Text

Supplemental Slope Stability Responses to Additional NRC Questions for Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Storage Installation Application, Attachment a - Attachment 5
	ML031000509
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	03/27/2003
From:	Womack L; 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-03-004, TAC L23399
	Download: ML031000509 (162)
	v • d • e

Page41 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A IMLModltrans.out TABLE NO.

I COMPUTER PROGRAM DESIGNaTION: UTEXAS4 Originally Coded By Stephen G. Wright Version No. 4.0.0.8 -

- o****e**e********************e**e*******eo*oe***ee**e*e****e***e**e*

RESULTS OF COMPUTATIONS PERFORMED USING THIS SOFTWaRE

SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DESIGN PURPOSES UNLESS THEY EAVE

BEEN VERIFIED BY IMDEPENDENT ANALYSES, ERIMENTAL DATA

OR FIELD EXPERIENCE. THE USER SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE ALGORITHMS *

AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES USED IN THIS SOFTWARE AND MUST HAVE

READ ALL DOCUMENTATION FOR THIS SOFTWARE BEFORE ATTEMPTING

TO USE IT.

NEITHER S8INOAR SOFTWARE NOR STEPHEN G. WRIGHT

MAME OR ASSUME LIABILITY FOR ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR

IMPLIED, CONCERNING THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, USEFULNESS

OR ADAPTABILITY OF THIS SOFTWARE.

UTEXAS4 SN:00107 - Versions 4.0.0.8 -

Latest Revisions 07/27/2001 Licensed for use by: Larry Scheibel, Geomatrlx Consultants Time and date of run: Wed Mar 12 17:17:35 2003 Name of input data file: It\\Project\\6000s\\6427.006\\.tabLilty\\HM Utexas4 \\MRLModl-trans.dat SECTION K-M' MODEL 1 STATIC STABILITY AND YIELD ACCELERATION WITH TRANSPORTER MASS TABLE NO. 3

NEW PROFILE LINE DATA *

Profile Line No. 1 -

Material Type (Number): I -----

==

Description:==

Tofb-2 Obispo Formation Point X

Y 1

0.00 139.00 2

36.00 142.00 3

69.00 146.00 4

88.00 152.00 5

95.00 153.00 6

100.00 152.00 7

114.00 146.00 8

119.00 145.00 9

124.00 147.00 10 128.00 150.00 11 137.00 174.00 12 142.00 181.00

Page 42 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Atachmcnt A UTEXAS4 8S/300107 - Versions 4.0.0.8 -

Latest Revisions 07/27/2001 Licensed for use by: Larry Scheibel, Geomatrix Consultants Time and date of run: Wed Mar 12 17:17s35 2003 Name of input data file: Is\\Project\\6000s\\6427.006\\stability\\MM Utexas4\\WMjfoad1_trans.dat SECTION M-M': MODEL Is With Transporters Short Term Static Stability TABLE NO. 41 Critical Noncircular Shear Surface I:

K:

CRITICAL 168.25 168.93 173.24 190.14 201.00 231.00 252.00 275.00 300.01 320.20 366.00 NONCIRCULAR SHEAR Ys 221.82 Ts 221.50 Ys 220.06 Ys 216.12 Y:

215.03 Y:

216.04 Y:

217.06 Y:

219.10 Ys 222.07 Y:

225.21 Ys 283.00 SURFACE *****

Minimum factor of safetyt 2.35 Side force inclination: 13.61 Time required to find most critical surface:

18.0 seconds number of passes required to find most critical surfaces 36 Total number of shear surfaces attempted: 756 Total number of shear surfaces for which the factor of safety was successfully calculated: 756 PasI

1. 1 21 31 41 5 1 61 7

91 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Shift Distance 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Max. Dist.

Pt.

Moved 4

10 3

4 4

4 3

3 2

I 1

1 2

1 1

2 2.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Minimum F

2.5513 2.4668 2.4597 2.4541 2.4526 2.4451 1

2.4432 2.4370 2.4295 2.4258 2.4221 2.4187 1 2.4147 F 2.4095 1

2.4065 I

2.4015 1

n Tried Computed 21 42 63 84 105 126 147 168 189 210 231 252 273 294 315 336 21 42 63 84 105 126 147 168 189 210 231 252 273 294 315 336

Page 43 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A UTEXAS4 S/00107 - Version: 4.0.0.8 -

Latest Revisiont 07/27/2001 Licensed for use by: Larry Scheibel, Geomatrix Consultants Tine and date of runs Wed Mar 12 17s17:35 2003 Name of input data files I:\\Project\\6000s\\6427.006\\stability\\HM Utexas4\\HNLMod1-trans.dat SECTION M-M': MODEL 1: With Transporter: Seismic Coefficient -

0.33g TABLE NO. 58

Final Results for Stresses Along the Shear Surface

(Results are for the critical shear surface in the case of a search.)

SPENCER'B PROCEDCRE USED TO COMPUTE THE FACTOR OF SAFETY Factor of Safetys 1.005 Side Force Inclination:

32.22

VALUES AT CENTER OF BASE OF SLICE --------

Total Effective slice Normal Nor-ml Shear No.

X-Center T-Center Stress Stress Stress 1

168.59 221.66 2365.8 2365.8 1491.9 2

168.97 221.49 1880.4 1880.4 1491.9 3

170.50 220.98 1975.1 1975.1 1491.9 4

172.62 220.27 2105.8 2105.8 1491.9 5

173.62 219.97 1825.0 1825.0 1491.9 6

176.64 219.27 2084.9 2084.9 1491.9 7

180.64 218.33 3961.2 3961.2 2983.8 a

182.50 217.90 4120.7 4120.7 2983.8 9

184.79 217.37 4282.2 4282.2 2983.8 10 188.35 216.54 4534.4 4534.4 2983.8 11 192.85 215.85 3961.0 3961.0 2983.8 12 198.29 215.30 4240.3 4240.3 2983.8 13 201.03 215.03 3627.1 3627.1 2983.8 14 202.03 215.06 2750.5 2750.5 1422.7 15 205.50 215.18 2953.6 2953.6 1527.7 16 210.50 215.35 3216.6 3216.6 1609.4 17 215.50 215.52 3475.8 3475.8 1684.6 18 221.00 215.70 3793.2 3793.2 1776.6 19 227.00 215.91 4168.6 4168.6 1885.5 20 230.50 216.02 4391.5 4391.5 1950.1 21 231.50 216.06 4381.1 4381.1 1960.7 22 234.50 216.21 4567.6 4567.6 2015.2 23 238.00 216.38 4762.7 4762.7 2072.3 24 241.25 216.54 4880.2 4880.2 2106.7 25 245.75 216.76 5043.0 5043.0 2154.3 26 248.50 216.89 5138.1 5138.1 2182.2 27 250.50 216.99 5209.3 5209.3 2203.0

Page 44 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A MMLModl.dat GRAphlcs output mZAding follows -

SECTION K-X' MODEL I STATIC STABILITY AND YIELD ACCELERATION WITHOUT TRANSPORTER MASS PROfile line data follow -

1 1 Tofb-2 Obispo Formati4on 0.0 139.0 36.0 142.0 69.0 146.0 88.0 152.0 95.0 153.0 100.0 152.0 114.0 146.0 119.0 145.0 124.0 147.0 128.0 150.0 137.0 174.0 142.0 181.0 201.0 215.0 231.0 216.0 252.0 217.0 275.0 219.0 300.0 222.0 327.0 225.0 352.0 228.0 380.0 231.0 410.0 235.0 473.0 244.0 2 2 Clay Bed 201.0 215.0 203.0 216.0 231.0 217.0 252.0 218.0 275.0 220.0 300.0 223.0 327.0 226.0 352.0 229.0 380.0 232.0 410.0 236.0 473.0 245.0 473.0 244.0 3 1 Tofb-2 Obispo 203.0 216.0 231.0 232.0 263.0 233.0 284.0 234.5 306.0 237.0 331.0 240.0 FozMatiozi

Page 45 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Atutchment A 359.0 244.0 407.0 250.0 4 2 Clay Bead 231.0 232.0 232.0 232.5 263.0 233.5 284.0 235.0 306.0 237.5 331.0 240.5 359.0 244.5 407.0 250.5 407.0 250.0 5 1 Tofb-2 Obispo 232.0 232.5 248.0 239.0 264.0 239.5 289.0 241.5 311.0 244.0 335.0 247.0 358.0 250.0 405.0 256.0 6 2 Clay Bed 248.0 239.0 249.0 239.5 264.0 240.0 289.0 242.0 311.0 244.5 335.0 247.5 358.0 250.5 405.0 256.5 405.0 256.0 Formation 7 1 Tofb-2 Obiepo 249.0 239.5 262.0 246.0 284.0 262.0 311.0 266.0 341.0 270.0 368.0 273.0 410.0 279.0 472.0 288.0 Formation 8 2 Clay Bed 284.0 262.0 285.5 263.0 311.0 267.0 341.0 271.0 368.0 274.0 410.0 280.0 472.0 289.0 472.0 288.0

Page 46 of 84 GEO.DCPP.OI 28, Rev. 3 Attachment A 9 1 Tofb-2 Obispo 285.5 263.0 305.0 275.0 311.0 279.0 316.0 280.0 343.0 282.0 357.0 282.0 368.6 282.0 376.0 286.0 382.0 293.0 388.0 296.0 410.0 301.0 415.0 303.0 439.0 308.0 457.0 312.0 478.0 316.0 500.0 319.0 538.0 325.0 572.0 330.0 600.0 333.0 ForMation 10 3 Qpf Pleistocene Colluvium 0.0 170.0 13.0 175.0 37.0 182.0 54.0 185.0 70.0 187.0 94.0 193.0 100.0 195.0 113.0 199.0 132.0 205.0 172.0 216.0 183.0 220.0 208.0 234.0 239.0 248.0 287.0 268.0 303.0 278.0 309.0 282.0 313.0 283.0 343.0 282.0 11 4 Qc Quaternary Colluvium 0.0 179.0 7.0 182.0 20.0 185.0 42.0 188.0 68.0 195.0 90.0 200.0 100.0 203.0 108.0 206.0 125.0 211.0 141.0 215.0 148.0 217.0 169.0 222.0 174.0 223.0

