wedge analyses as defined in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.05.

(6) Water pressure of 0.031 kips/ft 3 represents approximately a condition with water collecting half-way up wedge-bounding discontinuities.

(7) Total force required to stabilize block to the listed factor of safety. (8) Length of anchor in meters required to penetrate modeled wedge sliding plane, assuming a anchor inclination of 15 below horizontal, and plunge direction perpendicular to slope face. Additional length is required to provide anchor anchorage and capacity in sound rock behind the failure wedge. (9) Per anchor force calculated by dividing wedge face area by 50% to account for wedge margins that are not suitable for providing anchor restraint, and then dividing this value by the required anchor force, and assuming one anchor per 22.6 ft 2 which represents a anchor pattern spacing of 5.0 feet.GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 (Paee 24 ofl134..031 0.76O 5960.2 4, 4, Backcut D I OR 20.(3)()26.5,A)3.5u.B) 596.2 Eastcut D211 23.(2)33.97 446.0 3.3 9.0 Eastcut D4R 23. 1 (2)23.81 469.8 Eastcut DSR 23.u t t g.J;, V-J 0 23.81 460 R E 1,148,500 El (Catculation 52.27.100.733, Roy. 0(, .AIrCi nch tnt ,\, A.uf 134 Explanation N 636,000 Footprint of 500 kV tower Outline of ISFSI Pads SProposed cutslope above ISFSI Pads DOLOMITE SUBUNIT Dolomite, clayey dolomite, dolomitic siltstone to fine-grained dolomitic sandstone, and limestone beds. The unit contains occasional discontinuous to continuous (tens to hundreds of feet) clay layers that are generally 1/32 to 1/2-inch thick, but locally are thicker. Rocks in this unit are moderately-to well-cemented, medium hard, moderately to slightly weathered, brittle and typically medium strong. Friable (poorly cemented) dolomite and dolomitic rocks of unit Tofb-1. These rocks typically have low hardness, are very weak to weak, and occur as discontinuous zones where weathering and/or alteration has been concentrated.

SANDSTONE SUBUNIT Dolomitic medium- to coarse-grained sandstone (arkose to graywacke), ard altered sandstone, detrital clasts are composed primarily of dolomitized feldspars, marine fossil fragments, and volcanic rock fragments.

Discontinuous clay layers that are generally less than 1/2 inch thick occur locally within the unit. The rocks are of low to medium hardness, moderately-to- well cemented and typically medium strong. T -Friable (poorly cemented) dolomitic sandstone and sandstone of unit Tofb-2. These rocks typically are of low hardness and are very weak to weak, and occur as discontinuous zones, in places where weathering and/or alteration has been concentrated.

S7Altered zones expected within 5 feet below ISFSI pads subgrade (el. 302'). N 635,500 0 50 100 150 200 L .I I [ _ L_ I__ A _ Contourw iltv; -5 feel DIABLO CANYON ISFSI FIGURE 23-1 CONFIGURATION OF ISFSl CUTSLOPES (EO.DCPP.01.23 REV 0 Page 25 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 2,. of 134 i4 BACKCUT 4' removable 8'security fence fence raw water reservoir 302' el.7' restricted i-o100 -, area fence 25'-wide Bench/h @ el. 329.75' enc/ie max height of IS fenceurity FSI ,Proposed drainage ditch, 3-wide max. 7'-deep Cask setback from toe of cut 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Distance (feet) 23-2 A CROSS SECTION THROUGH ISFSI PAD AND BACKCUT LOOKING EAST 400 350 -300 W 250 200 max height of ISFSI Cutslope @ el. 361.5'max height of ISFSI Cutslope @ el. 361.5' height= T l' 31.8' fil height= 20.5'tension crack at drainage ditch at back of bench modeled "average" slope profile without benches for full height failure wedges/2 height water led discontinuity 0.5g horizontal seismic force height= 52.3'Z 47'tension crack distance tension 18"-y 1/2 height water filled discontinuity 0.5g horizontal seismic force Example of Riser-height (single bench) wedge 23-2 B ILLUSTRATION OF THE TWO SWEDGE ANALYSIS CUT CONFIGURATIONS Example of total cut-height wedge as modeled by SWEDGE Program Note: cutslope geometry is based on PG&E/Enercon drawing PGE-009-SK-001,9/12/01 Transmitted by A.Tafoya 9/27/01 GEO.DCPP.01.23 REV 0 Page 26 of 134 DIABLO CANYON ISFSI FIGURE 23-2 CUTSLOPE CONFIGURATION USED IN SWEDGE ANALYSES U 0 WFtOUI U .1 U Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 1-1 of 134 N 0to / -' '.. 7-. TYPE 0 bedding [151 fault [6] joint 11901 Equal Angle Lower Hemisphere 211 Poles 211 Enrries Failure envelope for wedge sliding failure Orientations ID Dip I Direction 1 070 / 60 2 2 3 3 4 4 m w m w w m W 073 f 249 073 / 249 078 1 9 078 / 9 028 1 239 028 1 239 082 1 204 082 1 204"Cutslope No potential for wedge failure Notes: 1. Westcut kinematic analyses plot showing absence of wedge intersections in cutslope I Equal Angle Lower Hemispiere 211 Poles 211 Entries Wedge intersection Note: The 28" friction angle shown on plots was used for kinematic analysis, not SWEDGE analysis as shown on Table 23-1::U.UDlP.;1.23 REV 0 Page 27 of 134-E DIABLO CANYON ISFSI FIGURE 23-3 KINEMATIC PLOT OF WEDGE POTENTIAL IN WESTCUT Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page iA of 134 "o TYPE a 0, bedding 119] fault [29] joint [373]Set 1 Equal Angle Lower Herisphere 421 Poles 421 Entries Set 3 Failure envelope for wedge sliding failure Orientations ID Dip f Direction 1 070 1330 2 2 3 3 4 4 m w w w M w 077 1 261 077 / 261 088 112 088 / 12 069 1 220 0691220 024 1 =2 024 1 232 Joint Set 1 Fault Set 3 Fault/Joint Set 2 Joint Set 4 Equal Angle Lower Hemisphere 421 Poles 421 Entries O Wedge intersection

• Potential wedge sliding condition modeled in SWEDGE Note: The 28" friction angle shown on plots was used for kinematic analysis, not SWEDGE analysis as shown on Table 23-1 Notes: 1. Backcut kinematic analyses plot showing wedge intersection modeled in SWEDGE Analyses DIABLO CANYON ISFSI FIGURE 23-4 KINEMATIC PLOT OF WEDGE POTENTIAL IN BACKCUT (SOUTH CUTSLOPE)__-/GEO.DCPP.01.23 REV 0 Page 28 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page Wy of 134 0-o / Set2 V 0J bedding 18] fault (13] joint [1461 Set I Equal Angle Lower Hemisphere 167 Poles 167 Entries Orientations ID Dip /Direction 1 070 f 240 Failure envelope for' wedge sliding failure 5 5 7 7 8 8 m w w m W 09 / 229 09 1 229 088 1 98 088 1 98 067 /239 067 / 239 070 17 070 1 7 Joint Set 1 Joint Set 2 Fault Set 4 Cutslope Equal Angle Lower Hemisphere 167 Poles 167 Entries S o Wedge intersection

• Potential wedge sliding condition modeled in SWEDGE otes: 1. Kinematic analyses plot showing wedge intersections modeled in SWEDGE Analyses Note: The 28° friction angle shown on plots was used for kinematic analysis, not SWEDGE analysis as shown on Table 23-1 DIABLO CANYON ISFSI FIGURE 23-5 KINEMATIC PLOT OF WEDGE POTENTIAL IN EASTCUT Page 29 of 134 L"UEUD.I"UPP.013 RE=V 0 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 3. of 134 0 1 --------------------

---

------- -- -- -- -- -- -I.O 5 0 5ft spacing 11 anchors within defined area S0-----15.7 ft Area = (15.7 ft)2= 247.9 ft 2 11 anchors /247.9 ft 2 = 1 anchor /22.54 m 2 Explanation 0 =modeled anchor location on a 5 ft. square, staggered pattern Face-on view of regular 5 ft. spacing anchor pattern Note: for anchor design, use assumption that only 50% of the anchors have sufficient rock block penetration to support the wedge, neglecting blocks at or near the edge of the block that would have minimal penetration width.GEO.DCPP.01.23 REV 0 Page 30 of 134 0 DIABLO CANYON ISFSI FIGURE 23-6 GRAPHICAL CALCULATION OF ANCHORS PER AREA FOR 1.52 M ANCHOR PATTERN I Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page __1 of 134 ATTACHMENT 1 SWEDGE PROGRAM OUTPUT FILES GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page 31 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _3of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutD1 R-R Job Title: ISFSIBackCut-31.8 Analysis Results: Analysis Type=DETERMINISTIC Safety Factor=0 Wedge Volume=8.02 m3 Wedge Weight=1 8.2054 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=19.6323 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=14.9651 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=9.45875 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=2.95786 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=-13.0369 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=-0.288031 tonnes Failure Mode: Contact lost on both joints Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=48.5227 deg, trend=284.264 deg Joint Set I Data: dip=88 deg, dip direction=12 deg cohesion=0 tonnes/m2, friction angle=26.5 deg Joint Set 2 Data: dip=69 deg, dip direction=220 deg cohesion=0 tonnes/m2, friction angle=26.5 deg Slope Data: dip=70 deg, dip direction=330 deg slope height=9.7 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonneslm3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: dip=18 deg, dip direction=330 deg Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=330 deg, plunge=O deg magnitude=9.1027 tonnes GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 32 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _3 of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutD2R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCutDet-31.8' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=DETERMINISTIC Safety Factor=1.38843 Wedge Volume=8.02 m3 Wedge Weight=18.2054 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=19.6323 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=14.9651 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=9.45875 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=2.95786 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=1 8.4174 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=21.8586 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=48.5227 deg, trend=284.264 deg Joint Set I Data: dip=88 deg, dip direction=12 deg cohesion=0 tonnes/m2, friction angle=26.5 deg Joint Set 2 Data: dip=69 deg, dip direction=220 deg cohesion=Q tonnes/m2, friction angle=26.5 deg Slope Data: dip=70 deg, dip direction=330 deg slope height=9.7 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonneslm3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: dip=18 deg, dip direction=330 deg Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=330 deg, plunge=0 deg magnitude=9.1027 tonnes Bolt Data: Number of Bolts=1 Bolt #1 trend=150 deg, plunge=20 deg length=2 meters, capacity=19 tonnes GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page 33 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _, of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutD3R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCutDet-31.8' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=DETERMINISTIC Safety Factor=0.619849 Wedge Volume=357.18 m3 Wedge Weight=810.799 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=57.4702 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=95.4164 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=98.4874 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=90.1562 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=88.4611 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=-243.43 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=557.423 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on joint 2 Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=15.7912 deg, trend=282.566 deg Joint Set I Data: dip=88 deg, dip direction=12 deg cohesion=Q tonnes/m2, friction angle=26.5 deg Joint Set 2 Data: dip=24 deg, dip direction=232 deg cohesion=O tonnes/m2, friction angle=30.5 deg Slope Data: dip=70 deg, dip direction=330 deg slope height=9.7 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonneslm3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: dip=18 deg, dip direction=330 deg Tension Crack Data: dip=70 deg, dip direction=330 deg trace length=7 meters Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=330 deg, plunge=O deg magnitude=405.4 tonnes GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 34 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page S of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutD4R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCutDet-31.8' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=DETERMINISTIC Safety Factor=1.30127 Wedge Volume=357.18 m3 Wedge Weight=810.799 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=57.4702 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=95.4164 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=98.4874 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=90.1562 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=88.461 1 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=61.7682 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=708.527 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=15.7912 deg, trend=282.566 deg Joint Set I Data: dip=88 deg, dip direction=12 deg cohesion=O tonnes/m2, friction angle=26.5 deg Joint Set 2 Data: dip=24 deg, dip direction=232 deg cohesion=0 tonnes/m2, friction angle=30.5 deg Slope Data: dip=70 deg, dip direction=330 deg slope height=9.7 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonnes/m3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: dip=18 deg, dip direction=330 deg Tension Crack Data: dip=70 deg, dip direction=330 deg trace length=7 meters Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.

5 Direction=user defined trend=330 deg, plunge=O deg magnitude=405.4 tonnes GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 35 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page -3. of 134 Bolt Data: Number of Bolts=1 Bolt #1 trend=150 deg, plunge=15 deg length=4 meters, capacity=362 tonnes GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page 36 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 3. of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutD5R.swd Job Title: ISFSI BackCutDet-52.3' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=DETERMINISTIC Safety Factor=0.633637 Wedge Volume=896.001 m3 Wedge Weight=2033.92 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=146.115 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=242.591 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=246.225 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=107.128 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=125.994 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=-569.452 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=1 378.53 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on joint 2 Joint Sets 1 &2 line of Intersection:

plunge=15.7912 deg, trend=282.566 deg Joint Set I Data: dip=88 deg, dip direction=12 deg cohesion=O tonnes/m2, friction angle=26.5 deg Joint Set 2 Data: dip=24 deg, dip direction=232 deg cohesion=O tonnes/m2, friction angle=30.5 deg Slope Data: dip=47 deg, dip direction=330 deg slope height=15.95 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonnes/m3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: dip=18 deg, dip direction=330 deg Tension Crack Data: dip=70 deg, dip direction=330 deg trace length=7 meters Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=330 deg, plunge=O deg magnitude=1016.96 tonnes GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 37 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 3t of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutD6R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCutDet-52.3' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=DETERMINISTIC Safety Factor=1.30146 Wedge Volume=896.001 m3 Wedge Weight=2033.92 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=146.115 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=242.591 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=246.225 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=107.128 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=125.994 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=151.388 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=1 735.42 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=15.7912 deg, trend=282.566 deg Joint Set I Data: dip=88 deg, dip direction=12 deg cohesion=O tonnes/m2, friction angle=26.5 deg Joint Set 2 Data: dip=24 deg, dip direction=232 deg cohesion=O tonnes/m2, friction angle=30.5 deg Slope Data: dip=47 deg, dip direction=330 deg slope height=15.95 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonnes/m3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: dip=18 deg, dip direction=330 deg Tension Crack Data: dip=70 deg, dip direction=330 deg trace length=7 meters Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=330 deg, plunge=0 deg magnitude=1016.96 tonnes GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 38 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page j of 134 Bolt Data: Number of Bolts=1 Bolt #1 trend=150 deg, plunge=15 deg length=7 meters, capacity=855 tonnes GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 39 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page ,ý of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutD7R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCut-20.5' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=DETERMINISTIC Safety Factor=0.271783 Wedge Volume=2.0205 m3 Wedge Weight=4.58654 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=7.20221 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=5.49003 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=3.9269 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=0.920788 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=0.378583 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=-0.528601 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=2.04834 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on joint 2 Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=48.5227 deg, trend=284.264 deg Joint Set I Data: dip=88 deg, dip direction=12 deg cohesion=O tonnes/m2, friction angle=26.5 deg Joint Set 2 Data: dip=69 deg, dip direction=220 deg cohesion=O tonnes/m2, friction angle=26.5 deg Slope Data: dip=70 deg, dip direction=330 deg slope height=6.25 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonneslm3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonnes/m3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: dip=18 deg, dip direction=330 deg Tension Crack Data: dip=90 deg, dip direction=330 deg trace length=1.5 meters Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=330 deg, plunge=O deg magnitude=2.29327 tonnes GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 40 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page +\ of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutD8R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCut-20.5' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=DETERMINISTIC Safety Factor=1.67065 Wedge Volume=2.0205 m3 Wedge Weight=4.58654 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=7.20221 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=5.49003 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=3.9269 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=0.920788 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=0.378583 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=6.09338 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=6.71079 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1 &2 line of Intersection:

plunge=48.5227 deg, trend=284.264 deg Joint Set I Data: dip=88 deg, dip direction=12 deg cohesion=0 tonnes/m2, friction angle=26.5 deg Joint Set 2 Data: dip=69 deg, dip direction=220 deg cohesion=0 tonnes/m2, friction angle=26.5 deg Slope Data: dip=70 deg, dip direction=330 deg slope height=6.25 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonnes/m3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: dip=18 deg, dip direction=330 deg Tension Crack Data: dip=90 deg, dip direction=330 deg trace length=1.5 meters Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=330 deg, plunge=0 deg L magnitude=2.29327 tonnes GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 41 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page ..-of 134 Bolt Data: Number of Bolts=1 Bolt #1 trend=150 deg, plunge=19.9998 deg length=1.2 meters, capacity=4 tonnes GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 42 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _3 of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutD9R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCutDet-20.5' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=DETERMINISTIC Safety Factor=0.76218 Wedge Volume=119.442 m3 Wedge Weight=271.133 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=36.1481 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=60.0158 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=40.8881 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=42.1042 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=14.9727 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=-50.239 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=211.947 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on joint 2 Joint Sets 1 &2 line of Intersection:

plunge=15.7912 deg, trend=282.566 deg Joint Set I Data: dip=88 deg, dip direction=12 deg cohesion=O tonnes/m2, friction angle=26.5 deg Joint Set 2 Data: dip=24 deg, dip direction=232 deg cohesion=O tonnes/m2, friction angle=30.5 deg Slope Data: dip=70 deg, dip direction=330 deg slope height=6.25 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonnes/m3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: dip=O deg, dip direction=330 deg Tension Crack Data: dip=90 deg, dip direction=330 deg trace length=6.1 meters Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=330 deg, plunge=O deg magnitude=135.566 tonnes GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 43 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 4& of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutDlOR.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCutDet-20.5' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=DETERMINISTIC Safety Factor=-1.30886 Wedge Volume=1 19.442 m3 Wedge Weight=271.133 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=36.1481 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=60.0158 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=40.8881 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=42.1042 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=14.9727 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=22.7405 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=254.641 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=15.7912 deg, trend=282.566 deg Joint Set I Data: dip=88 deg, dip direction=12 deg cohesion=0 tonnes/m2, friction angle=26.5 deg Joint Set 2 Data: dip=24 deg, dip direction=232 deg cohesion=0 tonnes/m2, friction angle=30.5 deg Slope Data: dip=70 deg, dip direction=330 deg slope height=6.25 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonneslm3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: dip=0 deg, dip direction=330 deg Tension Crack Data: dip=90 deg, dip direction=330 deg trace length=6.1 meters Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=330 deg, plunge=0 deg magnitude=135.566 tonnes GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page 44 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page __of 134 Bolt Data: Number of Bolts=1 Bolt #1 trend=150 deg, plunge=20 deg length=5 meters, capacity=86 tonnes I GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 45 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _0 of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutP1 R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCut-31.8 Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=0.0361446 Number of Samples=1000 Number of Valid Wedges=996 Number of Failed Wedges=36 Number of Safe Wedges=960 Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=1.38685 Wedge Volume=8.02 m3 Wedge Weight=1 8.2054 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=14.9651 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=1 9.6323 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=9.45875 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=2.95786 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=20.5958 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=17.3446 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1 &2 line of Intersection:

plunge=48.5227 deg, trend=284.264 deg Joint Set 1 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=69 ,sd=2 minimum=64,maximum=74 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=220 ,sd=2 minimum=21 O,maximum=230 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=l minimum=16,maximum=42 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=88 ,sd=2 minimum=83,maximum=93 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=12 ,sd=2 minimum=2,maximum=22 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees): .dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=1 minimum=16,maximum=42 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 46 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page ,(. of 134 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Other Data: slope height=9.7 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=NO Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 I I GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 47 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _ of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutP2R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCut-31.8' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=0.00723888 Number of Samples=1000 Number of Valid Wedges=967 Number of Failed Wedges=7 Number of Safe Wedges=960 Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=1.38685 Wedge Volume=5.02793 m3 Wedge Weight=1 1.4134 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=7.20959 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=9.45806 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=9.45875 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=1.42498 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=4.9019 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=12.912 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=10.8737 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1 &2 line of Intersection:

plunge=48.5227 deg, trend=284.264 deg Joint Set 1 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=69 ,sd=2 minimum=64, maximum=74 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=220 ,sd=2 minimum=21 0,maximum=230 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMALmean=26.5 ,sd=1 minimum=16,maximum=42 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=88 ,sd=2 minimum=83,maximum=93 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL, mean=12 ,sd=2 minimum=2,maximum=22 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONEcohesion=0 ,Friction Angle (degrees):

GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 48 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page < of 134 dist=NORMALmean=26.5 ,sd=1 minimum=1 6,maximum=42 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Other Data: slope height=9.7 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=NO Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Tension Crack Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Trace Length: trace length=1 meters GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 49 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 5o of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutP3R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCut-31.8' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=0.971859 Number of Samples=1000 Number of Valid Wedges=995 Number of Failed Wedges=967 Number of Safe Wedges=28 Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=0.269839 Wedge Volume=8.02 m3 Wedge Weight=1 8.2054 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=14.9651 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=19.6323 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=9.45875 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Siope)=2.95786 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=7.255 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=-0.156798 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on joint 1 Joint Sets 1 &2 line of Intersection:

plunge=48.5227 deg, trend=284.264 deg Joint Set I Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=69 ,sd=2 minimum=64,maximum=74 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=220 ,sd=2 minimum=210,maximum=230 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist-NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=l minimum=16,maximum=42 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL, mean=88 ,sd=2 minimum=83,maximum=93 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=12 ,sd=2 minimum=2,maximum=22 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=1 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 50 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page SA of 134 minimum=1 6,maximum=42 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONEdip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Other Data: slope height=9.7 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonnes/m3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 51 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _l-of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSI BackCutP4R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCut-31.8' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=0.998998 Number of Samples=1000 Number of Valid Wedges=998 Number of Failed Wedges=997 Number of Safe Wedges=1 Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=0.489346 Wedge Volume=8.02 m3 Wedge Weight=18.2054 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=14.9651 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=1 9.6323 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=9.45875 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Siope)=2.95786 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=13.0527 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=4.46446 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=48.5227 deg, trend=284.264 deg Joint Set I Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=69 ,sd=2 miniimrum=64,maximum=74 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL, mean=220 ,sd=2 minimum=21 O,maximum=230 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=1 minimum=16,maximum=42 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=88 ,sd=2 minimum=83,maximum=93 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=12 ,sd=2 minimum=2,maximum=22 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=l minimum=16,maximum=42 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 52 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 5_ of 134 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Other Data: slope height=9.7 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=NO Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONEdip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=330 deg, plunge=O deg magnitude=9.1027 tonnes GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 53 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 54-of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name, ISFSIBackCutP5R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCut-31.8' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=1 Number of Samples=1000 Number of Valid Wedges=995 Number of Failed Wedges=995 Number of Safe Wedges=O Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=O Wedge Volume=8.02 m3 Wedge Weight=18.2054 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=14.9651 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=19.6323 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=9.45875 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=2.95786 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=-0.288031 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=-13.0369 tonnes Failure Mode: Contact lost on both joints Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=48.5227 deg, trend=284.264 deg Joint Set I Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL, mean=69 ,sd=2 minimum=64, maximum=74 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL, mean=220 ,sd=2 minimum=21 O,maximum=230 Cohesion (tonneslm2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=1 minimum=16,maximum=42 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=88 ,sd=2 minimum=83,maximum=93 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=12 ,sd=2 minimum=2, maximum=22 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=1 minimum=16,maximum=42 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 54 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page SS of 134 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Other Data: slope height=9.7 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonnes/m3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=330 deg, plunge=O deg magnitude=9.

1027 tonnes GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 55 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page sý of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutP6R.swd Job Title: ISFSI BackCut-31.8' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=O Number of Samples=1000 Number of Valid Wedges=976 Number of Failed Wedges=O Number of Safe Wedges=976 Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=2.74472 Wedge Volume=2401.22 m3 Wedge Weight=5450.78 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=564.524 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=937.266 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=98.4874 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=885.596 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=1716.11 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=5459.2 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=15.7912 deg, trend=282.566 deg Joint Set I Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=88 ,sd=2 minimum=83,maximum=93 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=12 ,sd=2 minimum=2,maximum=22 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NON E,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=1 minimum=16, maximum=42 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=24 ,sd=2 minimum=1 9,maximum=29 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=232 ,sd=2 minimum=222,maximum=242 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=30.5 ,sd=1 minimum=1 8.5,maximum=46 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 56 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page of 134 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONEdip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Other Data: slope height=9.7 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=NO Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 i GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 57 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 5% of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutP7R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCut-31.8' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=0 Number of Samples= 1000 Number of Valid Wedges=972 Number of Failed Wedges=0 Number of Safe Wedges=972 Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=2.74472 Wedge Volume=183.381 m3 Wedge Weight=416.276 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=29.1207 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=48.3483 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=98.4874 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=45.683 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=93.407 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=131.059 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=416.919 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=15.7912 deg, trend=282.566 deg Joint Set I Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=88 ,sd=2 minimum=83,maximum=93 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=12 ,sd=2 minimum=2,maximum=22 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=1 minimum=16,maximum=42 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=24 ,sd=2 minimum=19,maximum=29 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=232 ,sd=2 minimum=222,maximum=242 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=30.5 ,sd=1 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 58 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page S_ of 134 minimum=1 8.5,maximum=46 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist--NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Other Data: slope height=9.7 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=NO Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Tension Crack Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Trace Length: trace length=3.5 meters I GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 59 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page &.c of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutP8R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCut-31.8' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=O Number of Samples=1000 Number of Valid Wedges=976 Number of Failed Wedges=O Number of Safe Wedges=976 Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=2.74472 Wedge Volume=357.18 m3 Wedge Weight=810.799 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=57.4702 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=95.4164 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=98.4874 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=90.1562 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=88.4611 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=255.27 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=812.051 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=15.7912 deg, trend=282.566 deg Joint Set I Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=88 ,sd=2 minimum=83,maximum=93 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=12 ,sd=2 minimum=2,maximum=22 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cobesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=1 minimum=16,maximum=42 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=24 ,sd=2 minimum=19,maximum=29 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL, mean=232 ,sd=2 minimum=222,maximum=242 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=30.5 ,sd=1 GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page 60 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page I.1 of 134 minimum= 1 8.5,maximum=46 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Other Data: slope height=9.7 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=NO Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Tension Crack Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Trace Length: trace length=7 meters p GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 61 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 2.- of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutP9R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCut-31.8' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=O Number of Samples=1000 Number of Valid Wedges=971 Number of Failed Wedges=0 Number of Safe Wedges=971 Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=1.43464 Wedge Volume=357.18 m3 Wedge Weight=810.799 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=57.4702 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=95.4164 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=98.4874 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=90.1562 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=88.4611 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=76.2146 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=623.817 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=15.7912 deg, trend=282.566 deg Joint Set I Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=88 ,sd=2 minimum=83,maximum=93 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=12,sd=2 minimum=2,maximum=22 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=1 minimum=16,maximum=42 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=24 ,sd=2 minimum=19,maximum=29 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL, mean=232 ,sd=2 minimum=222,maximum=242 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL, mean=30.5 ,sd=l GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 62 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _fof 134 minimum=1 8.5,maximum=46 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Other Data: slope height=9.7 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonnes/m3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Tension Crack Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Trace Length: trace length=7 meters GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 63 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page L+-of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutP1OR.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCut-31.8' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=0.90102 Number of Samples=1000 Number of Valid Wedges=980 Number of Failed Wedges=883 Number of Safe Wedges=97 Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=0.920924 Wedge Volume=357.18 m3 Wedge Weight=810.799 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=57.4702 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=95.4164 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=98.4874 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=90.1562 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=88.4611 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=-64.3748 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=745.657 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on joint 2 Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=15.7912 deg, trend=282.566 deg Joint Set I Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=88 ,sd=2 minimum=83,maximum=93 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=12 ,sd=2 minimum=2, maximum=22 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=1 minimum=16,maximum=42 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist--NORMAL,mean=24,sd=2 minimum=1 9,maximum=29 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=232 ,sd=2 minim um=222, maximum=242 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=30.5 ,sd=1 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 64 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page t. of 134 minimum= 1 8.5,maximum=46 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Other Data: slope height=9.7 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=NO Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Tension Crack Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Trace Length: trace length=7 meters Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=330 deg, plunge=O deg magnitude=405.4 tonnes GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 65 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutPl 1 R-R Job Title: ISFSIBackCut-31.8' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=1 Number of Samples=1 000 Number of Valid Wedges=972 Number of Failed Wedges=972 Number of Safe Wedges=O Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=0 .619849 Wedge Volume=357.18 m3 Wedge Weight=810.799 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=57.4702 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=95.4164 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=98.4874 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=90.1562 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=88.4611 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=243.43 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=557.423 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding up intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=15.7912 deg, trend=282.566 deg Joint Set I Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=88 ,sd=2 minimum=83,maximum=93 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL, mean=12 ,sd=2 minimum=2,maximum=22 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=1 minimum=16,maximum=42 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=24 ,sd=2 minimum=19,maximum=29 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=232 ,sd=2 minimum=222,maximum=242 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 ,Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=30.5 ,sd=1 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 66 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 1 of 134 minimum=1 8.5,maximum=46 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Other Data: slope height=9.7 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonnes/m3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Tension Crack Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Trace Length: trace length=7 meters Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=330 deg, plunge=O deg magnitude=405.4 tonnes GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 67 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 4 of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutPl2R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCut-31.8' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=1 Number of Samples=1000 Number of Valid Wedges=978 Number of Failed Wedges=978 Number of Safe Wedges=O Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=0.425058 Wedge Volume=2.17317 m3 Wedge Weight=4.93309 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=7.24606 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=5.19351 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=7.18478 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=0.801487 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=1.74274 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=1.74274 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1 &2 line of Intersection:

plunge=64.6826 deg, trend=316.5 deg Joint Set 1 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=75 ,sd=2 minimum=70, maximum=80 Dip Direction (degrees), dist=NORMAL,mean=12 ,sd=2 minimum=2,maximum=22 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NON E,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=1 minimum=16,maximum=42 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=75 ,sd=2 minimuum=70,maximum=80 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=261 ,sd=2 minim um=251,rmaximum=271 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=30.5 ,sd=1 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 68 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 0 of 134 minimum=1 8.5,maximum=46 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Other Data: slope height=9.7 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=NO Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONEdip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 69 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page I o of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutPl3R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCut-31.8' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=1 Number of Samples=1000 Number of Valid Wedges=981 Number of Failed Wedges=981 Number of Safe Wedges=O Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=0 Wedge Volume=2.17317 m3 Wedge Weight=4.93309 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=7.24606 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=5.19351 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=7.18478 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=0.801487 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=-6.48209 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=-4.03875 tonnes Failure Mode: Contact lost on both joints Joint Sets 1 &2 line of Intersection:

plunge=64.6826 deg, trend=316.5 deg Joint Set 1 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=75 ,sd=2 minimum=70,maximum=80 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=1 2 ,sd=2 minimum=2,maximum=22 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=1 minimum=16,maximum=42 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=75 ,sd=2 minimum=70,maximum=80 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=261 ,sd=2 minimum=251,maximum=271 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=30.5 ,sd=l GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 70 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page Vi of 134 minimum=1 8.5,maximum=46 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Other Data: slope height=9.7 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonnes/m3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=330 deg, plunge=O deg magnitude=2.46654 tonnes GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page 71 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _1 of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutP14R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCut-52.3' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=O Number of Samples=1000 Number of Valid Wedges=974 Number of Failed Wedges=O Number of Safe Wedges=974 Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=2.74472 Wedge Volume=4370.47 m3 Wedge Weight=9920.96 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=868.308 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=1441.63 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=246.225 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=1240.07 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=3123.49 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=9936.29 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=15.7912 deg, trend=282.566 deg Joint Set 1 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=88 ,sd=2 minimum=83,maximum=93 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=12 ,sd=2 minimum=2,maximum=22 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=l minimum=1 6,maximum=42 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMALmean=24 ,sd=2 minimum=1 9,maximum=29 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=232 ,sd=2 minimum=222,maximum=242 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=30.5 ,sd=l minimum=1 8.5,maximum=46 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=47 Dip Direction (degrees):

GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 72 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 1i of 134 dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Other Data: slope height=15.95 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=NO Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page 73 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page -_4 of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutP15R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCut-52.3' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=O Number of Samples=1000 Number of Valid Wedges=969 Number of Failed Wedges=O Number of Safe Wedges=969 Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=2.74472 Wedge Volume=649.556 m3 Wedge Weight=1474.49 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=112.356 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=186.542 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=246.225 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=54.1687 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=131.884 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=464.225 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=1476.77 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1 &2 line of Intersection:

plunge=15.7912 deg, trend=282.566 deg Joint Set 1 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=88 ,sd=2 minimum=83,maximum=93 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=12 ,sd=2 minimum=2,maximum=22 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONEcohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=l minimum=16,maximum=42 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=24 ,sd=2 minimum=1 9,maximum=29 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=232 ,sd=2 minimum=222,maximum=242 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 74 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 3 of 134 dist=NORMAL,mean=30.5 ,sd=l minimum=1 8.5,maximum=46 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=47 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Other Data: slope height=15.95 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=NO Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Tension Crack Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Trace Length: trace length=3.5 meters GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 75 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 1L of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutP16R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCut-52.3' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=O Number of Samples=1000 Number of Valid Wedges=972 Number of Failed Wedges=O Number of Safe Wedges=972 Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=2.74472 Wedge Volume=896.001 m3 Wedge Weight=2033.92 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=146.115 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=242.591 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=246.225 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=107.128 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=125.994 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=640.355 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=2037.06 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1 &2 line of Intersection:

plunge=15.7912 deg, trend=282.566 deg Joint Set 1 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=88 ,sd=2 minimum=83,maximum=93 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=12 ,sd=2 minimum=2,maximum=22 Cohesion (tonneslm2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=1 minimum=16,maximum=42 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=24 ,sd=2 minimum=19,maximum=29 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=232 ,sd=2 minimum=222,maximum=242 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 76 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 7_1 of 134 dist=NORMAL,mean=30.5 sd=l minimum=1 8.5,maximum=46 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=47 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Other Data: slope height=15.95 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=NO Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Tension Crack Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Trace Length: trace length=7 meters GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page 77 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 1? of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutP17R.swd Job Title: ISFSI BackCut-523' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=1 Number of Samples=1000 Number of. Valid Wedges=974 Number of Failed Wedges=974 Number of Safe Wedges=0 Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=0.633637 Wedge Volume=896.001 m3 Wedge Weight=2033.92 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=146.115 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=242.591 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=246.225 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=107.128 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=125.994 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=-569.452 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=1 378.53 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on joint 2 Joint Sets 1 &2 line of Intersection:

plunge=15.7912 deg, trend=282.566 deg Joint Set 1 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=88 ,sd=2 minimum=83,maximum=93 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=12 ,sd=2 minimum=2,maximum=22 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 sd=l minimum=16,maximum=42 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=24 ,sd=2 minimum=1 9,maximum=29 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=232 ,sd=2 minimum=222,maximum=242 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 78 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page "1 of 134 dist=NORMAL,mean=30.5 ,sd=1 minimum=1 8.5,maximum=46 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=47 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Other Data: slope height=15.95 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonnes/m3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Tension Crack Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Trace Length: trace length=7 meters Seismic Data: seismic coefficient-0.5 Direction=user defined trend=330 deg, plunge=O deg magnitude=1016.96 tonnes GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 79 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page .p of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutP18R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCut-20.5' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=1 Number of Samples=1000 Number of Valid Wedges=628 Number of Failed Wedges=628 Number of Safe Wedges=O Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=0.419715 Wedge Volume=1.94428 m3 Wedge Weight=4.41352 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=5.60628 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=7.35472 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=3.9269 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=0.922707 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=0.0178949 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=2.90324 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=0.739483 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1 &2 line of Intersection:

plunge=48.5227 deg, trend=284.264 deg Joint Set 1 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=69 ,sd=2 minimum=64,maximum=74 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=220 ,sd=2 minimum=21 O,maximum=230 Cohesion (tonneslm2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=1 minimum=16,maximum=42 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMALmean=88 ,sd=2 minimum=83,maximum=93 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL, mean=12 sd=2 minimum=2,maximum=22 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONEcohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page 80 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 9j of 134 dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=l minimum=16,maximum=42 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Other Data: slope height=6.25 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonnes/m3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=O Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Tension Crack Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=90 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Trace Length: trace length=1.5 meters Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=330 deg, plunge=O deg magnitude=2.20676 tonnes I GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 81 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page S2. of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIBackCutP19R.swd Job Title: ISFSIBackCut-20.5' Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=l Number of Samples=1000 Number of Valid Wedges=1000 Number of Failed Wedges=1000 Number of Safe Wedges=0 Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=0.71425 Wedge Volume=350.751 m3 Wedge Weight=796.205 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=66.6979 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=1 10.737 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=98.4874 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=69.8063 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=49.2803 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=-177.874 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=603.181 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on joint 2 Joint Sets 1 &2 line of Intersection:

plunge=15.7912 deg, trend=282.566 deg Joint Set 1 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=88 ,sd=2 minimum=83,maximum=93 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=12 ,sd=2 minimum=2,maximum=22 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=26.5 ,sd=l minimum=16,maximum=42 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMALmean=24 ,sd=2 minimum=1 9,maximum=29 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=232 ,sd=2 minimum=222,maximum=242 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 ,Friction Angle (degrees):

GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 82 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page S1 of 134 dist=NORMAL,mean=30.5 ,sd=l minimum=18.5,maximum=46 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Other Data: slope height=9.7 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonnes/m3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=O Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Tension Crack Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=90 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Trace Length: trace length=6.1 meters Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=330 deg, plunge=O deg magnitude=398.102 tonnes GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page 83 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIEastCutDl.swd Job Title: lSFSlEastCut-7.1m Analysis Results: Analysis Type=DETERMINISTIC Safety Factor= 1.08118 Wedge Volume=6.77124 m3 Wedge Weight=15.3707 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=2.42994 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=43.7495 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=41.3049 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=3.73798 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=8.35255 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=9.91112 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=51.7423 deg, trend=296.432 deg Joint Set I Data: dip=76 deg, dip direction=8 deg cohesion=0 tonnes/m2, friction angle=35 deg Joint Set 2 Data: dip=67 deg, dip direction=239 deg cohesion=0 tonnes/m2, friction angle=36 deg Slope Data: dip=70 deg, dip direction=240 deg slope height=7.1 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=NO Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: dip=18 deg, dip direction=330 deg GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 84 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page ý_ of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSlEastCutD2.swd Job Title: lSFSlEastCut-7.1 m Analysis Results: Analysis Type=DETERMINISTIC Safety Factor=0.538306 Wedge Volume=6.77124 m3 Wedge Weight=15.3707 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=2-42994 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=43.7495 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=41.3049 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=3.73798 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=8.52442 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=-22.881 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on joint 1 Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=51.7423 deg, trend=296.432 deg Joint Set I Data: dip=76 deg, dip direction=8 deg cohesion=O tonnes/m2, friction angle=35 deg Joint Set 2 Data: dip=67-deg, dip direction=239 deg cohesion=O tonnes/m2, friction angle=36 deg Slope Data: dip=70 deg, dip direction=240 deg slope height=7.1 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonneslm3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: dip=18 deg, dip direction=330 deg Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=240 deg, plunge=0 deg magnitude=7.68536 tonnes GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page 85 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page qb of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIEastCutD3.swd Job Title: ISFSIEastCut-7.1m Analysis Results: Analysis Type=DETERMINISTIC Safety Factor= 1.34484 Wedge Volume=6.77124 m3 Wedge Weight=1 5.3707 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=2.42994 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=43.7495 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=41.3049 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=3.73798 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=6.08729 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=12.6144 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1 &2) Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=51.7423 deg, trend=296.432 deg Joint Set I Data: dip=76 deg, dip direction=8 deg cohesion=0 tonnes/m2, friction angle=35 deg Joint Set 2 Data: dip=67-deg, dip direction=239 deg cohesion=0 tonnesfm2, friction angle=36 deg Slope Data: dip=70 deg, dip direction=240 deg slope height=7.1 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonnes/m3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: dip=18 deg, dip direction=330 deg Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=240 deg, plunge=0 deg magnitude=7.68536 tonnes Bolt Data: Number of Bolts=l Bolt #1 trend=59.9996 deg, plunge=14.9995 deg length=1 meters, capacity=37 tonnes GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 86 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page cI of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIEastCutD4.swd Job Title: ISFS[EastCut-7.1 m Analysis Results: Analysis Type=DETERMINISTIC Safety Factor=0.308399 Wedge Volume=4.77948 m3 Wedge Weight=10.8494 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=2.02524 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=42.65 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=43.4701 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=1.81521 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=-6.59517 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=8.86436 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on joint 2 Joint Sets 1 &2 line of Intersection:

plunge=54.3039 deg, trend=185.214 deg Joint Set I Data: dip=88 deg, dip direction=98 deg cohesion=O tonnes/m2, friction angle=36 deg Joint Set 2 Data: dip=67*deg, dip direction=239 deg cohesion=O tonnes/m2, friction angle=36 deg Slope Data: dip=70 deg, dip direction=240 deg slope height=7.1 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=NO Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: dip=18 deg, dip direction=330 deg GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 87 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 31 of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIEastCutD5.swd Job Title: lSFSlEastCut-7.1 m Analysis Results: Analysis Type=DETERMINISTIC Safety Factor=O Wedge Volume=4.77948 m3 Wedge Weight=10.

8494 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=2.02524 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=42.65 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=43.4701 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=1.81521 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=-9.28907 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=-19.8558 tonnes Failure Mode: Contact lost on both joints Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=54.303 9 deg, trend=185.214 deg Joint Set I Data: dip=88 deg, dip direction=98 deg cohesion=O tonnes/m2, friction angle=36 deg Joint Set 2 Data': dip=67 deg, dip direction=239 deg cohesion=O tonnes/m2, friction angle=36 deg Slope Data: dip=70 deg, dip direction=240 deg slope height=7.1 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonnes/m3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: dip=18 deg, dip direction=330 deg Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=240 deg, plunge=O deg magnitude=5.42471 tonnes GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 88 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page Tt of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIEastCutD6.swd Job Title: ISFSI EastCut-7.1 m Analysis Results: Analysis Type=DETERMINISTIC Safety Factor=1.43106 Wedge Volume=4.77948 m3 Wedge Weight=10.8494 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=2.02524 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=42.65 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=43.4701 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=1.81521 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=-5.00516 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=14.765 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on joint 2 Joint Sets 1 &2 line of Intersection:

plunge=54.3039 deg, trend=185.214 deg Joint Set 1 Data: dip=88 deg, dip direction=98 deg cohesion=0 tonnes/m2, friction angle=36 deg Joint Set 2 Data: dip=67 deg, dip direction=239 deg cohesion=0 tonnes/m2, friction angle=36 deg Slope Data: dip=70 deg, dip direction=240 deg slope height=7.1 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonnes/m3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: dip=18 deg, dip direction=330 deg Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=240 deg, plunge=O deg magnitude=5.42471 tonnes Bolt Data: Number of Bolts=1 Bolt #1 trend=60.0002 deg, plunge=15.0001 deg length=1 meters, capacity=38 tonnes GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page 89 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 10 of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIEastCutPl.swd Job Title: ISFSlEastCut-7.1m Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=0.

197286 Number of Samples=1 000 Number of Valid Wedges=958 Number of Failed Wedges=189 Number of Safe Wedges=769 Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=l.08118 Wedge Volume=6.77124 m3 Wedge Weight=1 5.3707 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=2.42994 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=43.7495 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=41.3049 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=3.73798 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=8.35255 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=9.91112 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=51.7423 deg, trend=296.432 deg Joint Set I Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=76 ,sd=2 minimum=71 ,maximum=81 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=8 ,sd=2 minimum=-2,maximum=1 8 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=35 ,sd=l minimum=17.5,maximum=54 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=67 ,sd=2 minimum=62, maximum=72 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=239 ,sd=l minimum=229,maximum=249 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=36 ,sd=1 minimum=19,maximum=52 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 90 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page a of 134 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=240 Other Data: slope height=7.1 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=NO Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONEdip direction=330 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 91 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page I, of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIEastCutP2.swd Job Title: lSFSIEastCut-7.1m Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=0.1 17727 Number of Samples= 1000 Number of Valid Wedges=739 Number of Failed Wedges=87 Number of Safe Wedges=652 Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor1.08118 Wedge Volume=6.77067 m3 Wedge Weight=1 5.3694 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=2.4095 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=43.7395 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=41.3049 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=3.72423 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=0.0123592 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=8.35184 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=9.91029 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=51.7423 deg, trend=296.432 deg Joint Set I Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=76 ,sd=2 minimum=71 ,maximum=81 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=8 ,sd=2 minimum=-2,maximum=

18 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=35 ,sd=1 minimum=17.5,maximum=54 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=67 ,sd=2 min imum=62, maximum=72 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=239 ,sd=1 minimum=229,maximum=249 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 -Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=36 ,sd=1 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 92 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page %ý of 134 minimum=1 9,maximum=52 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=240 Other Data: slope height=7.1 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=NO Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Tension Crack Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=165 Trace Length: trace length=0.5 meters I GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page 93 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page It of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIEastCutP3.swd Job Title: lSFSlEastCut-7.1m Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=0.314607 Number of Samples=1 000 Number of Valid Wedges=712 Number of Failed Wedges=224 Number of Safe Wedges=488 Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=1.02083 Wedge Volume=6.77067 m3 Wedge Weight=1 5.3694 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=2.4095 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=43.7395 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=41.3049 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=3.72423 m2 Wedge Area (Tension Crack)=0.0123592 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=8.29958 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=8.95799 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=51.7423 deg, trend=296.432 deg Joint Set I Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=76 ,sd=2 minimum=71,maximum=81 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=8 ,sd=2 minimum=-2,maximum=18 Cohesion (tonneslm2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=35 ,sd=l minimum=17.5,maximum=54 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=67 ,sd=2 minimum=62,maximum=7 2 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=239 ,sd=1 minimum=229,maximum=

2 4 9 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NON E,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=36,sd=1 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 94 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page !_ of 134 minimum=1 9,maximum=52 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=240 Other Data: slope height=7.1 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonnes/m3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=YES Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Tension Crack Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=165 Trace Length: trace length=0.5 meters GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 95 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page a of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIEastCutP4.swd Job Title: ISFSIEastCut-7.

lm Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=l Number of Samples=1000 Number of Valid Wedges=965 Number of Failed Wedges=965 Number of Safe Wedges=O Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=0.654308 Wedge Volume=6.77124 m3 Wedge Weight1 5.3707 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=2.42994 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=43.7495 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=41.3049 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=3.73798 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=9.99556 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=3.606 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2) Joint Sets 1&2 line of Intersection:

plunge=51.7423 deg, trend=296.432 deg Joint Set I Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=76 ,sd=2 minimum=71,maximum=81 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=8 ,sd=2 minimum=-2,maximum=18 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist--NORMAL,mean=35 ,sd=1 minimum=17.5,maximum=54 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=67 ,sd=2 minimum=62,maximum=72 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=239 ,sd=l minimum=229,maximum=249 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=36 ,sd=l minimum= 9,maximum=52 GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page 96 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page .Llof 134 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NON E,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=240 Other Data: slope height=7.1 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=NO Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=240 deg, plunge=O deg magnitude=7.68536 tonnes i, II GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page 97 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page q of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIEastCutP5.swd Job Title: lSFSlEastCut-7.1m Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=l Number of Samples=1 000 Number of Valid Wedges=955 Number of Failed Wedges=955 Number of Safe Wedges=0 Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=0.538306 Wedge Volume=6.771 2 4 m3 Wedge Weight=15.3707 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=2.42994 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=43.7495 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=41.3049 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=3.737 9 8 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=8.52442 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=-22.881 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on joint 1 Joint Sets 1 &2 line of Intersection:

plunge=51.7423 deg, trend=296.43 2 deg Joint Set I Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=76 ,sd=2 minimum=71,maximum=81 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=8 ,sd=2 minimum=-2,maximum=1 8 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist= NORMAL,mean=35,sd=1 minimum=17.5,maximum=54 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=67 ,sd=2 minimum=62,maximum=

7 2 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=239 ,sd=l minimum=229,maximum=

2 4 9 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=O Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=36 ,sd=l minimum=19, maximum=52 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 98 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page ýj of 134 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=240 Other Data: slope height=7.1 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonnes/m3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONEdip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=O.5 Direction=user defined trend=240 deg, plunge=O deg magnitude=7.68536 tonnes I GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 99 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _t of 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIEastCutP6.swd Job Title: ISFSIEastCut-7.1m Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=0.972036 Number of Samples=1000 Number of Valid Wedges=894 Number of Failed Wedges=869 Number of Safe Wedges=25 Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor=0.308399 Wedge Volume=4.77948 m3 Wedge Weight=10.8494 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=2.02524 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=42.65 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=43.4701 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=1.81521 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=-6.59517 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=8.86436 tonnes Failure Mode: Sliding on joint 2 Joint Sets 1 &2 line of Intersection:

plunge=54.3039 deg, trend=185.214 deg Joint Set I Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=88 ,sd=2 minimum=83,maximum=93 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=98 ,sd=2 minimum=88,maximum=1 08 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NON E,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=36 ,sd=1 minimum=1 9,maximum=52 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=67 ,sd=2 minimum=62,maximum=72 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=239 ,sd=l minimum=229,maximum=249 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMALmean=36 ,sd=l minimum=1 9,maximum=52 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 100 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _ of 134 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=

7 0 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=240 Other Data: slope height=7.1 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=NO Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 I GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 101 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page .laof 134 Swedge Analysis Information Document Name: ISFSIEastCutP7.swd Job Title: lSFSIEastCut-7.1m Analysis Results: Analysis Type=PROBABILISTIC Probability of Failure=0.993318 Number of Samples=1000 Number of Valid Wedges=898 Number of Failed Wedges=892 Number of Safe Wedges=6 Current Wedge Data (Mean Wedge): Safety Factor-0 Wedge Volume=4.77948 m3 Wedge Weight=10.8494 tonnes Wedge Area (Joint 1)=2.02524 m2 Wedge Area (Joint 2)=42.65 m2 Wedge Area (Slope)=43.4701 m2 Wedge Area (Upper Slope)=1.81521 m2 Normal Force (Joint 1)=-9.28907 tonnes Normal Force (Joint 2)=-1 9.8558 tonnes Failure Mode: Contact lost on both joints Joint Sets 1 &2 line of Intersection:

plunge=54.3039 deg, trend=185.214 deg Joint Set I Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=88 ,sd=2 minimum=83,maximum=93 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=98 ,sd=2 minimum=88,maximum=1 08 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=36 ,sd=l minimum=1 9,maximum=52 Joint Set 2 Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=67 ,sd=2 minimum=62,maximum=72 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=239 ,sd=l minimum=229, maximum=249 Cohesion (tonnes/m2):

dist=NONE,cohesion=0 Friction Angle (degrees):

dist=NORMAL,mean=36 ,sd=1 minimumr=

9,maximum=52 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 102 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 1V3 of 134 Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=70 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=240 Other Data: slope height=7.1 meters rock unit weight=2.27 tonnes/m3 Water pressures in the slope=YES water unit weight=0.5 tonnes/m3 Overhanging slope face=NO Externally applied force=NO Tension crack=NO Upper Slope Data: Dip (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip=18 Dip Direction (degrees):

dist=NONE,dip direction=330 Seismic Data: seismic coefficient=0.5 Direction=user defined trend=240 deg, plunge=O deg magnitude=5.42471 tonnes GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page 103 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page Iof 134 ATTACHMENT 2 SWEDGE PROGRAM VERIFICATION RUNS GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 104 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page jS of 134 The following five pages show screen output obtained when working through the example problems for SWEDGE, v. 3.06, to verify the accuracy and calibration of the program. The screen output match those found in the program verification manual provided by Rocscience, Inc., the maker of SWEDGE. 1 GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page 105 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _Ltý of 134 SWEDGE program verification problem 1: Deterministic Input Data -- ---Geometry I ForcesI Dip Direction (deg) -Cohesion [t/m2) S10 Friction Angle (deg) J35 135 Upper Face 1 Slope Face 170*" F Tension Diýtande in meters Force in Tonnes (1000 kg]IlBO Jiao ~ Slope Properties Slope Height (mn Unit Weight (t/rn3) [-~ rOverhanging Safety Factor =1.0061 IWedge Weight =0.ý000911356 tonnes ISliding on Line of Intersection:

Trn 8 lug 702: ' -.:* " ... .-.: ,ppl, 1 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0"Joint Set 1 Joint Set 2 Dip [deg) 145-1 -, T -" _'_' I - Page 106 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 0_1_ of 134 SWEDGE program verification problem 2: Deterministic Input Data a Geometry I Forces I Dip (deg) Joint Set 1 i E Joint Set 2 150 Upper Face J0 Slope Face [70 r- Tension Crack Distance in meters Force in Tonnes (1000 kg]Dip Direction (deg) 1119 1241.Cohesion (t/m2] [0 Friction Angle (deg) 135 Slope Properties Slope Height (m) Fo.1 Unit Weight (tVm3) F2.6 1-- Overhanging Safety Factor = 1.00007 Wedge Weight = 0.000897473 tonnes Sliding on Line of Intersection:

Trend = 180 Plunge = 30.0182 Apply Done Deterministic Input Data -.X Geometry Forces .. u Wresr f Seismic Seismic Coefficient 10.2365 Direction Horiz. & Inters. Trend F External Force I_ Safety Facttor= 1.00007 Wedge Weight = 0.000897473 tonnes Distance in meters Sliding on Line of Intersection:

Force in Tonnes (1000 kg) Trend = 180 Plunge = 30.0182 I Apply I Done GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 F F F-Page 107 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page (o of 134 SWEDGE program verification problem 3: Deteominiitic Input Data .- --.-- -- ---- -.... ..........