Page 47 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A 182.0 228.0 203.0 237.0 218.0 243.0 230.0 249.0 237.0 253.0 253.0 258.0 273.0 266.0 285.0 271.0 298.0 279.0 306.0 283.0 312.0 285.5 314.0 286.0 317.0 285.0 320.0 283.0 323.0 286.0 363.0 286.0 366.0 283.0 369.0 285.0 377.0 290.0 382.0 293.0 NATerial property data follow (for first stage) -

1 Tofb-2 Obispo Formation 140 = total unit weight Conventional shear strength 0.0 50.0 No Pore Pressure 2 clay Bead 115 = total unit weight Nonlinear strength envelope

-100000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2793.7 1548.5 100000.0 27594.9 No pore pressure 3 Qpf Pleistocene colluvium 115 a total unit weight Conventional shear strength 3000.0 0.0 No pore pressure 4 QC Quaternary Colluvium 115 - total unit weight Conventional shear strength 1500.0 0.0 No pore pressure SECond stage input activated XMTerial property data follow (for second stage) -

1 Tofb-2 Obispo Formation 140 = total I-oit weight Conventional shear strength 0.0 50.0 No pore pressure

Page 48 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A 2 Clay Bed 115 = total unit weight 2-stage nonlinear strength envelope

-100000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2793.7 1548.5 1548.5 100000.0 27594.9 27594.9 No pore pressure 3 Qp£f leistocene colluvium 115 = total unit weight conventional shear strength 3000.0 0.0 No pore pressure 4 Qc Quaternary Colluvium 115 - total unit weight Conventional shear strength 1500.0 0.0 No pore pressure MElding follows -

SECTION H-N': MODEL 1: Without Transporter: Short Term Static Stability ANslysislcomputation data follow -

Noncircular Search 148.0 217.0 168.0 216.0 172.0 216.0 190.0 215.0 201.0 215.0 231.0 216.1 252.0 217.1 275.0 219.1 300.0 222.1 317.0 225.5 366.0 283.0 fixed 2.0 0.1 ITErations 1000 COMpute HEAding follows -

SECTION M-M': MODEL 1: Without Transporter: Seismic Coefficient

0.35g ANAlysis/computation data follow -

Non-circular 167.46 221.63 169.06 220.84 172.84 219.51 190.08 215.75 201.00 215.04 231.00 216.00 252.01 217.03

Page 49 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A 275.01 219.04 300.01 222.03 317.43 224.88 366.00 283.00 TWO stage computatio a SEIsmic coefficient 0.35 Compute

Page 50 of 84 GEO.DCPP.018, Rev. 3 Attachment A MHCj.od1.cout TABLE NO.

1 COMPUTER PROGRAM DESIGNATXONs UTEXAS4 Originally Coded By Stephen G. Wright Version No. 4.0.0.8 -

RESULTS OF COMPUTATIONS PERFORMED USING THIS SOFTWARE

SROULD NOT BE USED FOR DESIGN PURPOSES UNLESS THEY RAVE

BEEN VERIFIED BY INDEPENDENT ANALYSES, EXPERINENTAL DATA

OR FIELD EXPERIENCE. THE USER SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE ALGORITHMS *

AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES USED IN THIS SOFTWARE AND MUST HAVE

READ ALL DOCUMENTATION FOR THIS SOFTWARE BEFORE ATTEMPTING

TO USE IT.

NEITHER SHINOAK SOFTWARE NOR STEPHEN G.

WRIGHT AHUE OR ASSUNE LIABILITY FOR ANY MARRMATIES, EXPRESSED OR

IMPLIED, CONCERNING THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, USEFULNESS

OR ADAPTABILITY OF THIS SOFTWARE.

UTEXAS4 S/Nz00107

- Version: 4.0.0.8 -

Latest Revisions 07/27/2001 Licensed for use by: Larry Scheibel, Geomatrix Consultants Time and date of run: Wed Mar 12 18904:50 2003 Name of input data file:

X:\\Project%6000s\\6427.006\\stablity\\HM Utexas4 \\IMLodl.dat SECTION M-M' MODEL 1 STATIC STABILITY AND YIELD ACCELERATION WITHOUT TRANSPORTER MASS TABLE NO.

3

*a* ************ae**********a

NEW PROFILE LINE DATA

aa****a*****a***a*aaa****

Profile Line No. 1 -

Material Type (Number): I -----

==

Description:==

Tofb-2 Obispo Formation Point X

Y 1

0.00 139.00 2

36.00 142.00 3

69.00 146.00 4

88.00 152.00 5

95.00 153.00 6

100.00 152.00 7

114.00 146.00 8

119.00 145.00 9

124.00 147.00 10 128.00 150.00 11 137.00 174.00 12 142.00 181.00 13 201.00 215.00

Page SI of84 GEO.DCPP01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A ITZXAS4 8/Nt00107

- Version: 4.0.0.8 - Latest Revision: 07/27/2001 Licensed for use by: Larry Scheibel, Geomatrix Consultants Time and date of run: Wed Mar 12 18S04S50 2003 Name of input data file: :\\tProject\\6000s\\6427.006\\stability\\MM Utteas4e4\\HMNodl.dat SECTION M-MK' MODEL 1: Without Transporter: Short Term Static Stability TABLE NO. 41

C*i***********o*************h**********

Critical Noncircular Shear Surface*

- - - - o o a.o********

Xi Xs Xs Xi Xt X:

Xt Xs Xt X:

CRITICAL 167.46 169.06 172.84 190.08 201.00 231.00 252.01 275.01 300.01 317.43 366.00 NONCIRCULAR SEEAR Ti 221.63 Yt 220.84 Y:

219.51 Y:

215.75 YT 215.04 Ts 216.00

r.

217.03 rS 219.04 Ys 222.03 Ti 224.88

r.

283.00 SURFACE *****

Mini=um factor of safety: 2.48 Side force inclination: 12.97 Time required to find most critical surface:

17.0 seconds Number of passes required to find most critical surfaces 33 Total number of shear surfaces attempted: 693 Total number of shear surfaces for which the factor of safety was successfully calculated: 692 Pass 1

2 3

4 S

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Shift Distance 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 I

I Max. Dist.

Pt.

Moved 4

2.000 10 1.000 4

1.000 4

1.000 1

1.000 1 MiSnimum F

2.7419 2.6032 2.5932 2.5915 2.5854 2.5814 2.5768 2.5720 2.5673 2.5630 2.5588 2.5550 2.5517 2.5492 2.5451 2.5407 n

n Tried Computed 21 42 63 84 105 126 147 168 189 210 231 252 273 294 315 336 20 41 62 83 104 125 146 167 188 209 230 251 272 293 314 335

Page 52 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A UTEXAS4 S/N300107

- Version: 4.0.0.8 - Latest Revisions 07/27/2001 Licensed for use bys Larry Scheibel, Geomatriz Consultants Time and date of runs Wed Mar 12 18:04s50 2003 Name of input data file: I\\Project\\6000s\\6427.006\\stabilityUM Utexcas4\\IMLJodI.dat SECTION M-M's MODEL 1s Without Transporters Seismic Coefficient - 0.35g TABLE NO. 58

Final Results for Stresses Along the Shear Surface

(Results are for the critical shear surface in the case of a search.)

SPENCER'S PROCEDWRE USED TO COMPU5E TEE FACTOR OF SAFETY Factor of Safety: 0.997 Side Force Inclinations 32.13

VALUES AT CENTER OF BASE OF SLICE --------

Total Effective slice Normal Normal Shear No.

X-Center Y-Center Stress Stress Stress 1

168.23 221.25 2520.7 2520.7 1504.9 2

169.03 220.85 2596.9 2596.9 1504.9 3

170.53 220.32 2121.5 2121.5 1504.9 4

172.42 219.66 2241.6 2241.6 1504.9 5

173.42 219.38 1839.5 1839.5 1504.9 6

176.17 218.78 2055.2 2055.2 1504.9 7

180.17 217.91 3881.4 3881.4 3009.8 8

182.50 217.40 4075.0 4075.0 3009.8 9

184.77 216.91 4227.6 4227.6 3009.8 10 188.31 216.14 4465.6 4465.6 3009.8 11 192.81 215.57 3770.7 3770.7 3009.8 12 198.27 215.22 4022.8 4022.8 3009.8 13 201.04 215.04 3616.3 3616.3 3009.8 14 202.04 215.07 2727.3 2727.3 1428.7 15 205.50 215.18 2928.9 2928.9 1534.3 16 210.50 215.34 3192.2 3192.2 1620.4 17 215.50 215.50 3449.7 3449.7 1696.4 18 221.00 215.68 3764.7 3764.7 1789.3 19 227.00 215.87 4137.4 4137.4 1899.3 20 230.50 215.98 4358.6 4358.6 1964.5 21 231.50 216.02 4337.7 4337.7 1974.6 22 234.50 216.17 4521.7 4521.7 2029.5 23 238.00 216.34 4714.2 4714.2 2086.9 24 241.25 216.50 4830.2 4830.2 2121.4 25 245.75 216.72 4990.7 4990.7 2169.3 26 248.50 216.86 5084.6 5084.6 2197.3 27 250.50 216.96 5154.8 5154.8 2218.2

Page 53 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A FZLMod2_trans.dat GRAphics output EMAding follows -

SECTION H-M' MODEL 2 STATIC STABILITY WITH TRANSPORTER PROfile line data folli 1 1 Tofb-2 Obispo 0.0 139.0 36.0 142.0 69.0 146.0 88.0 152.0 95.0 153.0 100.0 152.0 114.0 146.0 119.0 145.0 124.0 147.0 128.0 150.0 137.0 174.0 142.0 181.0 201.0 215.0 231.0 216.0 252.0 217.0 275.0 219.0 300.0 222.0 327.0 225.0 352.0 229.0 380.0 231.0 410.0 235.0 473.0 244.0 AND YIELD ACCELERATION MASS Formation 2 2 Clay Bed 201.0 215.0 203.0 216.0 231.0 217.0 252.0 218.0 275.0 220.0 300.0 223.0 327.0 226.0 352.0 229.0 380.0 232.0 410.0 236.0 473.0 245.0 473.0 244.0 3 1 Tofb-2 Obispo 203.0 216.0 231.0 232.0 263.0 233.0 284.0 234.5 306.0 237.0 Formation

Page 54 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A 331.0 359.0 407.0 240.0 244.0 250.0 4 2 Clay Bad 231.0 232.0 232.0 232.5 263.0 233.5 284.0 235.0 306.0 237.S 331.0 240.5 3S9.0 244.5 407.0 250.5 407.0 250.0 5 1 Tofb-2 Obispo 232.0 232.5 248.0 239.0 264.0 239.5 289.0 241.5 311.0 244.0 335.0 247.0 358.0 250.0 405.0 256.0 6 2 Clay Bed 248.0 239.0 249.0 239.5 264.0 240.0 289.0 242.0 311.0 244.5 335.0 247.5 358.0 250.5 405.0 256.5 405.0 256.0 Formation 7 1 Tofb-2 Obispo 249.0 239.5 262.0 246.0 284.0 262.0 311.0 266.0 341.0 270.0 368.0 273.0 410.0 279.0 472.0 288.0 8 2 Clay Bed 284.0 262.0 285.5 263.0 311.0 267.0 341.0 271.0 368.0 274.0 410.0 280.0 472.0 289.0 Formation

Page 55 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A 472.0 288.0 9 1 Tofb-2 Obispo 285.5 263.0 305.0 275.0 311.0 279.0 316.0 280.0 343.0 282.0 357.0 282.0 368.6 282.0 376.0 286.0 382.0 293.0 388.0 296.0 410.0 301.0 415.0 303.0 439.0 308.0 457.0 312.0 478.0 316.0 500.0 319.0 538.0 325.0 572.0 330.0 600.0 333.0 Formation 10 3 Qpf Pleistocene Colluvium 0.0 170.0 13.0 175.0 37.0 182.0 54.0 185.0 70.0 187.0 94.0 193.0 100.0 195.0 113.0 199.0 132.0 205.0 172.0 216.0 183.0 220.0 208.0 234.0 239.0 248.0 287.0 268.0 303.0 278.0 309.0 282.0 313.0 283.0 343.0 282.0 11 4 Qc Quateruary Colluvium 0.0 179.0 7.0 182.0 20.0 185.0 42.0 188.0 68.0 195.0 90.0 200.0 100.0 203.0 108.0 206.0 125.0 211.0 141.0 215.0 148.0 217.0

Page 56 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A 169.0 174.0 182.0 203.0 218.0 230.0 237.0 253.0 273.0 285.0 298.0 306.0 312.0 314.0 317.0 320.0 323.0 363.0 366.0 369.0 377.0 382.0 222.0 223.0 228.0 237.0 243.0 249.0 253.0 258.0 266.0 271.0 279.0 283.0 285.5 286.0 285.0 283.0 286.0 286.0 283.0 285. 0 290.0 293.0 12 5 Transporter Mass 334.0 286.0 334.0 298.0 352.0 298.0 352.0 286.0 MATerial property data follow (for first stage) 1 Tofb-2 Obispo Formation 140 e total unit weight Conventional shear strength 0.0 50.0 No Pore Pressure 2 Clay Bed 115 a total unit weight Nonlinear strength envelope

-100000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2793.7 1548.5 100000.0 27594.9 No pore pressure 3 Qpf Pleistocene collurium 115 - total unit weight conventional shear strength 3000.0 0.0 No pore pressure 4 Qc Quaternary Colluvium 115 -

total unit weight Conventional shear strength 1500.0 0.0

Page 57 of 84 GEO.DCPP.0118, Rev. 3 Attachment A so pore pressure 5 Transporter Mass 150 - total unit weight Very strong SECond stage input activated MATerial property data follow (for second stage)

I Tofb-2 Obispo Formation 140 m total unoit weight Conventional shear strength 0.0 50.0 No pore pressure 2 Clay Bed 115 = total unit weight 2-stage nonlinear strength envelope

-100000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2793.7 1548.5 1548.5 100000.0 27594.9 27594.9 No pore pressure 3 Qpf Pleistocene colluvium 115 -

total unit weight conventional shear strength 3000.0 0.0 No pore pressure 4 Qp Quaternary Colluvium 115 = total unit weight Conventional shear strength 1500.0 0.0 No pore pressure 5 Transporter Mats 150 - Total unit weight Very Strong HERdIng follows -

SECTION X-M': NMDEL 2s With Transporter: Short Term Static Stability ANAlysis/computation data follow -

Noncircular Search 148.0 217.0 168.0 216.0 172.0 216.0 190.0 215.0 201.0 215.0 231.0 216.1 252.0 217.1 268.0 233.3 284.0 234.6 291.0 241.8 305.0 243.6 326.0 268.2 341.0 270.1 358.0 272.5 366.0 283.0 fixed

Page 58 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachmcnt A 2.0 0.1 ITErations 1000 COMpute Emlding follows -

SECTION M-MK' MODEL 2: With Transporter: SeismLc Coefficient -

0.44g ANAlysis/computation data follow -

Non-circular 152.50 218.07 167.84 216.05 172.11 216.32 189.97 214.06 201.02 215.05 231.01 216.07 251.52 217.97 267.97 233.36 283.80 234.95 291.06 241.74 304.89 243.77 326.12 268.02 341.01 270.07 357.74 272.84 366.00 283.00 TWO stage computations SEIsmic coefficient 0.44 COMpute

Page 59 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A HMMod2_trans.out TABLE NO.

RESULTS OF COMPUTATIONS PERFORMED USING THIS SOFTWThRE

SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DESIGN PURPOSES UNLESS THEY HAVE

BEEN VERIFIED BY INDEPENDENT ANALYSES, EXPERINAL DATA

OR FIELD EXPERIENCE. THE USER SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE ALGORITHMS *

AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES USED IN THIS SOFTWARE AND MUST HAVE

READ ALL DOCUMENTATION' FOR THIS SOFTWARE BEFORE ATTEMPTING

TO USE IT.

NEITHER SHINOAK SOF T=RE NOR STEPHEN G. WRIGHT

MARE OR ASSUNE LIABILITY FOR ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR a IMPLIED, CONCERNING THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, USEFULNESS a OR ADAPTABILITY OF THIS SOFTWARE.

- - - - aa*********a*************

UTEXAS4 S/N:00107 -

Versions 4.0.0.8 -

Latest Revision: 07/27/2001 Licensed for use bys Larry Scheibel, Geomatrix Consultants Time and date of runs Thu Mar 13 07:25:36 2003 Name of input data files I:%Project%6000s\\6427.006\\stability\\NM Utexas4 \\HLgod2.trans.dat SECTION K-M' MODEL 2 STATIC STABILITY AND YIELD ACCELERATION WITH TRANSPORTER MASS TABLE NO. 3 N W PROFILE LINE DATA *

Profile Line No.

1 - Material Type (Number)s Descriptions Tofb-2 Obispo Formation Point X

Y 1

0.00 139.00 2

36.00 142.00 3

69.00 146.00 4

88.00 152.00 5

95.00 153.00 6

100.00 152.00 7

114.00 146.00 8

119.00 145.00 9

124.00 147.00 10 128.00 150.00 11 137.00 174.00

Page 60 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attadcment A UTEXAS4 S/N:00107 - Versions 4.0.0.8 -

Latest Revisions 07/27/2001 Licensed for use bys Larry Schelbel, Geomatrix Consultants Time and date of runs Thu Mar 13 07s25:36 2003 Name of input data files Is\\Project\\6000s\\6427.006\\stabhlity\\MM Utexas4\\ MLJod2_trans.dat SECTION M-M't MODEL 2s With Transporters Short Term Static Stability TABILE NO.

41 Critical NoncLrcular Shear Surface Xi Xi K:

Xi K:

Xs K:

Xi Xt X:

Xs CRITICAL 152.S5 167.84 172.11 189.97 201.02 231.01 251.52 267.97 283.80 291.06 304.89 326.12 341.01 357.74 366.00 KONCIRCULAR SEAR Ys 218.07 YT 216.05 Ys 216.32 YT 214.06 YT 215.05 r:

216.07 Y:

217.97 Yt 233.36 Ti 234.95 YT 241.74 Ys 243.77 Ys 268.02 Yi 270.07 Ts 272.84

r.

283.00 SURFACE *****

Minimum factor of safetys 2.7B Side force inclinations 15.19 Time required to find most critical surfaces 12.0 seconds Number of passes required to find most critical surfaces 19 Total number of shear surfaces attempteds 5S1 Total number of shear surfaces for which the factor of safety was successfully calculateds 546 Pass 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 Shift Distance 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.2500 0.2500 Pt.

4 7

3 10 12 13 1

5 13 7

1 1

Maz. Dist.

Moved 2.000 1.000 1.000 I 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.250 0.250 minimum F

2.9517 2.8786 2.8786 2.8564 2.8435 2.8381 2.8377 2.8252 2.8186 2.8186 2.8115 2.8115 n

n Tried Computed 29 S8 87 116 145 174 203 232 261 290 319 348 26 53 82 111 140 169 198 227 256 285 314 343

Page 61 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A UTEXAS4 S/Na00107 -

Version: 4.0.0.8 - Latest Revisions 07/27/2001 Licensed for use bys Larry Scheibel, Go-atriz Consultants Time and date of runs Thu Mar 13 07s25s36 2003 Name of input data file: Z:\\Project\\6000s\\6427.006\\stabilty\\NM Utexas4\\MWLUod2_trans.dat SECTION M-M't MODEL 2: With Transporter: Seismic Coefficient a 0.44g TABLE NO. 58

Final Results for Stresses Along the Shear Surface

(Results are for the critical shear surface in the case of a search.)

SPENCER'S PROCEDURE USED TO COMPUTE THE FACTOR OF SAFETY Factor of Safetys 0.995 Side Force Inclinationt 31.53

VALUES AT CENTER OF BASE OF SLICE --------

Total Effective Slice Normal Normal Shear No.