--- X Geometry Forces Dip (deg) JointSet!Dip Direction(deg)

Cohesion (t/m2) Ftiction Angle. (deg 19 4. 1"o30 .JointSet.2 170 .o105 1o.130 Upper Face 01ý Slope Face f70 116-0 Slope Height (m) 133 -r Tension Crack--- Unit Weight (t/m3. ____17, IOverhanging SSafety Factor =0.712266 Wedge Weight =114610.8 tonnes Distance in me.t ers -ldn on Line o Intersection:

Force in T onnes (1000 kg) Trend= 175 Plunge= 43.2192 O !J!.::: .- -:y .;; .! ..A pyD GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0: ..

i( o , *: --..:.. >:°'Done

.: Page 108 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page IVof 134 SWEDGE program verification problem 4: Deterministic Input Data X Geometry IForces Dip (deg) Dip Direction (deg) Cohesion (t/m2) Friction Angle (degj Joint Set 1 175 Pr.5 1-40 Joint Set2 175 1248 10 140.8 Upper Face [0 1180 Slope Face f75 337.5 Slope Properties Slope Height (mi n 33 r Tension Crack Unit Weight ft/m3) 12.6 r- Overhanging I_ Safety Factor = 2.02034 Wedge Weight = 3795.86 tonnes Distance in meters Sliding on Line of Intersection:

Force in Tonnes [1000 kg] Trend 320.75 Plunge = 47.8996 Apply Done Deterministic Input Data -. X Geometry Forces F Water Pressure f' Seismic I Seismic Coefficient 073.53303 Direction

-F" External Force Safety Factor = 0.987186 Wedge Weight = 3795.86 tonnes Distance in meters Sliding on Line of Intersection:

Force in Tonnes (1000 kg) Trend = 320.75 Plunge = 47.8996 S Apply I Done J i GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 109 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page j\0 of 134 SWEDGE program verification problem 5: Deterministic Input Data X Geometry 1 Forces Dip (deg) Dip Direction (deg) Cohesion (t/m2] Friction Angle (deg) Joint Set 1 141 130 I0 .35 Joint Set2 141 1150 i0 135 Upper Face 191... Slope Face 1Slope Properties Slope Height M 1300 F Tension Crack Unit Weight. (t/m3l r25. _________F Overhanging Safety Factor =1.95767 Wedge Weight = 9.,87096+006 tonnes Distance in meters Sliding on Line of Intersection:

Force in Tonnes (1000 kg) Trend =90 Plunge -23.4919 ApplyDone Deterministic Input Data ", :....-. X Geometry Forces r- Water Pressure V. Seismic seismic Coefficient 10.3225 Direction Line of Intersection F External Force .. .. : ,: , I I Safety Factor = 1.08215: Wedge Weight = 9.88709e+006 tonnes Distance in meters Sliding on Line of Intersection:

Force in T onnes (1000 kg) Trend = 90 Plunge = 23.4919 O PppP1 oDone GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 1 10 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 1pj of 134 The program verification manual provided by Rocscience Inc., the maker of SWEDGE, in attached in the next several pages.GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 PagelIllIof 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page hLof 134 INTRODUCTION This document presents several examples, which have been used as verification problems for the program SWEDGE. SWEDGE is an engineering analysis program, produced by Rocscience Inc. of Toronto, Canada, for assessing the stability of wedges formed in rock slopes. The examples presented here, are based on a number of examples and case studies presented in ref. [I). In ref. [I), lab tests were performed on wedge models. The results of these lab tests were used to confirm the validity of a limit equilibrium analysis method presented in ref. [2]. The results produced by SWEDGE, as documented in this paper, agree very well with the examples discussed in ref. [I], and confirm the reliability of results produced by SWEDGE.GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 112 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page of 134 Introduction SWEDGE VERIFICATION PROBLEM # I Here we begin a static stability assessment (SSA) to verify that the Swedge program written by Rocscience Inc. computes values using the correct equations.

The equations we will use to verify the results produced by SWEDGE, were originally presented by Kovari and Fritz (1975) [2]. These equations were later shown to be valid, by laboratory tests of wedge models discussed in ref. [1]. In the following example problem, a wedge with joints having the same dip allows a maximum wedging effect. A tension crack is not present.

Equations The following equations were all verified against lab samples [I].S=Acos i. tan 0 SF= A sin i. COS .)1 + COS .h sin(wj+ C02) (Ot + C02 (1) (2) (3)9 is the apparent frictional angle due to the geometric configuration of the wedge. 0 is the friction angle. A is the wedge factor by Koviri and Fritz (1975) [2]. to is the half wedge angle. 03 1 and 0.32 are the angles between the surfaces of each joint with the vertical respectively.

Notice that 0) = 0) 2 iO. i is the inclination angle (or intersection angle). a 2 iv 1 Figure 1. Front and side cross-sectional views of a wedge without a tension crack Example Verification Here we show the calculation process for a specific wedge (using the proven equations above), and then we use a graphed plot to get the inclination angle (i.). If the Swedge program will compute the same inclination angle, we then will know that it is functioning correctly.

The plot is shown below and is based on a safety factor, SF = 1.GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 113 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 1*~of 134 Static Stability Assessment

• 70 a) B 60 = 50 0 S40 J) S:30 0 20 ~'10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Half Wedge Angle tO (deg)1 Figure 2. The graph lines are based on 0 = 330, 350, 370. SF = 1. Note: A is simplified to A = sin Wo When 0O is calculated, and 0 is chosen, a corresponding intersection angle can be found using the plot above ý all which is based on equation (1). Normal vectors to the joint planes have components I = sin(dip) x cos(dip direction) m = sin(dip) x sin(dip direction) n = cos(dip) Joint Dip (0) Dip Direction(0) I m n 1 45 141 -0.777 0.629 0.707 2 45 219 -0.777 -0.629 0.707 Table 1: Sample set of values where Oh = 02 = 0). By inputting the above values for dip and dip direction for the joints in the 'input data' screen of the Swedge program, it shows us that we have a SF = 1. Referring back to figure 1, the normal vectors to the planes of joints 1 and 2 intersect.

2 0t is equal to their obtuse angle of intersection.

Angle between vectors -) cos a = -ob (0.777)- (0.629)2 + (0.707)2 180- _ .0- = -a =6 7.5 3 0 2 Now that the half wedge angle ( 0t = 67.53 0 ) is known, an intersection angle can be traced out using the graph of Figure 2. Let us choose the line plotted for 0 = 350. The intersection angle (if approximately GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 114 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page jx of 134 traced using a pencil) is about i. = 370. The equations used have been validated by experimental results [I]. The plotted graph that is based on equation (1) is also correct. All that is needed now is to verify that Swedge creates the same intersection angle.Determinirstic input Data XýGeometry Folces[. pzetade)Chso n2 Joirt Set 1 1141 ]0 ~ 135' JO'Jo Set 2 f -45 [ -219 f- 35 Shwr FaceýF- I1 Sperc6cte_

TeosýoCracIk

__ _ U` l IVA J Dýiiocronde-q J170F ~ -~~~ Trc egh[m) 112 Dimtama in rnSers n.Li~e d Iri1 tcw FO~o~et1tx~glTtend 180 3T8521~ W--------

C Lý4 Ai Figure 3. Analysis input within the Swedge program (refer to the Swedge manual).

By inserting the settings from Table 1 into the input data dialog window within the Swedge program and clicking the 'Apply' button, the Plunge (or i.) = 37.85 0. This is the same value as that which we traced out by hand before. Notice that the plunge is not affected by changing the slope height, unit weight, or values for the upper face and slope face. Such values are not included within the equations we used and therefore should not affect the plunge.Figure 4. Tests performed with different

0) angle values all with a SF = 1. Separate tests were done for specific 0 values in the same way. For example, T33 measures a specific test for a friction angle of 330.I GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Static Stability Assessment 70 IM 60 --35 0- 50 ----- 33 4 0 -....... 37 --T33 S30 "-0---T35 202 , S10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Half Wedge Angle o) (degO Page 115 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page t of 134 The Swedge program is now verified to work for this specific example. Many more tests were made as shown in Figure 4. Each test was done with the same method as this example problem. For example, T33 stands for a test done with a friction angle of 330. Many values were derived and lie on the line on which their friction angle is based in the graph of Figure 4. It should be noted that the wedge created in this exercise as well as the others tested were symmetrical not only due to the dip but also in dip direction.

When viewing the 'front' view in the Swedge program, the wedge has symmetry.

To make this symmetry, we maintained the dip directions with a sum of 3600. Symmetry was maintained in order to reproduce the conditions for the model wedges that were described in [I].GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 116 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page j of 134 SWEDGE VERIFICATION PROBLEM # 2 Introduction In the previous verification example, we tested Swedge for static stability.

The Swedge program will now be used for a dynamic stability assessment (DSA). In this experiment, we will set the intersection angle at certain values yielding SF > 1. The dips will once again be identical for both joints and the dip directions will sum up to 3600 for symmetry.

If a seismic co-efficient will be included in the analysis within Swedge, a safety factor SF = I can be generated.

Wedge acceleration will be calculated from this seismic coefficient and then compared to a graph. The equations we use to verify those used within the program Swedge have been validated by experimental results [I]. There is no tension crack. Equations

/ Derivations The following equations were all verified from lab samples [I]. SF 2(cosia -r7sin(if + /J))tan( sin i. + q + ,8) (I) = 0 (seismic forces have a horizontal trend -refer to figure 1) (2) co + o= 2 = 20. (3) 2= cos 0] + cOs2 0- ( sin(ai + 0)2) sin w SSF (csi.--77sini.)tan

= 1 (sin i. + q7cos i.) (5) A cos i. tan 0 -sin i( 77 cos(i. + /0) + 2A sin(i. + ,8) tan ' (6) CoS ia tan 0 -sin i. sin co COS i. sin w + sin i. tan 0 (7) a 77 -(8) g A is the wedge factor by Koviri and Fritz (1975) [2]. 0) is the half wedge angle. O) 1 and 0)2 are the angles between the surfaces of each joint with the vertical respectively.

Notice that 0) 1 = O) 2 = 0). i 0 is the inclination angle (or intersection angle). 77 is the seismicity coefficient.

0 is the friction angle. 83 is cm the inclination of the dynamic force (labeled 'E' in figure 1). a , g are accelerations.

g = 981 " S GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 117 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page t\1 of 134 Figure 1. Front and side cross-sectional views of a wedge without a tension crack. There is a dynamic force 'E' pointed at an inclination of f). Example Verification We will now introduce the calculation process for a specific wedge (using the proven equations).

It is now assumed (due to the previous verification exercise) that the inclination angle function in Swedge is working correctly.

A plot is shown below that is based on a safety factor, SF = 1.Figure 2. The graph lines are based on i. = 270. 29', 30' or 31'. SF = 1. The friction angle is assumed to be 0 = 350. We use the same procedure as in the SSA example problem to derive a_. Normal vectors to the joint planes have components:

I = sin(dip) x cos(dip direction) m = sin(dip) x sin(dip direction) n = cos(dip)GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Dynamic Stability Assessment 1000 (A 800 i.=30" E i. 31' 600 .0 2400 27' U) 200 i. i29° 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Half Wedge Angle 0. (deg)Page 118 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page jf of 134 Joint # Dip () Dip Direction

() I n n 1 50 119 -0.37139 0.669998 0.642788 2 50 241 F -0.37139 -0.669998 0.642788 Table 1: Sample set of values When we insert the above values for dip and dip direction for the joints in the 'input data' dialog of the Swedge program, SF = 1.6325 is computed which suggests that the wedge is statically stable. This is expected because the values in Table 1 were chosen specifically to get i4 = 30.0182 -= 30. Remember that the plots in Figure 2 are based on 4 different inclination angles. Now, suppose there is a seismic force on the wedge. We seek a seismic coefficient which will lower the safety factor to SF = 1. To do so we use equation (7). We know the inclination angle (i.), the friction angle (b = 350 ), and now we will solve for the wedge angle all in order to solve for the seismic coefficient (77). " asb Angle between vectors -- Cos a b- = (0.37139)2

-(0.669998)2

+ (0.642788)2 180-a .. 0 = -=47.930 2 Equation (7) is used to get a seismic coefficient which changes the safety factor to SF = 1. cos i. tan 0 -sin ia sin w = cos(30.0 182) tan(35) -sin(30.0182) sin(47.93) 0.2365 cos i. sin aw + sin i. tan 0 cos(30.O 182) sin(47.93)

+ sin(30.0182) tan(35) Deterministic Input Data aX Di dgDipDkection{deg)

Coeanthn2) flohknAn~e (deg) joi-tSetl 11 , f10 ]35, JoiWýSe42 F241 10.3 _____i35 Upper Face 0 p180 SlopeGrace P1 [Pg 1198 f Swowpe134 S51l-He~tt(mJ 10.1 ionskntwck Un I'UdWevN (tUm3j, 12-9 Dip(dgJ '.(7-.7*,,.

r B enchWiah (m) 19aT36888 UpDirection

[degl ,74 rOvd g ITra:ce Leýngth [rij 112j Sal Factolr-1,O00M7, Di~lnc e i meefsWedge Weký4 .LL00089473 tarries Distace rin Tonns( O kg Srldwn on Lire of lntntsecltix Forekiannstofllwj>1Trerld 180Pkriga=

30.0182 Figure 3. Analysis input within the Swedge program (refer to the Swedge manual).

GEO.DCPP.O1.23 Rev.O0 Page 119 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page IN of 134 Notice that the plunge (or i.) in Figure 3 is not affected by changing the slope height, unit weight, or values for upper face and slope face. Such values are not factors in the equations we used and they do not affect the plunge. Deterministic Input Data n_Geomefr~y Forces Sfe Water Phs assured -External Fthceas UI~rt',veiqht:[tr' 31J * ' 1wbrd xena o Type:: Filed Fii-.Ur e S seismic (derived rom eismiione(8) uing te simccefcen nSeg seua oteac rainrneo h Hotiz. & I nters. Trend __________________

1 WdeWeggalf etyfFadct 4,0000T) I SliK 6M7nM ionrtion Trend--IBOPkrge.30.182

~~j~ApPIp*

Figure 4. Dynamic forces checked in the analysis input of the Swedge program.

Since the safety factor has changed to SF = , we know that the analysis functions for Swedge in DSA are functioning correctly.

To make sure that this is so, we can go a little further and see if the acceleration (derived from equation (8)) using the seismic coefficient in Swedge is equal to the acceleration range of the cm graph in Figure 2. The acceleration (if approximately traced using a pencil) is about 235 "'2- By using S cm equation (8), the acceleration from the seismic coefficient (shown in Figure 4) is 232 -.Such an S accurate result justifies the reliability of the Swedge program.GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 120 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page ._jLof 134 Figure 5. Tests performed with different (0 angle values all with a SF = 1. Separate tests were done for specific i. values. All tests were done in the same way for DSA. The Swedge program is now verified to work for this specific example. Many more tests were made as shown above in figure 5. Each test was done with the same method as this example problem. For example, T30 stands for a test done with an inclination angle of 300. Many values were derived and lie on the line on which their inclination angle is based in the graph of Figure 5.GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 121 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page Llof 134 SWEDGE VERIFICATION PROBLEM # 3 Introduction This example verification is based on the case study presented as "case 3" on page 43 of reference

[I]. A rock mass near Ankara Castle in Bent Deresi region of Ankara City had a wedge failure. The authors of [ ] studied this wedge and found that the wedge block was unstable.

During their analysis, they found that the friction angle was 0 = 300. There was a stability assessment with dry-static conditions.

The experiment yielded a safety factor of SF = 0.73. In the following, we will verify that Swedge will give the same safety factor. Given information Dip (deg) Dip Direction (deg) Joint #1 45 195 Joint #2 70 105 Slope 70 160 Table 1. Stereonet on p.46, Fig. 13 (c), [ I]Parameter Value 09 (degree) 77 0)2 (degree) 28 i (degree) 42 Table 2. Geometrical characteristics of the wedge on p.46, Fig. 13 (c), [1] Determinis~ic Inpur Data X Geomey Fors Dp, (deg) Dip Direction (deg) Cohesron Win2) Friction Angie (degJ Joint Set l [4i7_ 1195 10~ 130 Joint Set 2 170 115F130 Upper.Face o riGo SlopeFace e ITO- fr, Slope Pro-,ft:es Slope H eigA N 13 Fg TensionsCack uptih h enit Weige thmnual).

G .DipP. 2 e. Pag.170 B Bench Vklth (m] _2tS0 Dip Dure-ction

[deq) j165 ~ yr~gr Traceý Lerngth (m. 12I _ _ _ 'Saf ety Factor 7.12266 D istr ce in onrio rs (1 0 kg)g 175 PKigM = 43bl .8 192 Distace in mT ners (10 k]Sicing on Line of lt~trsectiorc OK f j~ Figure 2. Analysis input within the Swedge program (refer to the manual).

GEO.DCPP.0 1.23 Rev. 0 Page 122 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page .L13of 134 Conclusion From Figure 2, the safety factor is SF = 0.71. Such a result was expected when compared to the result of the experiment for which this exercise is based on. The Swedge program has verified the experimental result taken from p.4 5[1].GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 123 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page j3lof 134 SWEDGE VERIFICATION PROBLEM # 4 Introduction This example is based on the case study presented as "case 4" on page 45 of reference

[1]. In this case study, we turn to the town of Dinar in western Turkey. This area has many earthquakes and therefore in this analysis verification we will make both static and dynamic assessments.

The author of reference

[(I] made a wedge analysis and the wedge friction angle was determined to be 0 = 40.8 0. The first analysis (before an earthquake occurred) yielded a safety factor of SF = 2.02. A second test was made during dynamic conditions and a safety factor of SF = 0.99 was found. In the following analysis using Swedge, we will verify that Swedge gives the same results as the experiment.

For more information, refer to p.4 5 , [IJ. Given information Dip (deg) Dip Direction (deg) Joint # 1 75 33.5 Joint #2 75 248 Slope 75 337.5 Table 1. Stereonet on p.47, Fig. 14 (b), [EI Parameter name Value 6) 1 (degree) 17 S2 (degree) 25 i, (degree) 50 Friction angle (degree) 40.8 j6 (degree) 0 a., in NS direction (cm/s 2) 282 a., in EW direction (cm/s 2) 324 Table 2. The information above can be used to calculate the same results as shown in Swedge. By inserting the values from Table I into the input data of the Swedge program, the result for the safety factor will be SF = 2.02 as shown below in figure 1.Oetve rit" Iru Dma ,. X Ge-omety I Fos cezI

• Dip(deg) Upper Face r Sloge Face 7 Dip Nectkimd 1248 1337.5 Ddace n, meteis Foice 6 Toinms [100 kg-j Figure 1. Analysis input within the S GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 rg) Cdoenc [U/m2) F , kion Ar* tdeg) 10.1408 S= f338 Skp = 1jate ISaie~y Factor 00U Wedge We~f -373&~86 trmel Skkv on Lk,-ct lntersecotto Trend -320,75 PHaige -ý 47.M99 OK~ C&X>cel p wedge program (refer to the manual).Page 124 of 134:!

Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page .:6 of 134 The above verifies the experiment for static conditions with the Swedge program.

From Table 2, the maximum acceleration is in the east -west direction.

Suppose that this acceleration is in the same direction as the intersection angle of the wedge to be considered.

We can then say that this is dynamically the worst condition for stability.

Therefore, we choose a = 324 cm/s 2. The seismic co-efficient is a 17=g (where g = 981 cm/s2 ) 324 981 Figure 2. Analysis input within the Swedge program under the forces tab (refer to the manual) When inserting the calculated seismic coefficient, we get a safety factor of SF = 0.99 as shown above in Figure 2. The safety factors determined by Swedge are equal to those that were found experimentally as written in [1]. Therefore Swedge has been confirmed for dynamic stability assessment with respect to the safety factor, for this example.I GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 125 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _L of 134 SWEDGE VERIFICATION PROBLEM # 5 Introduction This example is based on the "case 5" study on p.46 of reference

[1]. In this case study, we study a wedge failure at Mt. Mayuyama (Japan), which occurred in 1792. This failure occurred after an earthquake.

The authors of reference

[1] made a few tests to determine the possible mechanisms of the wedge failure. Four conditions were considered in this analysis.

We will use Swedge to verify the results of their experiments.

The details of this experiment are written starting on p. 46, [1]. We utilized the following equations and information for each condition on p. 49, [I] to plot the graph shown in Figure 2. In this verification problem, we will use joints I and 2 for verification.

Given Information Parameter Value 0)n (degree) 54 W2 (degree) 54 i, (degree) 23 Equations The following equations were all verified from lab samples in [I]. SF= [A[W(cosi.

-7sin(i.+ f8))+Ussini.

+ Ucosi.] -aUb] tan 0 + c(Ai + A2) (1) W(sin i. + 77 cos(i. + fi)) -U. cos i. + U, sin ia COS W, +COS W2 (2) sin(ao, + o)2) Ub =Ubs + Ub-(y + ye)W (3) Ub=Ubl sin 0)W +Ub2sin0)2 (4) /I is called the wedge factor by Koviri and Fritz (1975) 121 1. is the inclination angle. j6 is the inclination angle of a dynamic force. W, and 0)2 are the half wedge angles Since both are equal to 540, 0.) = 0)2 =0.W, the half wedge angle. U, and U, are the water forces acting on the face and the upper part of the slope (if such forces are there). A, and A 2 are the joint surface areas. Ub is a force caused by fluid pressure that has components normal to each joint. Ub itself is the force, which points vertically, hence the trigonometri system shown in equation (4). All these are shown below in figure I. We will refer to figure I often to assure our cak-ulations y and rYe are the static and excess fluid pressure coefficients respectfully.

GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 126 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page t1l of 134 n%U, Us Figure 1. Front and side cross-sectional views of a wedge without a tension crack. Dynamic And Static Stability Assessment 2.4 u. 1.8 0, ,. 1.2 U) 0.6 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 EARTHQUAKE LOADING COEFFICIENT (CASE 1, CASE 3) EXCESS WATER LOADING COEFFICIENT (CASE 2)0.4 77 r, EARTHQUAKE

& EXCESS WATER LOADING COEFFICIENT (CASE 4) 77 + Ye Figure 2. The comparison of case results for the wedge failure at Mt. Mayuyama as described on p.49, [1]. Note that to derive the equations for this graph we took a friction angle 0 = 350. CASE 1: Here we have a mass of dry rock and there is an earthquake present. The seismic coefficient (17) is constantly increasing from 0.0 to 0.5 as described in Figure 2. On p.49, [1] the following is given: c=0; U,=0; U,=0; Ub=0; a=1; 8==0 SF = 2(cos -q7 sin i.) tan 0 sin if + q/cos i.GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 127 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 124 of 134 2cos54' I sin(2a54 0) sin 540 230 SF = (tan 350) (cos 230 -rqsin 230) (sin 540) (sin 230 + r7sin 230)(5)Equation (5) is used to plot the line in Figure 2 for CASE 1. Notice (from Figure 2) that when the seismic coefficient is 7 _= 0.32, we reach a point on the line where the safety factor is SF = 1. By inserting this into an Swedge analysis, we should find that SF =1 there as well. The settings for dip and dip directions are found in figure 3 and are the same for all the cases.Deterministic Inln Data , .. .x =Geomnety 1Forces4 Dip feg) Dip bý eg] -aeqnn) Fnict'i -n ((:ewdg JoirkSet I j41 1354~I Upper Fac F_7 19 Slope Face 135 191e . Slope He~igm) rn 143 IT Tension Crack U .~ e~ Of 3 j2 t~prdeO 'SthmJZ 672 7 JT~TTr 136ý~ S Safety Factor 1, 95767 Distnce n rnters Wedge Weight -a 887M6006oo tonne's Distace i metrs IS~ing on Line of I ntersection Force in T onnes (1000 kg) T~rend. 90 Mungre 23a4919 OK Cacel 4 Ap,*Figure 3. Analysis input within the Swedge program (refer to the manual). Values taken from the stereonet located on p.48 ,[I]. If we insert the seismic coefficient just discussed into the analysis, the safety factor will change to the value of SF_= 1. This once again will verify Swedge with the equations used in reference

[1]. The result is shown in Figure 4 below.GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 128 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page jjof 134 Deteiaiiis~c, Input Data G eometry Forces Water Pijesute TY pe FitEd Fi~ures;CASE 2: Figure 4. Analysis input within the Swedge program under the tab 'Forces' (refer to manual).In this case we know that the excess fluid pressure ( Ye ) is changing as the domain in Figure 2 from 0.0 to 0.5. The static fluid pressure is constant at 7. = 0.4. On p.49, [1] the following is given: c=0; U U,=0; U =O; a=h1 /=0; r7=0 Static fluid pressure:

Excess fluid pressure: Ut- = y, W Ut. =yY w sini, 2cos 540 sin(2 o 540)1 sin 540 SF = (tan 3 5 o) (cos 23' -0.4 -y (sin23°) (sin 54 0) GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 129 of 134 (6)i. = 230 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page tie of 134 Equation (6) is used to plot the line in Figure 2 for CASE 2. Notice (from Figure 2) that when the excess fluid pressure coefficient is re=0.0 6 , we reach a point on the line where the safety factor is SF = 1. By inserting this into an Swedge analysis, we should find that SF =1 there as well. The settings for dip and dip directions are found in figure 3 and are the same for all the cases. We will now utilize the Swedge program for water forces analysis of the wedge. The following is a derivation of how much pressure is put on the surface of each joint. A few assumptions were made. Ub =UbI sin07 1 +Ub2sinw 2 Ub.= PIAI sinW + P 2 A 2 sin W 2 ( P is pressure (t/m 2) and A is surface area of each joint) Click on the info viewer within the Swedge program and make sure that the analysis input is set up to that shown in figure 3. When inside the infoviewer, you will be given the wedge weight and the two joint areas. Wedge weight=9.88709e+006 tonnes Wedge area (jointl)=68404.6 m 2 Wedge area (joint2)=69797.4 m 2 Assume: P, P 2=- P A, A 2=- A 0O7= 102-= 0J .P = U/2A sin o A= average= 69101 m 2 W = 9.88709e+006 tonnes At Ye= 0.06, Ub = (0.4 + 0.06)(9.88709e

+ 006) = (4.548e+006) tonnes p (4.548e + 006) tonnes 2(69101)sin540 m2 In this case, we increase the friction angle from 0 = 350 to 0 = 360. Notice that this will not change the settings for weight or surface area of thejoints.

Based on the stereonet, the friction angle is simply within the range of 35 and 40 degrees. By changing it to a friction angle of 0 = 360, we achieve a better accuracy.

Below, the safety factor turns to SF =- 1.GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 130 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page jj_\ of 134 Dietetministic Input Data Geometry Forces V Wa-tet Pressure.

UM WeigN ft/IM3) 1T Type: 'Custom Pressure ' J1I Pt"=e I (U~m2J. 40 Figure 5. Custom pressure force is chosen for each wedge.Our assumptions were valid due to the areas being almost the same and the Swedge program yielding a safety factor of SF = 1. CASE 3: Now we have a mass of rock where there is an earthquake present with increasing seismicity.

The seismic coefficient (77) is constantly increasing from 0.0 to 0.5 as described in F igure 2. On p.49, [1] the following is given: c=O; U,=O; U,=O; a=l; The fluid pressure was kept constant during the earthquake.

SF = 4W(cosia -r7sinid)-Ub]tan0 W(sin id + qrcos i,) Ub = (0.4 + re)W .' Ub =0.4W SF = (cos 230 -o sin 230 _0.4)(tan35

0) (7) (sin 23 0+ q cos 23 0)(sin 54 )GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 131 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page kZof 134 Equation (7) is used to plot the line in Figure 2 for CASE 3. Notice (from Figure 2) that when the seismic coefficient is 17= 0.05 we reach a point on the line where the safety factor is SF = 1. Remember that the equation used for this plot is based on a constant fluid pressure.

By inserting values for the seismic coefficient and also the fluid pressure into an Swedge analysis, we should find that SF =I there as well. We will now utilize the Swedge program for an analysis of the constant water and seismic forces. The following is a derivation of how much pressure is put on the surface of each joint. Ub = 0.4W W = 9.887e+ 006 .'. Ub = 3.955e + 006 tonnes P = U/2A sin co tonnes p = (3.955e + 006) (5 .3tonne__5_in

/269 10 1)sin 540 =353 m2 Figure 6. Custom seismic force is chosen for each wedge. The static pressure is constant and there is no excess fluid pressure.The Swedge program is now verified with the 3case of this verification exercise.

Our assumptions were valid due to the areas being almost the same and the Swedge program yielding a safety factor of SF = I.GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 132 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 13) of 134 CASE 4: Here we have a mass of rock and there is an earthquake present. Both the seismic coefficient (17) and the excess fluid pressure (Yre) are constantly increasing (at the same time) from 0.0 to 0.5 as described in Figure 2. On p.49, [1] the following is given: c=0; U,=0; U,=0; a=1; SF -/I[W(cos i. -q sin ia) -Ub] tan 0 W(sin io +1 rcos io) Ub =(0.4 + y,)W ..SF = (cos 23° -rqsin 230 -0.4 -r,) tan 350 (sin54 0)(sin23o + r7cos23 0) Equation (8) is used to plot the line in Figure 2 for CASE 3. Notice (from Figure 2) that when 17 = Yý = 0.02, the safety factor is SF = 1. We will now verify this with Swedge. Ub = Ub. + Ube = (0.4 + 0.02)W W = 9.887e + 006 -. Ub = 4.1 5 3 e + 006 tonnes P U P 2Asinwo p... = (4.153e+ 006) 37.14 onnes /2(6910 1) sin540 m 2 We will now insert the values for seismicity and pressure into the program as shown in Figure 7 below. I GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 133 of 134 Calculation 52.27.100.733, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page LM-of 134 Figure 7. Pressure and seismicity are changing at the same rate.When both values are inserted above, equation (8) is satisfied by showing that the safety factor SF = 1. The Swedge program is now verified with the 4'h case of this verification exercise.

Our assumptions were valid due to the areas being almost the same and the Swedge program yielding a safety factor of SF = 1.GEO.DCPP.01.23 Rev. 0 Page 134 of 134 Page 1 of 3 69-20132 03/07/01 NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION CF3 .ID4 ATTACHMENT

7.2 Index

No. 402 Binder No.TITLE: CALCULATION COVER SHEET Unit(s): 1 & 2 File No.: 52.27 Responsible Group: Civil Calculation No.: 52.27.100.734 No. of Pages 3 pages + Index (4 pages) + 1 Design Calculation YES [x] NO [ ] Attachment (65 pages) System No. 42C Quality Classification Q (Safety-Related)

Structure, System or Component:

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility

Subject:

Stability and Yield Analysis of Cross Section I-I' (GEO.DCPP.01.24, Rev. 1) Electronic calculation YES [ I NO [ x I Computer Model Computer ID Program Location Date of Last Change Registered Engineer Stamp: Complete A or B A. Insert PE Stamp or Seal Below B. Insert stamp directing to the PE stamp or seal REGISTERED ENGINEERS' STAMPS AND EXPIRATION DATES ARE SHOWN ON DWG 063618 Expiration Date: NOTE 1: Update DCI promptly after approval.

NOTE 2: Forward electronic calculation file to CCTG for uploading to EDMS.1 Page(ý. .3 69-20135-j3/07/01 CF3.1D4 ATTACHMENT

7.2 TITLE

CALCULATION COVER SHEET CALC No. 52.27.100.734, RO RECORD OF REVISIONS Rev Status Reason for Revision Prepared LBIE LBIE Check LBIE Checked Supervisor Registered No. By: Screen Method* Approval Engineer Remarks Initials/

Yes/ Yes/ PSRC PSRC Initials/

Initials/

Signature/

LAN ID/ No/ No/ Mtg. Mtg. LAN ID/ LAN ID/ LAN ID/ Date NA NA No. Date Date Date Date 0 F Acceptance of Geosciences Calc. AFT2 [ ] Yes [ ] Yes [ ] A N/A N/A N/A .No. GEO.DCPP.01.24, Rev. 1. 4 [21o o Calc. supports current edition of S/0)J L .-- , 10CFR72 DCPP License [x]NA [x]NA [x]C Application to be reviewed by NRC LhLf/ !Z./,Z/ci prior to implementation.

Prepared per CF3.ID17.

[ ]Yes [ ]Yes [ ]A []No [lNo []B [ ]NA [ ]NA [ ]C [ ]Yes [ ]Yes [ ]A [ ]No [ ]No [ ]B [ ]NA [ ]NA [ ]C *Check Method: A: Detailed Check, B: Alternate Method (note added pages), C: Critical Point Check 2 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Engineering

-Calculation Sheet Project: Diablo Canyon Unit ( )1 ( )2 (x) 1&2 CALC. NO. REV. NO. SHEET NO.69-392(10/92)

Engineering 52.27.100.734 0 3 of 3 SUBJECT Stability and Yield Acceleration Analysis of Cross Section 14I MADE BY A. Tafoya K( DATE 12/15/01 CHECKED BY N/A DATE Table of Contents:

Item Type 1 Index 2 Attachment A Title Cross-Index (For Information Only) Stability and Yield Acceleration Analysis of Cross Section I-I'Page Numbers 1-4 1 -65 3 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Engineering

-Calculation Sheet Project: Diablo Canyon Unit ( )1 ( ) 2 (x) 1&2 SUBJECT Stability and Yield Acceleration Analysis of Cross Section I-I' "- MADE BY A. Tafoya k' DATE 12/15/01 CHECKED 69-392(10/92)

Engineering CALC. NO. 52.27.100.734 REV. NO. 0 SHEET NO. 1-1 of 4 BY N/A DATE 1- This table cross references between Geosciences calculation numbers and DCPP (Civil Group's) calculation numbers. This section is For Information Only. Cross-Index (For Information Only) Item Geosciences Title PG&E Caic. Comments No. Caic. No. No. 1 GEO.DCPP.01.01 Development of Young's 52.27.100.711 Modulus and Poisson's Ratios for DCPP ISFSI Based on Field Data 2 GEO.DCPP.01.02 Determination of 52.27.100.712 Probabilistically Reduced Peak Bedrock Accelerations for DCPP ISFSI Transporter Analyses 3 GEO.DCPP.01.03 Development of Allowable 52.27.100.713 Bearing Capacity for DCPP ISFSI Pad and CTF Stability Analyses 4 GEO.DCPP.01.04 Methodology for 52.27.100.714 Determining Sliding Resistance Along Base of DCPP ISFSI Pads 5 GEO.DCPP.01.05 Determination of 52.27.100.715 Pseudostatic Acceleration Coefficient for Use in DCPP ISFSI Cutslope Stability Analyses 6 GEO.DCPP.01.06 Development of Lateral 52.27.100.716 Bearing Capacity for DCPP CTF Stability Analyses 7 GEO.DCPP.01.07 Development of Coefficient 52.27.100.717 of Subgrade Reaction for DCPP ISFSI Pad Stability Checks 8 GEO.DCPP.01.08 Determination of Rock 52.27.100.718 Anchor Design Parameters for DCPP ISFSI Cutslope 9 GEO.DCPP.01.09 Determination of 52.27.100.719 Calculation to be Applicability of Rock Elastic replaced by letter 1 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Engineering

-Calculation Sheet Project: Diablo Canyon Unit ( )1 ( )2 (x) 1&2 CALC. NO.69-392(10/92)

Engineering 52.27.100.734 REV. NO. 0 SHEET NO. 1-2 of 4 SUBJECT Stability and Yield Acceleration Analysis of Cross Section I-I' -- MADE BY A. Tafoya to DATE 12/15/01 CHECI KED BY N/A DATE Cross-Index (For Information Only) Item Geosciences Title PG&E Calc. Comments No. Calc. No. No. Applicability of Rock Elastic replaced by letter Stress-Strain Values to Calculated Strains Under DCPP ISFSI Pad 10 GEO.DCPP.01.10 Determination of SSER 34 52.27.100.720 Long Period Spectral Values 11 GEO.DCPP.01.11 Development of ISFSI 52.27.100.721 Spectra 12 GEO.DCPP.01.12 Development of Fling 52.27.100.722 Model for Diablo Canyon ISFSI 13 GEO.DCPP.01.13 Development of Spectrum 52.27.100.723 Compatible Time Histories 14 GEO.DCPP.01.14 Development of Time 52.27.100.724 Histories with Fling 15 GEO.DCPP.01.15 Development of Young's 52.27.100.725 Modulus and Poisson's Ratio Values for DCPP ISFSI Based on Laboratory Data 16 GEO.DCPP.01.16 Development of Strength 52.27.100.726 Envelopes for Non-jointed Rock at DCPP ISFSI Based on Laboratory Data 17 GEO.DCPP.01.17 Determination of Mean and 52.27.100.727 Standard Deviation of Unconfined Compression Strengths for Hard Rock at DCPP ISFSI Based on Laboratory Tests 18 GEO.DCPP.01.18 Determination of Basic 52.27.100.728 Friction Angle Along Rock Discontinuities at DCPP ISFSI Based on Laboratory 2