X-Center Y-Center Stress Stress Stress 1

155.05 217.73 1308.7 1308.7 1507.8 2

160.17 217.06 1481.4 1481.4 1507.8 3

165.28 216.39 1654.1 1654.1 1507.8 4

168.42 216.09 1265.4 1265.4 1507.8 5

170.50 216.22 1290.2 1290.2 1507.8 6

172.06 216.32 1307.4 1307.4 1507.8 7

172.40 216.28 1791.8 1791.8 1507.8 8

173.34 216.16 3029.6 3029.6 3015.7 9

176.00 215.83 3186.0 3186.0 3015.7 10 180.00 215.32 3459.7 3459.7 3015.7 11 182.50 215.01 3621.8 3621.8 3015.7 12 186.49 214.50 3823.1 3823.1 3015.7 13 192.73 214.31 2953.1 2953.1 3015.7 14 198.24 214.80 3101.9 3101.9 3015.7 1S 201.01 215.05 3176.6 3176.6 3015.7 16 201.06 215.05 3448.5 3448.5 3015.7 17 202.05 215.09 2582.2 2582.2 1432.8 18 205.50 215.20 2771.9 2771.9 1538.1 19 210.50 215.37 3018.8 3018.8 1623.6 20 215.50 215.54 3260.2 3260.2 1699.4 21 221.00 215.73 3555.8 3555.8 1792.1 22 227.00 215.93 3905.5 3905.5 1901.9 23 230.50 216.05 4113.1 4113.1 1967.0 24 231.01 216.07 4146.0 4146.0 1977.4 25 231.51 216.12 3903.2 3903.2 1955.0 26 234.50 216.39 4057.0 4057.0 2005.0 27 238.00 216.72 4216.8 4216.8 2056.9

Page 62 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A HMMod2.dat GEAphics output HEading follows -

SECTION M-X' MODEL 2 STATIC STABILITY AND YIELD ACCELERATION WITHOUT TRANSPORTER MASS PROfile line data follow -

1 1 Tofb-2 Obiipo FormatLon 0.0 139.0 36.0 142.0 69.0 146.0 88.0 152.0 95.0 153.0 100.0 152.0 114.0 146.0 119.0 145.0 124.0 147.0 128.0 150.0 137.0 174.0 142.0 181.0 201.0 215.0 231.0 216.0 252.0 217.0 275.0 219.0 300.0 222.0 327.0 225.0 352.0 228.0 380.0 231.0 410.0 235.0 473.0 244.0 2 2 Clay Bed 201.0 215.0 203.0 216.0 231.0 217.0 252.0 218.0 275.0 220.0 300.0 223.0 327.0 226.0 352.0 229.0 380.0 232.0 410.0 236.0 473.0 245.0 473.0 244.0 3 1 Tofb-2 Obispo 203.0 216.0 231.0 232.0 263.0 233.0 284.0 234.5 306.0 237.0 331.0 240.0 Formation

Page 63 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A 359.0 244.0 407.0 250.0 4 2 Clay Bed 231.0 232.0 232.0 232.5 263.0 233.5 284.0 235.0 306.0 237.5 331.0 240.5 359.0 244.5 407.0 250.5 407.0 250.0 5 1 Tofb-2 Obispo 232.0 232.5 248.0 239.0 264.0 239.5 289.0 241.5 311.0 244.0 335.0 247.0 358.0 250.0 405.0 256.0 Formation 6 2 Clay Bed 248.0 239.0 249.0 239.5 264.0 240.0 289.0 242.0 311.0 244.5 335.0 247.5 358.0 250.5 405.0 256.5 405.0 256.0 7 1 Tofb-2 Obispo 249.0 239.5 262.0 246.0 284.0 262.0 311.0 266.0 341.0 270.0 368.0 273.0 410.0 279.0 472.0 288.0 Formation 8 2 Clay Bed 284.0 262.0 285.5 263.0 311.0 267.0 341.0 271.0 368.0 274.0 410.0 280.0 472.0 289.0 472.0 298.0

Page 64 of 84 GEO.DCPP.O1 28, Rev. 3 Attachment A 9 1 Tofb-2 Obispo 285.5 263.0 305.0 275.0 311.0 279.0 316.0 280.0 343.0 282.0 357.0 282.0 368.6 282.0 376.0 286.0 382.0 293.0 388.0 296.0 410.0 301.0 415.0 303.0 439.0 308.0 457.0 312.0 478.0 316.0 500.0 319.0 538.0 325.0 572.0 330.0 600.0 333.0 Formation.

10 3 Qpf Pleistocene Colluvlum 0.0 170.0 13.0 175.0 37.0 182.0 54.0 185.0 70.0 187.0 94.0 193.0 100.0 195.0 113.0 199.0 132.0 205.0 172.0 216.0 183.0 220.0 208.0 234.0 239.0 248.0 287.0 268.0 303.0 278.0 309.0 282.0 313.0 283.0 343.0 282.0 11 4 Qc Quatezzary Colluvium 0.0 179.0 7.0 182.0 20.0 185.0 42.0 188.0 68.0 19S.0 90.0 200.0 100.0 203.0 108.0 206.0 125.0 211.0 141.0 215.0 148.0 217.0 169.0 222.0 174.0 223.0

Page 65 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A 182.0 228.0 203.0 237.0 218.0 243.0 230.0 249.0 237.0 253.0 253.0 258.0 273.0 266.0 285.0 271.0 298.0 279.0 306.0 283.0 312.0 285.5 314.0 296.0 317.0 285.0 320.0 283.0 323.0 286.0 363.0 286.0 366.0 283.0 369.0 285.0 377.0 290.0 382.0 293.0 K&Terial property data follow (for first stage) -

1 Tofb-2 Obispo Formation 140 - total unit weight Conventional shear strength 0.0 50.0 No Pore Pressure 2 Clay Bad 115 = total unit weight Nonlinear strength envelope

-100000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2793.7 1548.5 100000.0 27594.9 No pore pressure 3 Qpf Pleistocene colluvLum 115 e total unit weight conventional shear strength 3000.0 0.0 No pore pressure 4 Qc Quaternary Colluvium 115 a total unit weight Conventional shear strength 1500.0 0.0 No pore pressure SECond stage input activated K&Terial property data follow (for second stage) 1 Tofb-2 Obispo Formation 140 a total unoit weight Conventional shear strength 0.0 50.0 No pore pressure

Page 66 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A 2 Clay Bed 115 - total unit weight 2-stage nonlinear strength envelope

-100000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2793.7 1548.5 1548.5 100000.0 27594.9 27594.9 No pore pressure 3 Qpf Pleistocene colluvium 115 - total unit weight conventional shear strength 3000.0 0.0 No pore pressure 4 Qc Quaternary Colluvium 115

total unit weight Conventional shear strength 1500.0 0.0 No pore pressure HEsRAng follows -

SECTION J-M's MODEL 2: Without Transporters Short Term Static Stability ANAlysis/computation data follow -

Noncircular Search 148.0 217.0 168.0 216.0 172.0 216.0 190.0 215.0 201.0 215.0 231.0 216.1 252.0 217.1 268.0 233.3 284.0 234.6 291.0 241.8 305.0 243.6 326.0 268.2 341.0 270.1 358.0 272.5 366.0 283.0 fixed 2.0 0.1 ITErations 1000 COMpute HEAding follows -

SECTION M-MKs MODEL 2s Without Transporters Seismic Coefficient - 0.45g XUlysis/computatLon data follow -

Nan-circular 151.47 217.83 167.85 215.93 172.11 216.19

Page 67 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A 189.97 201.02 231.01 251.56 267.96 283.78 291.03 304.87 326.10 340.88 357.77 366.00 214.00 215.00 216.04 217.91 233.38 234.98 241.79 243.80 268.05 270.97 272.82 283.00 TWO stage computations SEIsmic coefficient 0.45 COMpute

Page 68 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A KMumod2.out TABLE NO. 1 COMPUTER PROGRAM DESIGNATION:

UTEXAS4 Originally Coded By Stephen G. Wright Version No. 4.0.0.8 -

.aa a aaaaatca att*****atta*t**a Caca****C*

RESULTS OF COMPUTATIONS PERFORMED USING THIS SOFWARE

SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DESIGN PURPOSES UNLESS THEY HAVE

BEEN VERIFIED BY INDEPENDENT ANALYSES, EXPERI#ENTAL DATA

OR FIELD EXPERIENCE. THE USER SHoULD UNDERSTAND THE ALGORITEMS

AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES USED IN THIS SOFTWARE AND MUST HAVE

READ ALL DOCUMENTATION FOR THIS SOFTWARE BEFORE ATTEMPTING

TO USE IT.

NEITHER SHINOAK SOFTWARE NOR STEPHEN G. WRIGHT KASE OR ASSUME LIABILITY FOR ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR

IMPLIED, CONCERNING THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, USEFULNESS

OR ADAPTABILITY OF THIS SOFTWARE.

UTEXAS4 S/3:00107

- Versions 4.0.0.8 - Latest Revisions 07/27/2001 Licensed for use by: Larry Scheibel, Geomatriz Consultants Time and date of runs Thu Mar 13 07s59:05 2003 Name of input data files I:\\Project\\6000s\\6427.006\\stability\\MM Utezas4\\HMMJ~od2.dat SECTION M-M' MODEL 2 STATIC STABILITY AND YIELD ACCELERATION WITHOUT TRANSPORTER MASS TABLE NO. 3

.aaaaaaaaaaaaa*aaaaaaaaaa

NEW PROFILE LINE DATA

aaaaaaaaaa**aaaataaaaaaaa

Profile Line No. 1 -

Material Type (Number): I -----

Descriptions Tofb-2 Obispo Formation Point X

Y 1

0.00 139.00 2

36.00 142.00 3

69.00 146.00 4

88.00 152.00 5

95.00 153.00 6

100.00 152.00 7

114.00 146.00 8

119.00 145.00 9

124.00 147.00 10 128.00 150.00 11 137.00 174.00 12 142.00 181.00 13 201.00 215.00

Page 69 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rcv. 3 Attachment A UTEXAS4 S/N:00107 - Versions 4.0.0.8 - Latest Revision: 07/27/2001 Licensed for use bys Larry Scheibel, Geomatriz Consultants TEim and date of run: Thu Mar 13 07:59:05 2003 Name of input data file: 1:\\Project\\6000s\\6427.006\\stability\\MM Utexas4 \\ILIJod2.dat SECTION M-K': MODEL 2s Without Transporters Short Term Static Stability TABLE NO.

41 Critical Noncircular Shear Surface Xs Xs Xs Xt Xs X:

X:

Xs Xs X:

Xs K:

K:

CRITICAL 151.47 167.85 172.11 189.97 201.02 231.01 251.56 267.96 283.78 291.03 304.87 326.10 340.88 357.77 366.00 NONCIRCU14R SHEAR Ys 217.83 Ys 215.93

r.

216.19 Y:

214.00 Yt 215.00 Ys 216.04 Ys 217.91 Ys 233.38 Y:

234.98

r.

241.79 Ys 243.80 Ys 268.05 y:

270.97 Y:

272.82 Ys 283.00 SURFACE *****

Minimum factor of safety: 2.79 Side force inclinations 15.17 Time required to find most critical surface:

11.0 seconds Number of passes required to find most critical surface: 17 Total number of shear surfaces attempted: 493 Total number of shear surfaces for which the factor of safety was successfully calculated: 492 Pass 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 Shift Distance 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.1250 Nax. Dist.

Pt.

Moved 4

7 4

13 2

6 14 13 1

1 1

4 2.000 1.000 1.000 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.125 Min imu F

2.9532 2.8794 2.8794 2.8554 2.8537 2.8457 2.8457 2.8328 2.8125 2.8028 2.8028 2.7968 n

n Tried Computed 29 58 87 116 145 174 203 232 261 290 319 348 29 57 86 115 144 173 202 231 260 289 318 347

Page 70 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A UTEXAS4 S/N:00107 - Version: 4.0.0.8 - Latest Revision: 07/27/2001 Licensed for use by: Larry Scheibel, Geomatriz Consultants Time and date of run: Thu Mar 13 07:59:05 2003 Name of input data file:

I:\\Project\\6000s\\6427.006\\stability\\MM Utexas4UMfLod2.dat SECTION M-M': NODEL 23 Without Transporter: Seismic Coefficient = 0.45g TABLE NO. 58

Final Results for Stresses Along the Shear Surface

(Results are for the critical shear surface in the ease of a search.)

SPENCER S PROCEDURE USED TO COMPUTE TEE FACTOR OF SAFETY Factor of Safety: 1.001 Side Force Inclination:

30.71

VALUES AT CENTER OF EASE OF SLICE --------

Total Effective slice Normal Normal Shear No.

X-Center Y-Center Stress Stress Stress 1

154.21 217.51 1229.7 1229.7 1498.0 2

159.67 216.88 1404.6 1404.6 1498.0 3

165.12 216.25 1579.4 1579.4 1498.0 4

168.43 215.97 1250.1 1250.1 1498.0 S

170.50 216.09 1275.3 1275.3 1498.0 6

172.06 216.19 1292.9 1292.9 1498.0 7

172.26 216.17 1746.9 1746.9 1498.0 8

173.21 216.06 2932.5 2932.5 2996.1 9

176.00 215.71 3091.6 3091.6 2996.1 10 180.00 215.22 3363.3 3363.3 2996.1 11 182.50 214.92 3524.3 3524.3 2996.1 12 186.49 214.43 3723.9 3723.9 2996.1 13 192.73 214.25 2898.7 2898.7 2996.1 14 198.24 214.75 3047.7 3047.7 2996.1 15 201.00 215.00 3920.0 3920.0 4665.6 16 201.01 215.00 3920.8 3920.8 4666.5 17 201.27 215.01 5045.0 5045.0 6004.5 18 202.26 215.04 2570.9 2570.9 1431.3 19 205.50 215.16 2748.7 2748.7 1530.3 20 210.50 215.33 2993.5 2993.5 1613.9 21 215.50 215.50 3233.5 3233.5 1689.1 22 221.00 215.69 3527.5 3527.5 1781.1 23 227.00 215.90 3875.3 3875.3 1889.9 24 230.50 216.02 4081.8 4081.8 1954.6 25 231.01 216.04 4114.6 4114.6 1964.8 26 231.51 216.09 3888.1 3888.1 1943.9 27 234.50 216.36 4042.3 4042.3 1993.7

Page 71 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Atthchment A MXModl-translong. dat GRAphies output moding follows -

SECTION M-M' MODEL I STATIC STABILITY AND YELD ACCELERATION WITH TRANSPORTER MASS PROfile line data follow -

1 I Tofb-2 Obispo Formation 0.0 139.0 36.0 142.0 69.0 146.0 88.0 152.0 95.0 153.0 100.0 152.0 114.0 146.0 119.0 145.0 124.0 147.0 128.0 150.0 137.0 174.0 142.0 181.0 201.0 215.0 231.0 216.0 252.0 217.0 275.0 219.0 300.0 222.0 327.0 225.0 352.0 228.0 380.0 231.0 410.0 235.0 473.0 244.0 2 2 Clay Bed 201.0 215.0 203.0 216.0 231.0 217.0 252.0 218.0 275.0 220.0 300.0 223.0 327.0 226.0 352.0 229.0 380.0 232.0 410.0 236.0 473.0 245.0 473.0 244.0 3 1 Tofb-2 Obispo 203.0 216.0 231.0 232.0 263.0 233.0 284.0 234.5 306.0 237.0 Formation

Page 72 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Atuachment A 331.0 359.0 407.0 240.0 244.0 250.0 4 2 Clay Bed 231.0 232.0 232.0 232.5 263.0 233.5 284.0 235.0 306.0 237.5 331.0 240.5 359.0 244.5 407.0 250.5 407.0 250.0 5 1 Tofb-2 Obispo 232.0 232.5 248.0 239.0 264.0 239.5 289.0 241.5 311.0 244.0 335.0 247.0 358.0 250.0 405.0 256.0 6 2 Clay Bed 248.0 239.0 249.0 239.5 264.0 240.0 289.0 242.0 311.0 244.5 335.0 247.5 358.0 250.5 405.0 256.5 405.0 256.0 Fozuation 7 1 Tofb-2 Obispo 249.0 239.5 262.0 246.0 284.0 262.0 311.0 266.0 341.0 270.0 368.0 273.0 410.0 279.0 472.0 288.0 8 2 Clay Bed 284.0 262.0 285.5 263.0 311.0 267.0 341.0 271.0 368.0 274.0 410.0 280.0 472.0 289.0 Formation

Page 73 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A 472.0 288.0 9 1 Tofb-2 Obispo 285.5 263.0 305.0 275.0 311.0 279.0 316.0 280.0 343.0 282.0 357.0 282.0 368.6 282.0 376.0 286.0 382.0 293.0 388.0 296.0 410.0 301.0 415.0 303.0 439.0 308.0 457.0 312.0 478.0 316.0 500.0 319.0 538.0 325.0 572.0 330.0 600.0 333.0 Formati on 10 3 Qpf Pleistocene Colluvium 0.0 170.0 13.0 175.0 37.0 182.0 54.0 185.0 70.0 187.0 94.0 193.0 100.0 195.0 113.0 199.0 132.0 205.0 172.0 216.0 183.0 220.0 208.0 234.0 239.0 248.0 287.0 268.0 303.0 278.0 309.0 282.0 313.0 283.0 343.0 282.0 11 4 Qc Quaternary Colluvium 0.0 179.0 7.0 182.0 20.0 185.0 42.0 188.0 68.0 195.0 90.0 200.0 100.0 203.0 108.0 206.0 125.0 211.0 141.0 215.0 148.0 217.0

Page 74 of 84 GEO.DCPP.0.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A 169.0 222.0 174.0 223.0 182.0 228.0 203.0 237.0 218.0 243.0 230.0 249.0 237.0 253.0 253.0 258.0 273.0 266.0 285.0 271.0 298.0 279.0 306.0 283.0 312.0 285.5 314.0 286.0 317.0 285.0 320.0 283.0 323.0 286.0 363.0 286.0 366.0 283.0 369.0 285.0 377.0 290.0 382.0 293.0 12 5 Transporter Mass 334.0 286.0 334.0 298.0 352.0 298.0 352.0 286.0 HaTerial property data follow I Tofb-2 Obispo Formation 140 = total unit weight Conventional shear strength 0.0 50.0 No Pore Pressure 2 Clay Bed 115 - total unit weight Conventional shear strength 0.0 22.0 No pore pressure 3 Qpf Pleistocene colluvium 115 = total unit weight Conventional shear strength 0.0 22.0 No pore pressure 4 Qc Quaternary Colluvium 115 = total unit weight Conventional shear strength 0.0 22.0 No pore pressure 5 Transporter Mass 150 - total unit weight Very strong

Page 75 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A HEkding follows -

SECTION M-M's MODEL 1s With Transporters Long Term Static Stability MNlysis/computation data follow -

Noncircular Search 148.0 217.0 168.0 216.0 172.0 216.0 190.0 215.0 201.0 215.0 231.0 216.1 252.0 217.1 275.0 219.1 300.0 222.1 317.0 225.5 366.0 283.0 fixed 2.0 0.1 ITErations 1000 COMpute

Page 76 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attchment A NMjdodl_trans_long.out TABLE NO.

RESULTS OF COMPUTATIONS PERFORMED USING THIS SOFTWARE 0

SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DESIGN PURPOSES UNLESS THEY HAVE

BEEN VERIFIED BY INDEPIENDENT ANALYSES, E

$PE TAL DATA 0

OR FIELD EXPERIENCE.

THE USER SHOULD UNDESTAND THE ALGORITHMS *

AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES USED IN THIS SOFTWARE AND MUST RAVE

READ ALL DOCUNENTATION FOR THIS SOFTWARE BEFORE ATTEMPTING

TO USE IT.

NEITHER SHINOAK SOFTWARE NOR STEPHEN G. WRIGHT K UMWE OR ASSUME LIABILITY FOR ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR

IMPLIED, CONCERNING THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, USEFULNESS

OR ADAPTABILITY OF THIS SOFTWARE.

UTEXAS4 S/N:00107 - Version: 4.0.0.8 - Latest Revisions 07/27/2001 Licensed for use by: Larry Scheibel, Geomatriz Consultants Time and date of runs Sat Mar 15 13t33#00 2003 Name of input data file: Xt\\Project\\6000s\\6427.006\\stability\\M Utezas4\\MbJModltranslong.dat SECTION 1-K' MODEL 1 STATIC STABILITY AND YIELD ACCELERATION WITH TRANSPORTER MASS TABLE NO.