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Engineering

-Calculation Sheet Project: Diablo Canyon Unit ( )1 ( )2 (x) 1&2 69-392(10/92)

Engineering CALC. NO. 52.27.100.734 REV. NO. 0 SHEET NO. 1-3 of 4 SUBJECT Stability and Yield Acceleration Analysis of Cross Section 14I MADE BY A. Tafoya 4 DATE 12/15/01 CHECKED BY N/A DATE Cross-Index (For Information Only) Item Geosciences Title PG&E Caic. Comments No. Calc. No. No. Hoek-Brown Equations 20 GEO.DCPP.01.20 Development of Strength 52.27.100.730 Envelopes for Shallow Discontinuities at DCPP ISFS1 Using Barton Equations 21 GEO.DCPP.01.21 Analysis of Bedrock 52.27.100.731 Stratigraphy and Geologic Structure at the DCPP ISFSI Site 22 GEO.DCPP.01.22 Kinematic Stability Analysis 52.27.100.732 for Cutslopes at DCPP ISFSI Site 23 GEO. DCPP.01.23 Pseudostatic Wedge 52.27.100.733 Analyses of DCPP ISFSI Cutslopes (SWEDGE Analysis) 24 GEO.DCPP.01.24 Stability and Yield 52.27.100.734 Acceleration Analysis of Cross-Section I-I' 25 GEO.DCPP.01.25 Determination of Seismic 52.27.100.735 Coefficient Time Histories for Potential Siding Masses Along Cut Slope Behind ISFSI Pad 26 GEO.DCPP.01.26 Determination of 52.27.100.736 Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Potential Sliding Masses on ISFSI Slope 27 GEO.DCPP.01.27 Cold Machine Shop 52.27.100.737 Retaining Wall Stability 28 GEO.DCPP.01.28 Stability and Yield 52.27.100.738 Acceleration Analysis of Potential Sliding Masses Along DCPP ISFSI Transport Route 3 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Engineering

-Calculation Sheet Project: Diablo Canyon Unit ( )1 ( )2 (x) 1&2 69-392(10/92)

Engineering CALC. NO. 52.27.100.734 REV. NO. 0 SHEET NO. 1-4 of 4 SUBJECT Stability and Yield Acceleration Analysis of Cross Section I-4 MADE BY A. Tafoya tC' DATE 12/15101 CHECKED BY N/A DATE Cross-index (For Information Only) Item Geosciences Title PG&E Calc. Comments No. CaIc. No. No. Retaining Wall Stability 28 GEO.DCPP.01.28 Stability and Yield 52.27.100.738 Acceleration Analysis of Potential Sliding Masses Along DCPP ISFSI Transport Route 29 GEO.DCPP.01.29 Determination of Seismic 52.27.100.739 Coefficient Time Histories for Potential Sliding Masses on DCPP ISFSI Transport Route 30 GEO.DCPP.01.30 Determination of Potential 52.27.100.740 Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Potential Sliding Masses Along DCPP ISFSI Transport Route 31 GEO.DCPP.01.31 Development of Strength 52.27.100.741 Envelopes for Clay Beds at DCPP ISFSI 32 GEO.DCPP.01.32 Verification of Computer 52.27.100.742 Program SPCTLR.EXE 33 GEO.DCPP.01.33 Verification of Program 52.27.100.743 UTEXAS3 34 GEO.DCPP.01.34 Verification of Computer 52.27.100.744 Code -QUAD4M 35 GEO.DCPP.01.35 Verification of Computer 52.27.100.745 Program DEFORMP 36 GEO.DCPP.01.36 Reserved 52.27.100.746 37 GEO.DCPP.01.37 Development of Freefield 52.27.100.747 Ground Motion Storage Cask Spectra and Time Histories for the Used Fuel Storage Project 4 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page \ of 65 DEC .15.2001 4:01HM ý- 4 FROMi Clurf -San Francisco PHONE NO. : 415 564 6697 -- .---- -- *.-+/- I I I 0.L- kjL~-r-1--

+/-JLh N'4Q 99 P.3/5 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY GEOSCIENCES DEPARTMENT CALCULATION DOCU&MNNT Cal Number GEOLDCPP.01.24 Revision 1 Date 12/13/01 Pages; 62 Verification Method: A Verifleation Pages; I TITLE: St-bility and Yield Accletion Anglysis -f Cross 9cctipn I-I'PREPARED BY: DATE KAICV14U ,{/Aed JAk14 Printed Name VERII BY: Organization DATE Agz/sr APPROVED BY: Printed 14 e DATE -S6 Organization

~/LLOYD g S. CLUPF, 1 No. E067I .- OQEOLOU Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 'I- of 65 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY GEOSCIENCES DEPARTMENT CALCULATION DOCUMENT Calc Number GEO.DCPP.01.24 Revision I Date 12/13/01 Calc Pages: 62 Verification Method: A Verification Pages: 1 TITLE: Stability and Yield Acceleration Analysis of Cross Section I-I'PREPARED BY: VERIFIED BY: APPROVED BY: ,--77 -- -DATE Printed Name Organization DATE /.2 / X,01 Printed Name DATE Printed Name Organization Organization

$;x...°- LLOYD "'.A' S. CLUFF ° No. EG567 .= 0= -; CERTIFIED (J, ENGINEERING

.,.'* // "-...... o " 0 ,'<ý \\2, 12- /

Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page of 65 Stability and Yield Acceleration Analysis of Cross Section I-I' Calc. Number GEO.DCPP.01.24 Record of Revisions Rev. Revision Reason for Revision No. Date 00 Initial Issue 11107/01 Revised test to incorporate PG&E NQS, UFSP, and Geosciences 01 comments including:

1) reference used for back calculation;

2) inclusion 12/13/01 of record of revision sheet, and 3) minor editorial changes.____ L +t_____ I I.i I Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 1k of 65 DCPP ISFSI CALCULATION GEO.DCPP.01.24 REVISION I Calculation Title: Stability and Yield Acceleration Analysis of Cross Section I-I' Calculation No.: GEO.DCPP.01.24 Revision No.: 1 Calculation Author: Karthik Narayanan and Chris Krivanec (Geomatrix Consultants)

Calculation Date: December 13, 2001 PURPOSE The purpose of this calculation is to evaluate the stability and yield acceleration of potential sliding masses postulated for the slope behind the proposed DCPP ISFSI site. An approximate back analysis of the slope in its pre-excavated (pre-1971) configuration is also conducted to assess the degree of conservatism in the assumed lateral continuity and shear strength of the clay beds. The analyses described in this calculation package are conducted in accordance with the Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. Work Plan "Laboratory Testing of Soil and Rock Samples, Slope Stability Analysis, and Excavation design for Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Site." ASSUMPTIONS The assumptions made to the stability and yield acceleration analysis are: 1. The clay beds are saturated.

This assumption is reasonable because rainfall would infiltrate the slope through the fractured rock and temporarily perch on the clay beds during the short rainy season, and would saturate at least the upper part of the clay. 2. There is little water in the slope. This assumption is reasonable because the ground water table is about 200 feet below the ISFSI site and because the rock is fractured and well drained. No springs from perched water tables occur near the ISFSI slope. 3. The lateral margins of the potential sliding masses have no strength.

This is conservative because the margins of a potential failure wedge would follow, in part, discontinuous joints, small faults, and, in part, break through rock, which would provide some resistance to sliding.\\oak I \deptdata\roject\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.

01.24\Revision I\GEO.DCPP.01.24.doc Page I of 62 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page __. of 65 DCPP ISFSI CALCULATION GEO.DCPP.0 1.24 REVISION 1 4. The upper 20 feet of the rock mass forming the head of a potential sliding mass is modeled as a tension crack, i.e., the zone is given no strength.

This assumption is based on the geologic interpretation presented in the explanations on the figures provided in Attachment B, as confirmed in Attachment J. INPUTS The information required for the slope stability and yield acceleration analyses are the surface topography, geometry of potential sliding masses, and soil and rock strengths and unit weights. The analyses described in this calculation package were conducted for cross section I-I' (Attachment A, as confirmed in Attachments H and J) transmitted to Geomatrix on September 27, 2001. Surface topography and the location of potential sliding masses were taken from the cross sections transmitted to Geomatrix on October 10, 2001 (Attachment B, as confirmed in Attachment J). Two additional potential sliding masses were also analyzed at the request of the ITR. The potential sliding masses analyzed in this calculation package are shown in Attachment B. Drained rock strengths were taken from Attachment C (as confirmed in Attachment J). Drained and undrained clay bed strength parameters are shown as Figure D- 1 and D-2, respectively, in Attachment D. A bi-linear undrained strength envelope, described in GEO.DCPP.0 1.31, was used for the clay beds. A summary of properties used for the stability and yield acceleration analyses is shown on page 9. The unit weight for rock was taken as 140 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) per the recommendations transmitted to Geomatrix on June 28, 2001 (Attachment E, as confirmed in Attachment I). The unit weight of the clay bed material was evaluated from laboratory tests (presented in their entirety in Witter, 11/5/01 [Data Report G]) performed on samples collected in test pits in the vicinity of the ISFSI site. A summary of the unit weights measured in the laboratory is shown in Attachment F. The average moist unit weight of the clay samples is 120 pcf. A value of 115 pcf was used for the stability analysis.

It is noted that the unit weight of the clay beds has no practical effect on the results.\\oak I\deptdata\Proj ect\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.

01.24\Revision I\GEO.DCPP.01.24.doc Page 2 of 62 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page (P of 65 DCPP ISFSI CALCULATION GEO.DCPP.01.24 REVISION I For the back-calculation of the pre-excavated slope, a yield acceleration of 0.65g was used. This yield acceleration was taken from the relationship between yield acceleration and deformation shown in Figure 14 for a displacement of 4-inches (from Attachment G). The method used to calculate the yield acceleration is discussed in the "Methods" section of this calculation summary.

METHODS Methods used for slope stability and yield acceleration analyses are described in this section. The methodology for the back-'calculation of clay bed strengths is also described.

Slope Stability Analysis Slope stability analyses were performed using the computer program UTEXAS3 (Wright, 1990). Analyses were conducted to evaluate the stability of potential sliding masses identified in Attachment B. Spencer's method, a method of slices that satisfies force and moment equilibrium, was used for the analyses.

Drained strengths were used for the clay and rock for the evaluation of long-term static stability.

Yield Acceleration Analysis Computations were made using UTEXAS3 to identify sliding masses with the lowest yield acceleration.

The yield accelerations will be used in GEO.DCPP.01.26 for evaluation of earthquake induced displacements.

For the calculation of yield accelerations, a two-stage approach was used. The two-stage approach consists of first calculating the normal stresses on the failure plane under pre-earthquake (i.e., long-term static) loading conditions using drained strength properties.

For each slice, the normal effective stress on the failure plane was then used to calculate the undrained strength on the failure plane. In the second stage of the analysis, horizontal seismic coefficients were applied to the potential sliding mass and the stability analysis was repeated using the undrained strengths calculated at the end of the first stage. The yield acceleration was calculated by incrementally increasing the horizontal seismic coefficient until the factor of safety equaled unity.\\oak l\deptdata\Project\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.0 1.24\Revision I\GEO.1DCPP.01.24.doc Page 3 of 62 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page ' of 65 DCPP ISFSI CALCULATION GEO.DCPP.01.24 REVISION I Drained rock strengths were used for both stages of the yield acceleration analysis.

Drained clay strengths were used for the first stage, and a bi-linear undrained strength envelope was used for the clay beds in the second stage of the analysis.

Potential sliding masses found in this calculation to have low yield accelerations are analyzed further in calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.26 to evaluate their potential for earthquake-induced deformations.

Back-Calculation of Clay Bed Strengths Calculations were conducted for the pre-excavated slope configuration (shown as the dashed line on Attachment A) to assess the degree of conservatism in the assumed lateral extent and undrained strength of the clay beds. The premise of the back-calculation is that historical earthquakes on the Hosgri fault have not caused slope movements large enough (less than 4-inches per event, as described in Attachment G) to be detected from geologic evidence.

The method followed for the back-calculation is summarized below. The back-calculation was conducted in the program UTEXAS3 using the same multi-stage approach as described for the yield acceleration analysis.

First, the surfaces of potential sliding masses Ia and lb (Attachment B) were extended to the pre-excavated ground surface. Then an undrained strength was specified for the clay beds, and a yield acceleration was calculated.

The clay bed strengths were varied until a target value of the yield acceleration was calculated that would produce the 4-inch per-event displacement for the ground motion used. As in the yield acceleration analysis for the existing slope configuration (described previously), a relationship between displacement and yield acceleration was derived for the back-calculation.

This relationship was developed using the procedure described in GEO.DCPP.01.26.

Ground motion sets I and 5 were multiplied by 1.6 (per Attachment G) to approximate the seismic coefficient time histories.

These input motions were double-integrated to estimate earthquake-induced displacements.

The resulting relationship between displacement and yield acceleration for ground\\oak I\deptdata\Project\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.O

.24\Revision I\GEO.DCPP.01.24.doc Page 4 of 62 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page I of 65 DCPP ISFS[ CALCULATION GEODCPP.01.24 REVISION I motion sets 1 and 5 are shown on Figures 13 and 14. The plots of displacement versus yield acceleration indicate that yield accelerations of 0.75 and 0.65 for ground motion sets I and 5, respectively, are needed to produce the 4-inch displacement.

The lower of the two yield accelerations, 0.65 (corresponding to ground motion set 5), was used for the back-calculation because it would result in lower, more conservative undrained clay bed strengths.

The potential sliding masses analyzed in the back-calculation are shown on Figures 11 and 12. The sliding mass on Figure 11 was developed by extending sliding mass la (Attachment B) horizontally to the pre-1971 slope. The clay bed along the bottom of slide mass la was extended to the surface of the pre-1971 slope. The slide mass on Figure 12 was developed by extending slide mass lb (Attachment B) horizontally to the pre-1971 ground surface. Since the clay bed along the slide plane did not daylight in the current configuration of the slope, it was not extended to the pre- 1971 ground surface (the slide plane cuts through rock from the terminus of the clay bed to the pre-1971 ground surface).

SOFTWARE The calculations of slope stability and yield acceleration and the back-calculation of clay bed strength were conducted using the program UTEXAS3. The program verification appears in GEO.DCPP.01.33.

ANALYSIS The slope stability and yield acceleration calculations and the back-calculation of clay bed strength were conducted in UTEXAS3. The input and output files for the calculation of long-term stability and yield acceleration and the back-calculation are contained in the enclosed compact disc. RESULTS The results of the stability and yield acceleration analyses are summarized on Table 2 and in Figures 1 through 10. The lowest factor of safety for the long-term static stability analysis is 1.62, which was calculated for surface lb shown on Figure 3. Based on standard engineering practice,\\oak I\deptdata\Project\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.O 1.24\Revision 1\GEO.DCPP.01.24.doc Page 5 of 62 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page I of 65 DCPP ISFSI CALCULATION GEO.DCPP.01.24 REVISION I this factor of safety is considered adequate for long-term stability.

The lowest calculated yield acceleration was 0.19, corresponding to surface 2c shown on Figure 5. The earthquake-induced displacement corresponding to this yield acceleration is discussed in GEO.DCPP.0 1.26. The clay bed strengths from back-calculation of the pre-excavated ground surface are summarized on page 11. Several combinations of the undrained strength parameters c and ý were considered in the back-calculation.

As shown in the results on page 11, the undrained clay bed strengths from the back-calculation of the pre-excavated slope configuration are substantially greater than the undrained strength parameters developed from the laboratory test data. The undrained clay bed strengths from the back-calculation are also considerably higher than would be expected for soils similar to the clay bed material.

These observations substantiate one or both of the following.

• The undrained clay bed strength parameters developed from laboratory test data for use in the stability and yield acceleration analyses are conservative.

• The lateral continuity of the clay beds is not as great as indicated in the geologic model. These observations indicate that analysis procedures used for evaluation of long-term stability and yield acceleration are conservative.

REFERENCES

1. Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. -Work Plan, Laboratory Testing of Soil and Rock Samples, Slope Stability Analyses, and Excavation Design for Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Site, Revision 4, dated December 8, 2000. 2. GEO.DCPP.01.26

-Determination of potential earthquake-induced displacements of potential sliding masses on DCPP ISFSI slope, Revision 1. 3. GEO.DCPP.01.31

-Development of strength envelopes for clay beds, Revision 1. 4. GEO.DCPP.0I1.33

-Verification of program UTEXAS3, Revision 1. 5. Witter- Letter from Rob Witter to Rob White (November 5, 2001), entitled, "Completion of Data Report," with enclosed Data Report G, Laboratory Test of Soil Data.\\oak I \deptdata\Project\6000s\6427.006\geo.

dcpp. 01 .24\Revision I\GEO.DCPP.01.24.doc Page 6 of 62 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page IV of 65 DCPP ISFSI CALCULATION GEO.DCPP.0 1.24 REVISION I 6. Wright, S.G. (1990) -UTEXAS3, A computer program for slope stability calculations, May 1990, Shinoak Software, Austin, Texas. TABLE OF CONTENTS Description Pages Calculation summary 1 -8 Table 1 -Summary of parameters used in analysis 9 Table 2 -Summary of factors of safety and yield accelerations 10 Summary of strengths from back-calculations 11 Figures 1 through 10 -Potential sliding masses analyzed 12 -21 Figures 11 and 12 -Potential sliding masses from back-analysis 22 -23 Figures 13 and 14 -Displacement vs. yield acceleration plots 24 -25 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Letter to Faiz Makdisi from Jeff Bachhuber, dated September 27, 2001.

Subject:

Transmittal of Revised Geologic Section I-I', DCPP ISFSI Site. Letter and Draft Figure 21-19, Cross Section I-I' attached as pages 27 through 29. Attachment B: Letter to Faiz Makdisi from Jeff Bachhuber, dated October 10, 2001.