3

NEW PROFILE LINE DATA 0

Profile Line No. 1 - Material Type (Number): 1 -----

==

Description:==

Tofb-2 Obispo Formation Point X

Y 1

0.00 139.00 2

36.00 142.00 3

69.00 146.00 4

88.00 152.00 5

95.00 153.00 6

100.00 152.00 7

114.00 146.00 8

119.00 145.00 9

124.00 147.00 10 128.00 150.00 11 137.00 174.00 12 142.00 181.00

Page 77 of 84 GEO.DCPP.0128, Rev. 3 Attachment A UTEXAS4 8/S300107 - Version: 4.0.0.8 - Latest Revisions 07/27/2001 Licensed for use bys Larry Scheibel, Geomatrix Consultants Time and date of run: Sat Mar 15 13s33s00 2003 Name of input data file: 1:\\Project\\6000s\\6427.006\\stability\\MM Utexas4\\N)Modltranslong.dat SECTION X-M': MODEL Is With Transporter: Long Term Static Stability TABLE NO. 41 Critical Noncircular Shear Surface Xi K:

Xi K:

Xi Xs K:

K:

CRITICAL 143.61 167.65 171.80 190.05 201.03 231.00 252.01 275.00 300.00 317.42 366.00 NONCIRCWLAR SHEAR Ys 215.75 rS 212.96 Ys 212.44 Ys 212.57 Ti 215.06 YT 216.05 Ys 217.05 Ys 219.06 Ys 222.08 Ys 224.89 Ys 283.00 SURFACE *****

Minimum factor of safetys 2.02 Side force inclination: 17.54 Time required to find uost critical surface:

6.0 seconds Number of passes required to find most critical surface: 19 Total number of shear surfaces attempted: 399 Total number of shear surfaces for which the factor of safety was successfully calculated: 399 Pass 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

a 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 Shif t Distance 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.2500 0.2500 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 Max. Dist.

Pt.

Moved 1

10 2

3 8

2 10 2

a 2

I 2

1 I

1 2.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.250 0.250 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 Minim9m F

2.2034 2.0500 2.0470 2.0470 2.0440 2.0404 2.0357 2.0357 2.0271 2.0271 2.0217 2.0212 2.0196 2.0187 2.0186 n

n Tried Computed 21 42 63 84 105 126 147 168 189 210 231 252 273 294 315 21 42 63 84 105 126 147 168 189 210 231 252 273 294 315

Page 78 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A MMIgod2_trans_1ong.dat GRAphiCs output NEAding follows -

SECTION M-M' MODEL 2 STATIC STABILITY WITH TRANSPORTER PROfile line data folic 1 1 Tofb-2 Obispc 0.0 139.0 36.0 142.0 69.0 146.0 88.0 152.0 95.0 153.0 100.0 152.0 114.0 146.0 119.0 145.0 124.0 147.0 128.0 150.0 137.0 174.0 142.0 181.0 201.0 215.0 231.0 216.0 252.0 217.0 275.0 219.0 300.0 222.0 327.0 225.0 352.0 228.0 380.0 231.0 410.0 235.0 473.0 244.0 AND YIELD ACCELERATION Wr -

i Fozzation 2 2 Clay Bed 201.0 215.0 203.0 216.0 231.0 217.0 252.0 218.0 275.0 220.0 300.0 223.0 327.0 226.0 352.0 229.0 380.0 232.0 410.0 236.0 473.0 245.0 473.0 244.0 3 1 Tofb-2 Obispo 203.0 216.0 231.0 232.0 263.0 233.0 284.0 234.5 306.0 237.0 Formation

Page 79 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attadmnent A 331.0 359.0 407.0 240.0 244.0 250.0 4 2 Clay Bed 231.0 232.0 232.0 232.5 263.0 233.5 284.0 235.0 306.0 237.5 331.0 240.5 359.0 244.5 407.0 250.5 407.0 250.0 5 1 Tofb-2 Obispo 232.0 232.5 248.0 239.0 264.0 239.5 269.0 241.5 311.0 244.0 335.0 247.0 358.0 250.0 405.0 256.0 6 2 Clay Bed 248.0 239.0 249.0 239.5 264.0 240.0 289.0 242.0 311.0 244.5 335.0 247.5 358.0 250.5 405.0 256.5 405.0 256.0 Formation 7 1 Tofb-2 Obispo 249.0 239.5 262.0 246.0 284.0 262.0 311.0 266.0 341.0 270.0 368.0 273.0 410.0 279.0 472.0 288.0 Format4n 8 2 Clay Bed 284.0 262.0 285.5 263.0 311.0 267.0 341.0 271.0 368.0 274.0 410.0 280.0 472.0 289.0

Page 80 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A 472.0 288.0 9 1 Tofb-2 Obispo Fo-mation 285.5 263.0 305.0 275.0 311.0 279.0 316.0 280.0 343.0 282.0 357.0 282.0 368.6 282.0 376.0 286.0 382.0 293.0 388.0 296.0 410.0 301.0 415.0 303.0 439.0 308.0 457.0 312.0 478.0 316.0 500.0 319.0 538.0 325.0 572.0 330.0 600.0 333.0 10 3 Qpf Pleistocene Colluvium 0.0 170.0 13.0 175.0 37.0 182.0 54.0 185.0 70.0 187.0 94.0 193.0 100.0 195.0 113.0 199.0 132.0 205.0 172.0 216.0 183.0 220.0 208.0 234.0 239.0 248.0 287.0 268.0 303.0 278.0 309.0 282.0 313.0 233.0 343.0 282.0 11 4 Qc Quateznaxy Colluvium 0.0 179.0 7.0 182.0 20.0 185.0 42.0 188.0 68.0 195.0 90.0 200.0 100.0 203.0 108.0 206.0 125.0 211.0 141.0 215.0 148.0 217.0

Page8l of 84 GEO.DCPP01.28, Rev. 3 Atthment A 169.0 222.0 174.0 223.0 182.0 228.0 203.0 237.0 218.0 243.0 230.0 249.0 237.0 253.0 253.0 258.0 273.0 266.0 285.0 271.0 298.0 279.0 306.0 283.0 312.0 285.5 314.0 286.0 317.0 285.0 320.0 283.0 323.0 286.0 363.0 286.0 366.0 283.0 369.0 285.0 377.0 290.0 382.0 293.0 12 5 Transporter Mass 334.0 286.0 334.0 298.0 352.0 298.0 352.0 286.0 MATerial property data follow (for first stage) -

1 Tofb-2 Obispo Formation 140 = total unit weight Conventional shear strength 0.0 50.0 No Pore Pressure 2 Clay Bed 115 a total unit weight Conventional shear strength 0.0 22.0 No pore pressure 3 Qpf Pleistocene colluvium 115 -

total unit weight Conventional shear strength 0.0 22.0 No pore pressure 4 Qc Quaternary Colluvium 115 = total unit weight Conventional shear strength 0.0 22.0 No pore pressure 5 Transporter Mass 150 -

total unit weight Very strong

Page 82 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A Reading follows -

SECTION M-M': MODEL 2t With Transporter: Long Term Static Stability ANAlysis/cocputation data follow -

Noncircular Search 148.0 217.0 168.0 216.0 172.0 216.0 190.0 215.0 201.0 215.0 231.0 216.1 254.0 217.1 268.0 233.3 284.0 234.6 291.0 241.8 304.0 243.6 326.0 268.2 341.0 270.1 354.0 272.5 366.0 283.0 fixed 2.0 0.1 ITErations 1000 COMpute

Page 83 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A KM.Yod2_translong.out TABLE NO.

RESULTS OF COMPUTATIONS PERFORMED USING THIS SOFTWARE

SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DESIGN PURPOSES UNLESS THEY HAVE

BEEN VERIFIED BY INDEPENDZNT ANALYSES, EXPERIMENTAL DATA

OR FIELD EXPERIENCE.

THE USER SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE ALGORITHMS *

AND ANALYTXICAL PROCEDURES USED IN THIS SOFTWARE AND MUST HAVE

READ ALL DOCUMENTATION FOR THIS SOFTWARE BEFORE ATTEMPTING

TO USE IT.

NEITHER SHINOAK SOFTWARE NOR STEPHEN G. WRIGHT

KME OR ASSUME LIABILITY FOR ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR

IMPLIED, CONCERNING THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, USEFULNESS

OR ADAPTABILITY OF THIS SOFTWARE.

UTEXAS4 S/N:00107 -

Version: 4.0.0.8 -

Latest Revisions 07/27/2001 Licensed for use by: Larry Scheibel, Geomatrix Consultants Time and date of run: Sat Mar 15 12s52s12 2003 Name of input data files It\\Project\\6000s\\6427.006\\stability\\NM Utexas4\\MXJMod2_trans_1ong.dat SECTION K-K' MODEL 2 STATIC STABILITY AND YIELD ACCELERATION WITH TRANSPORTER MASS TABLE NO.

3 EW PROFILE LINE DATA *

Profile Line No. 1 -

Material Type (Number): I -----

Descriptions Tofb-2 Obispo Formation Point X

Y 1

0.00 139.00 2

36.00 142.00 3

69.00 146.00 4

88.00 152.00 5

95.00 153.00 6

100.00 152.00 7

114.00 146.00 8

119.00 145.00 9

124.00 147.00 10 128.00 150.00 11 137.00 174.00 12 142.00 181.00 13 201.00 215.00

Page 84 of 84 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev. 3 Attachment A UTEXAS4 5/Ns00107 - Version: 4.0.0.8 -

Latest Revision: 07/27/2001 Licensed for use bys Larry Scheibel, Geomatrix Consultants Tine and date of runs Sat Mar 15 12t52tl2 2003 Name of input data filet It\\Project\\6000s\\6427.006\\stability\\MK Utexas4\\MflXod2_trans.long.dat SECTION K-K': MODEL 2: with Transporters Long Term Static Stability TABLE NO. 41 Critical Noncircular Shear Surface

- 0**

Xt X:

X:

Xs Xt Xt Xs Xs Xs Xt Xs Ss X:

CRITICAL 143.73 167.56 171.68 190.07 201.05 231.01 253.41 267.96 283.80 291.03 303.96 326.09 341.01 354.04 366.00 MONCIRCULAR SHEAR Yt 215.78 Ys 212.59 Ts 212.08 yT 212.57 Yt 215.02 Ta 216.03 Ta 218.06 rS 233.36 Yi 234.94 Yt 241.76 Ys 243.66 yT 268.05 Ys 270.06 Ts 272.42 Ta 283.00 SURFACE *****

Minimum factor of safetys 2.07 Side force inclination: 18.39 Time required to find most critical surface:

10.0 seconds Number of passes required to find most critical surface: 17 Total number of shear surfaces attempted: 493 Total number of shear surfaces for which the factor of safety was successfully calculated: 493 Pass 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 Shift Distance 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.2500 0.2500 Pt.