Subject:

Transmittal of Revised Rock Mass Failure Models -DCPP ISFSI Project. Letter and Draft Figures 21-45, 21-46, and 21-47 attached as pages 31 through 34. Attachment C: Letter to Faiz Makdisi from Rob White, dated June 24, 2001.

Subject:

Recommended rock strength design parameters for DCPP ISFSI site slope stability analyses, attached as pages 36 and 37. Attachment D: Figures D-1 and D-2 from Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.31, and determination of values to enter into analysis from figures, attached as pages 39 and 40. Attachment E: Email to Karthik Narayanan from Rob White, dated June 28, 2001.

Subject:

Unit weights for stability analysis, attached as page 42. Attachment F: Table of clay bed bed unit weights derived from Data Report entitled "Soil Laboratory Data". Table F-I attached as page 44.\\oak l\deptdata\Project\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.O 1.24\Revision I\GEO.DCPP.01.24.doc Page 7 of 62 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _L)_ of 65 DCPP ISFSI CALCULATION GEO.DCPP.0 1.24 REVISION I Attachment G: Letter from Rob White to Faiz Makdisi dated December 13, 2001.

Subject:

Confirmation of ground motion parameters for back calculations, attached as pages 46 and 47. Attachment H : Letter to Faiz Makdisi from Rob White dated September 28, 2001

Subject:

Confirmation of transmittal of inputs for DCPP ISFSI slope stability analyses, attached as pages 49 and 50. Attachment I: Letter to Faiz Makdisi from Rob White dated October 25, 2001.

Subject:

Input parameters for calculations, attached as pages 52 through 56. Attachment J: Letter to Faiz Makdisi from Rob White dated October 31, 2001.

Subject:

Confirmation of preliminary inputs to calculations for DCPP ISFSI site, attached as pages 58 through 62. ENCLOSURES Compact disc labeled, "PG&E DCPP ISFSI, GEO.DCPP.01.24, Rev. 1; GEO.DCPP.01.25, Rev. 1; and GEO.DCPP.01.26., Rev. 1, December 13, 2001," and containing the input and output files for the back-calculation and calculation of long-term stability and yield acceleration.

\\oak l\deptdata\Project\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.01.24\Revision I\GEO.DCPP.01.24.doc Page 8 of 62 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page t1- of 65 DCPP [SFSI CALCULATION GEO.DCPP.01.24 REVISION I TABLE 1 MATERIAL PROPERTIES USED IN SLOPE STABILITY AND YIELD ACCELERATION ANALYSES Material Unit Weight (pe) Drained Strength Undrained Strength Clay Bed 115 c' = 0, 4' = 22' Lower of: c = 800 psf, 15* or S= 2 9 *1 Rock Units Tofb-1 140 c' = 0, 4' = 500 and Tofb-2 Undrained strength of clay bed material is described in more detail in GEO.DCPP.0 1.31. Plots of drained and undrained strength envelopes are also shown in this calculation package in Attachment D.\\oak I \deptdata\Project\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.

0 1.24\Revision I\GEO.DCPP.01.24.doc Page 9 of 62 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page A" of 65 DCPP ISFSI CALCULATION GEO.DCPP.01.24 REVISION I TABLE 2 FACTORS OF SAFETY AND YIELD ACCELERATIONS COMPUTED FOR POTENTIAL SLIDING MASSES Wedge FS (Long-Term) ky (g) Input/Output files for UTEXAS3 0.28 0.20 0.31 0.24 0.19 0.44 0.39 0.25 0.28 0.23 Bedal a.dat/Bedal a.out Bedalb.dat/Beda 1 b.out Beda2a.dat/Beda2 a.out Beda2b.dat/Beda2b.out Beda2c.dat/Beda2c.out Beda3 a.dat/Beda3 a.out Beda3b.dat/Beda3b.out Bede3cm2.dat/Bede3cm2.out Beda3 c.dat/Beda3c.out Beda3 cm.dat/Beda3cm.out

\\oak l\deptdata\Project\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.0 1.24\Revision I\GEO.DCPP.01.24.doc la lb 2a 2b 2c 3a 3b 3c 3c-1 3c-2 2.55 1.62 2.55 2.16 2.18 2.86 2.70 2.26 2.38 2.28 Page 10 of 62 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page Jý of 65 Subject z>Z- C -~L!~~E~(T By K-9-t- Checked By /tL Date llso Date GEO.DCPP.OI.

2 RENISION c-AdL-C- 0;7 p TEFý,hJTAL.

'- *: T L/ 215cc-) p 'ý0 c-Le oF '5JTL.j 5DF 0t4 1 (c) / diiD c-LAYE FXTEmCEý EITeD -rE pt 1 7 -I19-n ('Q0i-jLi -cFA C: 3ccý'fpsF ) 0~ =2J C- ccý~ FJ 36e cp-ý ý- /C (tzJ)0 N O.K%!5r.V6T4/l 9 -A5 CIA -A 20.7U jj't t!1: Ul UA'I Lta GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS

.1; u M A,ý4 ý?--/ 0 F U I it (i UTEXAS3 2-Stage Stability Analysis Corss Section I-1', Diablo Canyon Power Plant ISFSI Potential Sliding Mass 3b Long Term Factor of Safety = 2.70 Yield Acceleration

= 0.39 Filename:

Beda3b.dat 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 FIGURE 1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 H Horizontal Distance (feet) W0ob 0 o a) 4 0 (1) Wi C'IN 0l C-z 0 0 0 -1 0 vs 0 0%

UTEXAS3 2-Stage Stability Analysis Cross Section I-1', Diablo Canyon Power Plant ISFSI Potential Sliding Mass la Long Term Factor of Safety = 2.55 Yield Acceleration

= 0.28 Filename:

Bedala.dat 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Horizontal Distance (feet)FIGURE 2 C: 4-" 0 a) w Wu 0 0=3.h 0 -0

((UTEXAS3 2-Stage Stability Analysis Cross Section I-I', Diablo Canyon Power Plant ISFSI Potential Sliding Mass lb Long Term Factor of Safety = 1.62 Yield Acceleration

= 0.20 Filename:

Bedalb.dat 4 0 40-700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Horizontal Distance (feet) <0 -b z FIGURE 3 C) 0 --4 0< ('

(UTEXAS3 2-Stage Stability Analysis Cross Section I-I', Diablo Canyon Power Plant ISFSI Potential Sliding Mass 2a Long Term Factor of Safety = 2.55 Yield Acceleration

= 0.31 Filename:

Beda2a.dat (D 4.0 w Co 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Horizontal Distance (feet)FIGURE 4I.-. 0 0>-JL. 0= (J=

(UTEXAS3 2-Stage Stability Analysis Corss Section I-I', Diablo Canyon Power Plant ISFSI Potential Sliding Mass 2b Long Term Factor of Safety = 2.16 Yield Acceleration

= 0.24 Filename:

Beda2b.dat 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 FIGURE 5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Horizontal Distance (feet) C) z< ~0h a) 4 O, >i~0) '-11 P W--4 0o!

(UTEXAS3 2-Stage Stability Analysis Corss Section I-I', Diablo Canyon Power Plant ISFSI Potential Sliding Mass 2c Long Term Factor of Safety = 2.18 Yield Acceleration

= 0.19 Filename:

Beda2c.dat 1 0 a) iri 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Horizontal Distance (feet)FIGURE 6 0. 03 t'r1-4 0 0 --4 0 0 ('a ,

UTEXAS3 2-Stage Stability Analysis Corss Section I-I', Diablo Canyon Power Plant ISFSI Potential Sliding Mass 3a Long Term Factor of Safety = 2.86 Yield Acceleration

= 0.44 Filename:

Beda3a.dat 700 , I , I

• I 600 42 0 LU 500 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Horizontal Distance (feet) 0 <b O -2 FIGURE 7 0 ýND 0 14 0 0 0 0 ,

(UTEXAS3 2-Stage Stability Analysis Corss Section I-I', Diablo Canyon Power Plant ISFSI Potential Sliding Mass 3c Long Term Factor of Safety = 2.26 Yield Acceleration

= 0.25 Filename:

Bede3cm2.dat 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 FIGURE 8 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Horizontal Distance (feet) T < 0 z n 0 0) 0) 4 0 0)I-. 0r I-Il 0 ,-4 0-.

UTEXAS3 2-Stage Stability Analysis Corss Section I-I', Diablo Canyon Power Plant ISFSI Potential Sliding Mass 3c-1 Long Term Factor of Safety = 2.38 Yield Acceleration

= 0.28 Filename:

Beda3c.dat 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Horizontal Distance (feet)FIGURE 9 ((4 0 Co w0 ~I1 tlD 3. 0" n P 0 z b UTEXAS3 2-Stage Stability Analysis Corss Section I-I', Diablo Canyon Power Plant ISFSI Potential Sliding Mass 3c-2 Long Term Factor of Safety = 2.28 Yield Acceleration

= 0.23 Filename:

Beda3cm.dat 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 FIGURE 10 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Horizontal Distance (feet)Z -C z b 0 oN'(a) 42J 0) 0 Lu 0 UOj 0 "-4 0't .e 0> 0O U0 UTEXAS3 2-Stage Stability Analysis Corss Section I-4, Diablo Canyon Power Plant ISFSI Back Analysis of Potential Sliding Mass 1a Yield Acceleration

= 0.65 Filename:

Bedla a.dat 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Horizontal Distance (feet)FIGURE 11 ((U1) 4 0 (13 4_4 0 01 ZO"-I n "-4 0S ;@I*<0O M Q 0 (UTEXAS3 2-Stage Stability Analysis Corss Section I-I', Diablo Canyon Power Plant ISFSI Back-analysis of Potential Sliding Mass lb Yield Acceleration

= 0.65 Filename:

Bedla b2.dat C: a a, 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 FIGURE 12 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Horizontal Distance (feet) 0 CD z b 0o d I, (0 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 1-1 of 65 GEO.DCPP.0 1., 4 REVISION A.100.00 10.00 0.) E 1.00 () C) 0~ 0.10 0.01 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ky Figurel3.

Permanent displacement versus yield acceleration from input acceleration time histories-I-I component of set 1.PAGE ; 4 OF62 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page It of 65 GEO.DCPP.O1.

C, REVISION " 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 ky Figurelq.

Permanent displacement versus yield acceleration from input acceleration time histories-I-I component of set 5.PAGE ) OF b2 100.00 10.00 E= 1.00 0 CL 0.10 0.01 0.0 1.0 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _M of 65 GEO.DCPP.Ol.

` 4 REVISION ", ATTACHMENT A PAGE 2,6 OF 62 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 3__ of 65 GEO.DCPP.01. , REISION Dr. Faiz Makdisi Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. 2101 Webster Street, 12th floor Oakland, CA 94612 510-663-4141

Subject:

William Lettis & Associates, Inc. 1777 Botelho Drive, Suite 262, Walnut Creek, California 94596 Voice: (925) 256-6070 FAX: (925) 256-6076 September 27, 2001 Transmittal of Revised Geologic Section I-I', DCPP ISFSI Site

Dear Faiz:

This letter documents transmittal of a revised version of geologic section I-I' that will be included in DCPP ISFSI Calculation Package GEO.01.21 rev. 0. This revised section includes a surveyed profile that extends farther uphill than previous versions of the section. We have sent an electronic copy of the section in a pdf format to your email address, and a full-size (1-inch equals 50-feet) hardcopy to your office via Fedex. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the geologic section, or need additional information.

Sincerely, WILLIAM LETTIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.Jeff Bachhuber Principal Engineering Geologist Cc: W.D. Page, R. White, PG&E Geosciences, transmitted via facsimile WLA/ISFSIsectionI-I'rev0 PAGE 24, OF b Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 1 A_ of 65 GEO.DCPP.01.

24REVISION I * " .....P i i PAGE g, &)2F ,.. g

Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page __3 of 65 GEO.DCPP.01. REVISION I ATTACHMENT B PAGE 4.O0F62 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 5_of 65 GEO.DCPP.01..4 REVISION " William Lettis &Associates, Inc. 1777 Botelhio Drive, Suite 262, Walnut Creek, California 94596 Voice: (925) 256-6070 FAX: (925) 256-6076 Dr. Faiz Makdisi October 10, 2001 Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. 2101 Webster Street, 12th floor Oakland, CA 94612 510-663-4141 email:zlwang@geomatrix.com

Subject:

Transmittal of Revised Rock Mass Failure Models -DCPP ISFSI Project

Dear Faiz:

This letter documents transmittal of revised rock mass failure models for the DCPP ISFSI Project geologic section I-I'. These revised models supercede the preliminary models sent to you on October 4, 2001, and incorporate review comments by PG&E Geosciences Department, internal WLA review, and issues brought up during our telephone conversations.

We sent pdf formatted versions of these models to you via email previously.

The attached hardcopies are the same as the emailed revised models. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the rock failure models, or need additional information.

Sincerely, WILLIAM LETTIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.Jeff Bachhuber Principal Engineering Geologist Cc: W.D. Page, R. White, PG&E Geosciences, transmitted via facsimile WLAISFSIrockmodelstransRev P PAGE -OF6

-1.1 5 9 t iij C 0 C LA N N -a C C tilt * -C OV -C,

• C C, 0 a' LA El- -(1.1)S hi S z -9

0 -t N 0 0 0 Cýr A 0 Co) 0ý 0 u[K 11 CC 5 CC 0 I: 0 0 C CC = CC N2-<-.1 [ rr 0 U 0 3-4 Ltj Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page __ of 65 GEO.DCPP.

a1%.2 REVISION 1 ATTACHMENT C PAGE 05 OF 6 2 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page j5_ of 65 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geosciences 245 Market Street, Room 418B Mail Code N4C GEO.DCPP01.24 P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 415/973-2792 REVISION . Fax 415/973-5778 Faiz Makdisi Geomatrix Consultants 2101 Webster Street 12h floor Oakland, CA 94612 June 24, 2001 Re: Recommended rock strength design parameters for DCPP ISFSI site slope stability analyses

Dear Faiz:

This letter documents recommended rock strength design parameters for the DCPP ISFSI site slope stability analyses you will be performing.

As you know, rock types range from harder, jointed sandstone and dolomite to softer, non-jointed, altered sandstone.

For the altered sandstone, review of the laboratory multi-stage triaxial test data indicates that a peak strength envelope defined by 4) = 50 degrees and c = 0 psi is appropriate for both static and dynamic stability analyses.

Please refer to the attached calculation package (GEO.DCPP.01.16) for derivation of this envelope.

For the harder sandstone and dolomite, the rock mass strength at the large scale defined by your stability analyses is controlled by both the intact rock and the discontinuities.

The Hoek-Brown criteria utilizes both these mechanisms as input to derive a series of strength envelopes for the rock mass. While the calculation package for these envelopes has not been completed yet, my review of draft envelopes from Jeff Bachhuber at WLA indicates that an envelope defined by 4 = 50 degrees and c = 0 psi is appropriate for both sandstone and dolomite.

In a few cases, lower-bound (very low probability)

Hoek-Brown envelopes cross below this envelope, thus making it unconservative, but only at overburden depths greater than the most likely slip surfaces I expect you will be analyzing (over 200 feet in the dolomite and 70 feet in the sandstone). (For smaller scale shallow stability analyses being performed by WLA, such as rock blocks in the proposed cutslope, rock mass strength is controlled almost entirely by discontinuities and the Barton criteria for discontinuity strength is more applicable.)

SPAGE aG OF b6 afmdoc page I of I Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 4'0 of 65 Recommended rock strength envelopes Faiz Makdisi GEO.DCPP.01 2 4 Therefore, I recommend you use 4) = 50 degrees as the preliminary rock s 5 lVSION 1 envelope in all your slope stability analyses.

Once the Hoek-Brown calculation is finalized and approved (sometime in the following week), I will confirm that this value is still applicable.

In the meantime, I recommend you proceed with slope stability analyses so as to keep making progress on this task. Let me know if you have any questions regarding these preliminary numbers.

Sincerely, Rob White cc (w/o attachments):

Joseph Sun Jeff Bachhuber PAGE 0 7 OF page 2 of 2 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page Aý of 65 GEO.DCPP.01.2 4 REVISION I ATTACHMENT D PAGE OF")-/I Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _A-of 65 GEO.DCPP.01.

O4 REVISION I Drained Shear Strength of Clay Beds

• Direct Shear Tests: Drained Monotonic Loading A Triaxial Compression Tests: Consolidated Undrained Phi'= 22 deg, c' = 0 psf ----------

-Mitchell (PI = 20 and PI = 40)z/ -2 ý.d Ak, 1-2 / 4IF-1 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 Normal Stress on Failure Plane at Failure -aff (ksf) FIGURE D-1 -Drained Shear Strength of Clay Beds (from GEO.DCPP.01.31)

I:\ProjectO6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.01.24\Drained.grf I:Project\6000s\6427.006\Lab DataWStrength.xls PAGE 9 OF62 28 24 20 16 12 8 4-2 °) U) U a) C CU a 0 (n (n a) -C IC .U) -c 4 0 0 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page A$ of 65 GEO.DCPP.01.

24 28 24 20 16 12 8 4 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Normal Stress on Failure Plane at Consolidation

-Gfc (ksf)28 FIGURE D-2 -Undrained Shear Strength of Clay (from GEO.DCPP.01.31) 1:\Project6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.01.24\XU ndrained_OCR.g rf I:\Project6000s\6427.006\Lab Data\Strength.xls PAGE 4,0 OF Undrained Shear Strength of Clay Beds REVISION L

• Direct Shear Tests: Undrained Cyclic Loading o Direct Shear Tests: Undrained Monotonic Loading A Triaxial Compression Tests: Consolidated Undrained Phi = 15.0 deg, c = 800 psf (based on linear-regression of direct shear and CU triaxial data) Undrained strength incl. effect of OCR for clay beds daylighting at 475', T-14b, and T-1 ld --Phi = 29 deg (corresponds to OCR = 3.0)Lo I-IL a) 0~ L3.. Cn a) W cu U) I 03* a-2 ()H-1 / SJ ...'- )N-1()S4d

")R~h ) ( (,.-2 "E-11)-

Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page of 65 GEO.DCPP.01.

2, 4 REVISION I ATTACHMENT E PAGE OF 62 Calculation

-52.27.100.734, Revi:-OAtta'im-n-A,, Page -of 65 GEO.DCPP.0

1. ý qREVISION . Karthik Narayanan

"-om: White, Robert (Geosciences)

[RKW5@pge.com]

.,nt: Thursday, June 28, 2001 12:10 PM io: 'Karthik Narayanan';

'Jeff Bachhuber' Cc: Faiz Makdisi; Sun, Joseph

Subject:

RE: Unit Weights for Stability Analysis unit tSD. Is Karthik: Joseph just finished compiling all the bulk density data from the rock tests and determined that a good defendable average for all rock types is about 140 pcf, the number we've been using in the past. There is virtually no statistical difference between dolomite and sandstone, as Joseph's attached table indicates.

Thanks for running the numbers, Joseph! -- Rob White --- -- Original Message ----From: Karthik Narayanan

[mailto:KNarayanan

@ geomatrix.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 10:47 AM To: 'Jeff Bachhuber' Cc: White, Robert (Geosciences);

Faiz Makdisi 'subject:

Unit Weights for Stability Analysis Jeff, We are in the process of running stability analysis with the rock strengths recommended in the calc packages provided to us by Rob White. Could you also provide recommendations for the unit weights of Tofb-1 and Tofb-2? Thank you for the information.

Karthik R. Narayanan, P.E. Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. 2101 Webster Street, 12th Floor Oakland, California 94612 Direct: (510) 663-4144 Fax: (510) 663-4141 PAGE 42 OFt')9 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page __L of 65 GEO.DCPP.01.

2 4 RENISION ATTACHMENT F PAGE43 OF 6Z-i Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page ._k of 65 GEO.DCPP.0 1.24 REVISION -I TABLE F-1 Summary of Unit Weights for Clay Bed Samples from Trenches and Borings in ISFSI Site Area Mean 120.1 Median 122.2i Standard Deviation 5.61 Data taken from Witter (Nov. 5, 2001) Data Report G PAGE 4 4 OF 6 2 1:\Proj-ectS000s\6427006MLab Data\Clay Unit Weight.Printed 11/5/01 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page J of 65 GEO.DCPP.01.

2 4 REVISION I ATTACHMENT G PAGE 4q OF 62 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page h of 65 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geosciences 245 Market Street, Room 418B Mail Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 GEO.DCPP.01. 415/973-2792 Fax 415/973-5778 REVISION " DR. FAIZ MAKDISI GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS 2101 WEBSTER STREET OAKLAND, CA 94612 December 13, 2001 Re: Confirmation of DCPP ISFSI ground motion parameters for back calculation analysis DR. MAKDISI: As part of your analysis of the stability of the slope behind the DCPP ISFSI, you are performing a back-calculation analysis of the slope in its pre-excavated (pre- 197 1) configuration to evaluate the level of conservatism in the assumed lateral extent and the undrained strength of the clay beds underlying the slope. Key parameters required for this analysis, including amount of slope displacement and associated ground motions, are provided below. Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.21, Rev. 1, pages 59 through 61, indicates that the range of potential slope displacements for past large earthquakes is 3 to 6 inches per event (page 60, attached).

For purposes of the back-calculation analysis, a value within this range of 4 inches is recommended.

For purposes of defining the large earthquake causing this value of displacement, it is recommended that you multiply the ground motions provided to you on 8/17/01 (and confirmed in my letter to Xou dated 10/31/01) by a factor of 1.6, to represent ground motions that are at the 98 percentile (that is, one standard deviation above the 84th percentile ground motions provided).

If you have any questions regarding this information, please call. ROBERT K. WHITE Attachment PAGE 4i1 OF 62 ltr2frn I l.doc:rkw:

12/13/01 page 1 of I Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 50 of 65 GEO.DCPP.0

1. , 4 REVISION I site area (Figure 21-41) (Diablo Canyon ISFSI Data Report A). Similarly the many trenches excavated into the slope, the tower access road cuts, the extensive outcrops exposed by the 1971 borrow cut, and the many borings exposed no tension cracks or fissure fills on the hillslope (Diablo Canyon ISFSI Data Reports A, B and D). Open cracks or soil-filled fissures greater than 1 to 2 feet in width should be easily recognized across the slope given the extensive rock exposure provided by the borrow cut. Therefore, we conservatively assume that any cumulative displacement in the slope greater than 3 feet would have produced features that would be evident in rock slope. The absence of this evidence places a maximum threshold of 3 feet on the amount of cumulative slope displacement that may have occurred in the geologic past. The hillslope at the ISFSI site is older than at least 300,000 years because remnants of the Q-5 (320,000 yrs) marine terrace are cut into the slope west of the ISFSI site (Figure 21-3). Preservation of the terrace documents that the slope has had minimal erosion since that time. Moreover, gradual reduction of the ridge by erosion at the ISFSI site would not destroy deep tension cracks or deep disruption of the rock mass; these features would be preserved as filled fractures and fissures even as the slope is lowered.

The topographic ridge upon which the ISFSI site is located has experienced strong ground shaking from numerous earthquakes on the Hosgri fault zone during the past 300,000 years. PG&E (1988, p. 3-39) provides a recurrence interval of 11,350 years for an Mw 7.2 earthquake on the Hosgri fault. Therefore, approximately 25 to 30 large earthquakes have occurred during the past 300,000 years without causing ground motions large enough to produce significant (i.e., greater than 3 feet) cumulative slope displacement.

Based on the number of earthquakes, the hillslope likely experienced the design earthquake ground motion as described in the ISFSI SAR (PG&E, 2001). Based on the absence of cumulative slope displacement within a limit of resolution of 3 feet, the amount of possible slope displacement during the Hosgri design earthquake is a maximum of 3 feet (if only one such slope displacement has occurred) and more likely about 3 to 6 inches per event (if multiple earthquakes have caused slope displacement with cumulative displacement of up to 3 feet). Slope displacement of 3 to 6 inches, GEO.DCPP,01.21, Rev. I Page 60 of 171 November 6, 2001 PAGE 'L OF Aid Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _I of 65 GEO.DCPP.0

.24 REVISION 1 ATTACHMENT H PAGE 4 3 OF 6 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 0._ of 65 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geosciences 245 Market Street, Room 418B Mail Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 415/973-2792 Fax 415/973-5778

• GEO.DCPP.01. " I REVISION L'II&PAGE "9 0o= u trans2fml .doc:rkw:9/28/01 Dr. Faiz Makdisi Geomatrix Consultants 2101 Webster Street Oakland, CA 94612 September 28, 2001 Re: Confirmation of transmittal of inputs for DCPP ISFSI slope stability analyses DR. MAKDISI: This is to confirm transmittal of inputs related to slope stability analyses you are scheduled to perform for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) under the Geomatrix Work Plan entitled "Laboratory Testing of Soil and Rock Samples, Slope Stability Analyses, and Excavation Design for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Site." Inputs transmitted include: Drawing entitled "Figure 21-19, Cross Section I-I'," dated 9/27/01, labeled "Draft," and transmitted to you via overnight mail under cover letter from Jeff Bachhuber of WLA and dated 9/27/01.

Time histories in Excel file entitled "time histories_3comp_rev 1.xls," dated 8/17/2001, file size 3,624 KB, which I transmitted to you via email on 8/17/2001.

Please confirm receipt of these items and forward confirmation to me in writing.

Please note that both these inputs are preliminary until the calculations they are part of have been fully approved.

At that time, I will inform you in writing of their status. These confirmation and transmittal letters are the vehicles for referencing input sources in your calculations.

Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 5'$ of 65 Confirmation of transmittal of inputs for DCPP ISFSI slope stability analyses GEO.DCPP.01.

4 REVISION I Although the Work Plan does not so state, as you are aware all calculations are required to be performed as per Geosciences Calculation Procedure GEO.001, entitled "Development and Independent Verification of Calculations for Nuclear Facilities," revision 3. All of your staff assigned to this project have been previously trained under this procedure.

I am also attaching a copy of the Work Plan. Please make additional copies for members of your staff assigned to this project, review the Work Plan with them, and have them sign Attachment

1. Please then make copies of the signed attachment and forward to me. If you have any questions, feel free to call. Thanks. 12 io --,. ROBERT K. WHITE Attachment cc: Chris Hartz PAGE .OO OF 62 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 5kof 65 GEO.DCPP.O1.

24 REVISION 1 ATTACHMENT I PAGE. 51 OF 62 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _5_ of 65 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geosciences 245 Market Street, Room 41 8B GEO.DCPP.01.2 Mail Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94[77 REVISION I 415/973-2792 Fax 415/973-5778 DR. FAIZ MAKDISI GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS 2101 WEBSTER STREET OAKLAND, CA 94612 October 25, 2001 Re: Input parameters for calculations DR. MAKDISI: As required by Geosciences Calculation Procedure GEO.001, entitled "Development and Independent Verification of Calculations for Nuclear Facilities," rev. 4, I am providing you with the following input items for your use in preparing calculations.

1. The shear wave velocity profiles obtained in borings BA98-1 and BA98-3 in 1998 are presented in Figure 21-42, attached, of Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.21, entitled "Analysis of Bedrock Stratigraphy and Geologic Structure at the DCPP ISFSI Site," rev. 0, and can be so referenced.

These profiles were previously presented in Figure 10 of the WLA report entitled "Geologic and Geophysical Investigation, Dry Cask Storage Facility, Borrow and Water Tank Sites," dated January 5, 1999. 2. The average unit weight of rock obtained from the hillside has been determined to be 140 pounds per cubic foot, as documented in a data report entitled "Rock Engineering Laboratory Testing -GeoTest Unlimited." 3. Regarding the time histories provided to you on 8/17/01, since the tectonic deformation will be to the southeast, the positive direction of the fault parallel time history is defined as to the southeast, as described in Geosciences Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.14, entitled "Development of Time Histories with Fling," rev. 1, page 4. 4. The source of the shear modulus and damping curves are Figures Q19-22 and Q19-23, attached, from PG&E, 1989, Response to NRC Question 19 dated December 13, 1988, and can be so referenced.

Regarding format of calculations, please observe the following:

PAGE OF 2 1 (l2fm1I.doc:rk'w:

1U/-51/U Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page _k of 65 Faiz Makdisi Input parameters for calculations GEO.DCPP.0

1. 4 -1 Contents of CD-ROMs attached to calculations should be listed in the calcuIREVISION . including title, size, and date saved associated with each file on the CD-ROM. If the number of files is considerable, a simple screen dump of the CD-ROM contents is sufficient.

If you have any questions regarding the above, please call me. ROBERT K. WHITE Attachments PAGE 5 3 oF 62 Borings 98BA-1 and 98BA-4 Boring 98BA-3 180 200 220 240 Velocity (moters/second) 0 20 40 60 80 100

• 120 140 160 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Vs Vp ........------

-370 "I 4 --R-R2 Vs BA 98-04 " S-Ri Vs BA 98-04 if --G-S-R_ _ VP -A 98-04 RI-R2 VSBA 99-0 '7* 4 *Rl*R2 VPBA 98.01 350 !1"S-RiVsBA98-01 I "----S.R1VPBA98-06 , -0Rt.R2 ida BA 98-0 330 .....~~~~ ~ Pa ... .... at .....310'.. ... 2310 * : .:. .. ... .-. : :,. ... I .. .+ ...... . 210 .... ..... ..9 0 270 .........-...-

.Average v loci t .. rof. le Vs "Aver"ge"velo

.. S. ..... ....... ..i'. L.. .i ... ... ... ... .L ....... : ;, -.-.-.......

2 3 t : ! i i ..... ...... Si _: : i ,. .........

.... -' T --j -....... ....... ~~~~~. ..... ...r g v l c t ," 5 I .... : .. ..... ... ~..........

..... ...." " " :i : : :.... .. .. .. .... ....... ". .. "....... .. .... .. .. * .... ... 130 0 120 140 160 180 -200 220 240 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Velocity (leet/second)

Note: Average velocity profiles interpreted from data. R1 -R2 = Receiver-lo-receiver veiocity (3.3-foot spacing) S-R1 = Source-10-receiver velocity (10.3-ioot spacing)Velocity (meters/second) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Vs Vp 3500 4000 i-RR2 Vs --...... .. " .. " "-0 -S-RI Vs --o-S-RI Vp 2 " 7 320 300 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 a ....... ....:..6 7 "-i 7- ..... S. .. ... ... I " " I "' : " .. .... ... ... .. : ... .. ........

S* .. .. .. ---......

.. ....... .* .. Average velocity profile Vs Average velocity profile vp 100

• _ _An 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Velocily (feet/second)

Modhiked fion GeoVis.oo (1998). OCPP ISFSi SAR Secton 26 Top,=ai RepOrt AppenOx C DIABLO CANYON ISFSI FIGURE 21-42 ISFSI SITE SUSPENSION LOGS AND INTERPRETED AVERAGE SEISMIC VELOCITIES GE0 OCPP01i21 REV O OCic iS, .2cLLJ Page 163 of 162 0 0 0 i b z -....... .:.. .... ...... ... ... ... ...... ...24... .0l ....i; ' " C) hi 0 '*11 1 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page 5C of 65 GEO.DCPP.O 1.24 P32e 31 REVISION : 10r, 10," 2.0 r Shear Strain (%) 10W 10" Figure Q19-22 Variation of shear modulus with shear strain for the site rock based on 1978 laboratory test data.PAGE 5 " OF SPacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Power Plant Long Term Seismic Programto 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0 .C E z 0.4 0.2 0 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, of 65 GEO.DCPP.01.

24 Paqe 32 REVISION +/-Shear Strain (.) 10 .2 10.2 10"*Figure Q19-23 Variation of damping ratio with shear strain for the site rock based on 1977 laboratory test data.PAGE G OF 6 " Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Power Plant Long Term Seismic Program 25 20 0 rr 5 [0 Co Cu 0 1o")

Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page (VO of 65 GEO.DCPP.0

1. 4 REVISION L ATTACHMENT J PAGE 5 7 OF 62 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page (o of 65 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geosciences 245 Market Street, Room 4 18B GEO.DCPP.01.2-4 Mail Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 REVISION " 415/973-2792 Fax 415/973-5778 SDR. FAIZ MAKDISI GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS 2101 WEBSTER STREET OAKLAND, CA 94612 October 31, 2001 Re: Confirmation of preliminary inputs to calculations for DCPP ISFSI site DR. MAKDISI: A number of inputs to calculations for the DCPP ISFSI slope stability analyses have been provided to you in a preliminary fashion. This letter provides confirmation of those inputs in a formal transmittal.

A description of the preliminary inputs and their formal confirmation follow. Letter to Faiz Makdisi from Rob White dated June 24, 2001.

Subject:

Recommended rock strength design parameters for DCPP ISFSI site slope stability analyses.

This letter recommended using = 50 degrees for the preliminary rock strength envelope in your stability analyses, and indicated that this value would be confirmed once calculations had been finalized and approved.

Calculations GEO.DCPP.0 1.16, rev. 0, and GEO.DCPP.01.19, rev. 0, are approved and this recommended value is confirmed.

Letter to Faiz Makdisi from Rob White dated September 28, 2001.

Subject:

Confirmation of transmittal of inputs for DCPP ISFSI slope stability analyses.

This letter provided confirmation of transmittal of cross section I-I' and time histories, and indicated that these preliminary inputs would be confirmed once calculations had been approved.

Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.21, rev. 0, is approved and section I-I' as described in the September 28 letter is confirmed.

A copy of the figure from the approved calculation is attached.

Calculations GEO.DCPP.0 1.13, rev. 1, and GEO.DCPP.0 1.14, rev. 1, are both approved and time histories as described in the September 28 letter are confirmed.

A CD of the time histories from the approved calculations is attached.

PAGE 608 OF 6)ptrr2fin3.doc:rkw:

10/31/01 page 1 of 2 Faiz Makdisi Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page (V- of 65 Confirmation of preliminary inputs to calculations for DCPP ISFSI site GEO.DCPP.01.2, 4 Email to Faiz Makdisi from Joseph Sun dated October 24, 2001. Subjq(EVISION I Ground motion parameters for back calculations.

This email provided input for a back calculation to assess conservatism in clay bed properties in the slope. Inputs included maximum displacement per event of 4 inches and a factor of 1.6 with which to multiply ground motions for use in the back calculation analysis.

This letter confirms those input values, with the following limitation:

these values have not been developed under an approved calculation, therefore should not be used to directly determine clay bed properties for use in forward analyses, but may be used for comparative purposes only, to assess the level of conservatism in those clay bed properties determined in approved calculations Letter to Faiz Makdisi from Jeff Bachhuber dated October 10, 2001.

Subject:

Transmittal of Revised Rock Mass Failure Models -DCPP ISFSI Project.

This letter provided you with figures indicating potential rock mass failure models as superimposed on section I-I'. This letter confirms PG&E approval to use these models in your analyses.

These figures are labeled drafts and are currently being finalized in a revision to Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.21.

Once this revision and the included figures have been approved, I will inform you in writing of their status. ROBERT K. WHITE Attachments PAGE O9 OF bc page 2 of 2 F40 N59gW-I S-.a z. ?i at DsbI, Creek 0 25 50 75 100leel Scale DIABLO CANYON ISFSI FIGURE 21-22a ull CROSS SECTION I-r GEO 0CPP01 21 AEý 0 Pagc 143a ol 162 C , 5200 S C) o m z b 350 300-250 S200-150---350-300-250 -200 -150 100-0 til 0 C.50s-3. tJ1 -3 0 0 -1 0-100-50 Calculation 52.27.100.734, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Page (._k of 65 LiL z 0 z >-) 0 -J E0 m a<0 V0 Fw 0 cc2 u0 GEO.DCPP.O

1. 4 REVISION I C-) 0 8-PAGE6I OF 6c O 6D (1"11) 1--113 Inltersecltn D D Clay bed an Ireich T- 15 Projecled to 01-I S e c WI Gn-450 -400-350 -300-250 -200 400 0 35o 250 50 So-r I00-0 25 50 7, 100 leel DIABLO CANYON ISFSI FIGURE 21-22c CROSS SECTION i-vI fl 162 .C.) Zco <6002 550 500 --N591W-1-600-550 -500-150 ToIlj 1-3 p