1 7

2 1

1 1

3 13 8

max. Dist.

Moved 2.000 1.000 1.000 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.250 0.250 Mini =m F

2.3132 2.1770 2.1770 2.1694 2.1632 2.1498 2.1381 2.1105 2.1105 2.0943 2.0828 n

n Tried Computed 58 87 116 145 174 203 232 261 290 319 58 87 116 145 174 203 232 261 290 319

Page 1 of 21 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment B ATTACHMENT B

Page 2 of 21 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment B Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geosciences 245 Mat Sbeet, Room 412 Mag Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 415S973-2792 Fax 415/973-S778 DR. FAZ MADISI GEOMATR CONSULTANTS 2101 WEBSTER STREET OAKAN D, CA 94612 28 May 2002 Re: Tnsmtal of additional data for DCPP ISFSI Transport Route Analysis DR. MAKDISI:

Please find attached soils data obtained from borings in the cutslope behind Units 1 and 2 at DCPP. These data are found in Appendic 2.5C of Volume I ofthe Units 1 and 2 Diablo Canyon Site Final Safety Analysis Report, as indicated in the footer for each data sheet.

Also attached are the rock shear wave velocity profiles obtained from borings in and around the powerblock, as developed for the LTSP and as presented in Chapter 5 of the LTSP Final Report. The tabulated range of velocities with depth is also attached, as found in the Response to NRC Staff Question 19 dated 2t3/89.

If you have any questions regarding this information, please call.

ROBERT K. WHITE Attachments page I of I agTIu9At0C:*WS/Z8

Page 3 of 21 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment B IL EXPLANATION Recent test borings-G Recent test pits

, E Previous test borings and pits, 1970 Utility line

-Cross Section Lire Switchyord access road 4

1 Scale: I' - 100' I

Tanks HARDINO - LAWSON ASSOCIATES 4

Coniultinx Etgineeru cd Geologiets LOCATION PLAN Stability Evaluation Power Plant Cut Slope Diablo Canyon Site Job No _569,021.04

.ApprxV.Date 12/12/73 IIl

(

m

b6b I

0 m

I Tim a

^

mamev aft M-W 0 MM 0 a

w l ONK OManm

__m do Iaw QD -

~ e q.

e. U * ?~ A. M II~

U L

V A n oI.

manef ""O m" "Ar I'dC&M-4 I

I

100 me we Go To wJL A-It 0

(

c)a t ol-

~-0 INJ

Page 7 of 21 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment B U.

LU IL.

0 I.-

'I Qsw

//V0.

26i 24(

22(

20C 80s 160 140 120 100 bE bE*

If weathered zone 0

I Tm Geologic Unit Qsw Qc Qfer TM Tm Description Black Silty Clay (CH)

Brown Sandy Clay (CH)

Brown Silty Sand (SP-SM)

Intensely Weathered Sandstone Bedrock (Sandstone)

Density In-Place

(_cf) 115

115 130 115 140 Shear Strength Parameters S = 1200 psf S = 2600 psf C=0 0 0 400 S a 2900 psf C

4 000 psf; 0 =35 HARDING O LAWSON ASSOCIATES SOIL PARAMETERS CannIufEnEginnrs and Geologids SECTION C-C'

__Power Plant Cut Slope Job

- 569,021.04 App, &L Datel2/14/73 Diablo Canyon Site

Page 8 of 21 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment B 70 60 z

Fr_

50 40 30 20 10 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 LIQUID LIMIT 3%)

100 Symbol Classification and Source Liquid Plastic Plasticity

% Passing Limt (96 Li~t ()

Idex %)

1200 Sieve 0

BLACK SILTY CLAY (CH) 74 21 53 85 Boring 1 @ 4.2' 0

BLACK SILTYCLAY (CH) 61 23 38 Boring 5 @ 2.5' HARDING -LAWSON ASSOCIATES PLASTICITY CHART PLATE Cousulting Ewgixccrs and Gcologisft SURFACE SOIL (Qsw)

Power Plant Cut Slope D1 JobNo. 569,021.04 ApprLZr&Date 2/10/73 Diablo Canyon Site I

Page 9 of21 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment B P-ILae BORING 5

1 T P4 1

DEPTH 2.0 6.2 3.5 3.8 TYPE OF TEST Consolidated-Undralned Unconsoldo'ted-Undrainod Unconso Idated-Undra ned Uncornoldated-Undrolned (Saturated)

CONFINING PRESSURE 860 1500 800 MAXIMUM SHEAR STRESS 3300 2860 1870 1200 Note: Results are also shown on the Boring Logs (Appendix A) 2 =5C-B6 I

HARDINO-LAWSON ASSOCIATES I

D Comulting Enineers ad Geologiatt TRIAXIAL SHEAR TEST RESULTS I SURFACE SOIL (Qsw)

Power Plant Cut Slope Diablo Canyon Site PLATE.

B2

.W No-%.- M I X2. 04

,Mpr..E-J.

Wae 12,A IP3 J3bt.L 569,021.04

Appr.2LDate1 2/Il/73

Page IOof21 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 A +,b,_+

a I

Q W.

Z w

tdJ 0:

0 I.

I K

0:

3 1-1 o -2 34 0o 4

I NORMAL STRESS (psf 1000)

AXIAL STRAIN (%)

TestType: Unconsolidated-Undrained Controlled: Sfrain Saturation MhoW: Backpressuro Gm 2.70 (assumec I

Va 0S.W cc wL g

AXIAL STRAIN (%)

J I

Test No.

A a

C Diameter In.)

2.43 H5ight lln.X S.30 Molsture Content 28.4 %

c Vold Ratio

.824 Saturation 92

°h°h Dry Density (pet)

-1 Moisture Content 33.1 %

°h

- Void Ratio

.870

. Saturation 100 en Pressure (Psf) 800

_ Moisture Content

33. 1 %

Void Ratio

.870 tS Molor Prii Stress

-f-)

31

__l8orPrin.Stress Ips00 Time to Failure (mm.)

Sample Source: Boring 1 at 3.8 Classification:

Black Gravelly Silty Cloy (CH)

I I) 12.5 C -87 LWSN SOCI.TESP-T HARDING - LAWSONY ASSoCIATE;S TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION TEST REPORT PLATE 4

Coxsuffixg Eroixecr and Gcologa SURFACE SOIL (Qsw)

D ')

Power Plant Cut Slope B3 Job No. 569,021.04

_Awpr Date 112/73 D;ablo Canyon Site

Page II of 21 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment P U-70 60 40%.

e 9

z 0

R 0

50 40 30 20 I I I

~~CH II0~

CL

-/

A A Line Mt or' OH It I 10 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 so 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT (%)

)

Symbol Classification and Source Liquid Plastic Plasticity

% Passing Limit (%L Limit(%)

Index cf) 1200 Sieve_

BROWN SANDYCLAY(CH) 58 24 34 71 Boring 1 at 11.2' A

LIGHT BROWN GRAVELLY CLAY (CH) 55 21 34 36 Boring I ct 26.2' a

LIGHT BROWN GRAVELLY CLAY (CH) 54 21 33 52 Boring I at 31.2' HARD NG -LAWSON ASSOCIATES PLASTICITY CHART PLATE 6

Conn dting Enginoers and Geologiett COLLUVIUM (Qe)

I Power Plant Cut Slope B4 S

6902.04__

_Ap Date 12/12/73 Diablo Canyon Site 12.5 C -

I

Page 12 of21 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attnrh-o, R L-4C 70 60

-Z SO 40 30 20 10 0

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

Symbol Classification and Source Liquid Prastic Plasticity

% Passing L-mit (%) Limw1)

Index t20 e

A MOTTLED BROWN SANDY CLAY (CH) 55 23 32 BorIng 4 at 6.2' BROWN SANDY CLAY (CH) 55 25 30 Borlng AA at 17' BROWN SILTY CLAY (CH) 68 24 44 Boring 5 at 11.0' HARDING - LAWBON ASSOCIATES PLASTICITY CHART PLATE Cionsultinp Engineocm and Geologies COLLWIUM (Qc) fS Power Plant Cut Slope D n

.bbNo_69_021t04 Appc.rL.DateZ/12/73 Dioblo Canyon Shte Z?.5C-89I I

Page 13 of 21 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment B p.

De

.W UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TESTS BORING DEPTH CONFINING PRESSURE (Psf MAXIMUM SHEAR STRESS (psf)

Tests Performed for This Investigation SI 5

TP3 1

4 4A TP2 TP3 15.2 25.2 11.0 4.5 10.8 5.7 17.0 6.0 7.0 1800 2500 1500 2000 860 1500 2000 1500 1500 5M0 3470 1990 1440 3920 3780 2850 4340 1820 Tests Performed for Previous Investigation (June 1970)

TP2 TP2 2

2 2

2 2.0 3.5 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 2000 1500 1140 1440 2150 2900 3600 4300 2190 2290 2900 3300 3830 5040 6150 6700 Note: Results are also shown on the boring Log (Appendix A) 12.5 c-90 HARDINO LAWSON AS--cA~as TRIAXIAL SHEAR TEST RESULTS PLATE cmgEuerafngcn and eo.ogista u

COLLUWIUM (Qc)

B Power Plant Cut Slope R JabNo 569,021.04 Appr: J, Date 12/13/73 Diablo Canyon Site I

Page 14 of 21 GEO.DCPP.DI.28, Rev 3 Attachment B A AACA^

I1 C

2 64 i

fn w

U4 a:

C.

4 1 S

10 1S 20 AXIAL STRAIN (%)

AXIAL STRAIN (%)

1I A

C I

a ig 64 64 12 8

4 0

-I I

I - --

4%

a NORMAL STRESS (psi Test Type: Consolidated-Undralned Saturation Method:

Back PreSsure IL I 1000) 10 Controllet:

Strain Gz 2.80 Assume on Is

-I 0.

to 0:

g.

Tost No.

A 8

C Diameter (in')

2.43 2.87 2.43 Helght (in) 5.85 6.50 5.80 M

Moisture content 25.7%

25.9% 32.4%

c VoidRatio

.782

.849

.935.

Saturation

% as

% 97. %

-Dry DsnsiltyTcf) 95 90 Moisture Content 28.1%

28.9%

1 itRottl 7.776Z..764

.879 l

Saturation 0%100 i

Pressure (psf) 1200 3000 3500 1 Moisture Content 28.1 28.9% 35.3 %

_ Vold Ratio

.76

.764

.879 61 Molar FrimStress (oif) 7690 9140 10810

-MInar Prin.Stres lpsf) 1200 3000 3500 Time to Failure (min.)

Sample Source: Borings 4@10.7 5@29.0 4@30.7 Classification:

Brown Sandy Clay (CH)

J 12.5C-91 HARDING-LAWSON ASSOCIATES TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION TEST REPORT PLATE 9

Consultingx Enginers and Geologists COLLUVIUM (Qc)

Power Plant Cut Slope B 7 Jbob S69.0Q21.L4..

Appr.g aeJ2LQt/7-3

. Diablo Canyon Site

N.

A l

3 hi I-US W

ri=

S, I

hi U) 2 1

0 0

.10

.20

.30

.40 HORIZONTAL DEFORMATIONVin.)

5 I

3 1

0 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 NORMAL STRESS (ps L 1000)

Test Type: Consaollotad Drained Controlled Strain cm 2.70 (assd

_a Test No.

A U

C Height (In.)

1.00 Moisture Content 23.2 %

Vold Rotio

.696

_ Saturation

_0 D

Dry Density (pet I59 Time for 50%

e Consolidation (miiL)

Time for 95%

ConsolIdation (mlini m Void Ratioffller Consolidation -.

672 n

n Moisture Cofilett 22.9 %

Void Rati

.670 Saturation 90

° Normal Stress (asf) 1210-Maximum Shear (Osl) 3100 Time to Failure (min.)

Sample Source Boring 1 at 10.0 Classificalion Brown Sandy Clay (CH)

)

0

.10 HORIZONTAL

.20

.30

.40 DEFORMATION (In.)

gca I

I HARDINO-LAWSON ASSOCIATES 1

Coasulting Engineers cnd Geologists 4

DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT COLLUWIUM (Qc)

Power Plant Cut Slope Dioblo Canyon Site

Page 16of21 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment B CY U..

6 K

0.i 4n W

49 W

i a

w I")

4M w.

Gn 5

4 3

2 1

0 0

1 2

3 4

5 6

NORMAL STRESS (pest x 100) 7 8

Test Type: Consolidated Drained Controlle StraIn Gs 2. 70 (umod)

HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION(In.)

.~

uj.04 r 04 E

I 1

1 Tost No.

A i

C Height (In.)

1.00 r

Moisture Content 28.4 %

Volid Ratio 818 SaturatIon 94

%I Dry Density (pcf) 93 Time for 50%

Consolidation (mlin.)

'TIme for 95%

t Consoldat ion (mij I_

oid Ratio after

.768 Consolidation

_ Moisture Content 26.3 %

Void Ratio

.823 ii.

Saturation 86 Normal Stress (psi) 25-0 Mazimum Shoor (pst) 3950 Time to Failure (mini.)

Sample Source Boring 4 at 23.2 Classification Brown Sandy Cloy (CH) 0

.10

.20

.30

.40 HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION (in.)

0c 1 I _

- ~

IARDIN

-.LAWSON ASSOCIATES DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT PLATE C&

Consulting sEiginccra and Geologiata COLLWIUM (Qc)

Power Plant Cut Slope B9 Job No. 569,r021. 04 Appr-L.

Date 12/14/73 Dioblo Canyon Site I

Page 17of21 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment B wE4 UL

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED DYNAMIC TRIAXIAL TESTS CYCLIC SHEAR STRAIN (percent)

CYCLIC SHEAR STRESS (0sf)

Sample I

.015

.060

.160 124 280 260 Sample 2

,Q50

, 120

.220

.400 271 417 660 931

1).

Note:

1.

Confining Pressure = 3000 plf 2.,

Tests were strain controlled.

3.

Cyclic shear stress tabulated is the overage over 5 -

12 cycles at strain level Indicated and Is calculated as one-half the maximum cyclic deviator stress measured at each cycle.

4.

Test procedures are described in the text of this Appendix.

[2-.5C-94 HARDINO-LAWSON ASSOCIATES DYNAMIC TRIAXIAL TESTS LATE Conisuting Euginiwee d Geologist.

COLLUWIUM (Qc)

Power Plant Cut Slope Jobn 569,021.04 ApPr Date1 2/13/73 Diablo Cyann Site

Page 18 of 21 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment B Chapter 5

, Pager5ft SASSI computer programs for threedimensional Kt' analysis; (b) the development implementation.

and validation of analsis method and computer programs for soil/structure interaction analysis Incorporaig the spatial Incoherence of seismic ground motons; and (c) the modification and validation of the soi/structure analysis method and computer program for analyzing the nonlinear dynamic response due to base-uplifting.

Characterization of Site Rock Properties Recognizing the ImpCe of fng the ite rock properties at the beginin of the Long Term SeiSmc Program, a priority task was performed to assemble and review all available site rock data and, based on this review, to assets the appropriate rock profile and properties for soiWsucr beractio analysis. The rock data that have been assembled include two sets of data:

one set consists of data contained in the source references of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant FSAR Section 2.5, which were obtained from the site investigations conducted from 1967 to 1973; the second set consists of data obtained from the additional SIte invstigadons conducted from 1977 to 1978. Both sets of data have been reviewed in detail.

The rock data available from the FSAR references consist of data obtained from both field geophysical surveys and laboratory tests of rock samples. These data were applicable mainly for rocks at shallow depths, that is, down to a depth of about 40 feet below the finished grade at El 85 feet. The rock data available from the 1977 to 1978 site invev atlons consist of data from borehole logging. field geophysical srveys, and laboratory test of rodc samples obtained from four deep boreholes drmed around the Plant to a depth of approximately 300 feet below grade.

Review of data from both sets Idicated that the data from field-measured shear and compression wave velocities and rock densities are more mutually consistent and these data are considered to be more representative of the in stu properties of the rock mass below the plant foundation; the laboratory test valus represent only very local l!E Puffi On and letrc d

cM rock conditions and the test results are marked with uncertainties resulting from the specimen saturation procedures used and the test equipment flexiblities. Thus, in deriving the low-strain rock property profiles for soil/structure interaction analysis purposes. emphasis was placed on field-measured data, especially the data taken from the depth below El 50 feet, because the foundations of the power block structures are located at elevations between 50 feet and 80 feet.

Based on the review of rock data assembled, representative profiles and the ranges of variation of rock shear wave velocity Poisson's ratio, rock density, damping ratio at low-strahi, and the strain-dependent variations of shear modulus and damping ratio, were derived. 'Figure S-S shows the mean shear wave velocity profile and the upper-bound and lower-bound of data developed from the assembled site rock data.

Because the rock shear wave velocity proles developed from the assembled data showed relatively large scattering, a study was carried oUt to asseu the sensitivity of soil/strutre Interactlon reonse due to the variation of rock shear wave velocity profile. The sensitiy study was performed udsng a simplified soll/structure Interaction model for the containment structure and the CLASSI computer program for soil/structure Interaction analyses. The results of this sensitivity study indlcated that, as the foundation rock shear wave velocity profle varis from the upper-bound to the mean and then to the lower-bound, the fhmdamensal soistcuro interaction frequency for the coupled horizontal translation and rocking mode of the containment shell shts from 4.6 hertz to 4.0 hertz, and then to 3.3 hertz. Despie the relatively large variation in the rock shear wave velocity profile, the frequency variation was found to be within appro tely 1S percent.

To provide an Independent confirmation of the appropriaten of the rock property profiles developed for soil/structure interaction analysis.

the fuidamental soll/structure interaction frequency of the com ent shel, which was sensitive to the variation of rock shear wave MMSP Cams PaVW M Lost TOM USe de mM

Page 19 of 21 GEODCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attpilest l; Chabter S 6 ---- -

- - - - - - -.- -p Shear Wave Vetociy (fps In I OOs) 1 2

a 4

5 6

7 a

too.

I i

I I

I so.-

so '-

5 %L 1 43%

1 IIII M%

.3 40L-20 a-a'-

40%

I I

In n

I 1

III I

I

+0 I II III

.0 S

-401-a 401-401..

U' o II I

-100 I-

.120

arc

.la I-

.10 Figure S-S She hear wave velocy profi (based on 1978 dowahols velody measurements).

abh Cup. Aim Pba Pucfic answe Enbic Coaps Lu" Taxn Sebmi PM=a la

Page 20 of 21 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment B Ouestion 19 Page 35 Table Q19-3 FOUNDATION ROCK PROPERTY PROFILES AND VARIATION BOUNDS FOR ROCK PROPERTY SENSTIUTY STUDY Rack Case Lmr&

Shear Wave -

Thickness Velocity MIn fft/see Mws Densityl (k-sec"/ft)

Damping Polsson's Rado Rti 1

Mean 2

3 4

10 20 12S Go 2600 3300 4000 4800 0.00435 0.00435 0.00444 0.00463 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.37 0.33 0.33 0.30 Lower I

10 1300 0.00435 0.02 0.37 2

20 2200 0.0043S 0.02 0.33 3

125 2600 0.00444 0.02 0.33 Bound 4

cc 3600 0.00463 0.02 0.30 Upper 1

10 3900 0.0043S 0.02 0.37 2

20 4400 0.00435 0.02 0.33 3

125 5400 0.00444 0.02 033 Bound 4

oo 6000 0.00463 0.02 0.30 N

aCMC Gas and ld*c CoMa n

DU& Caeu Pow rtd 0UMIthwC m

Page 21 of 21 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment B (Tbis page intentionally left blank)

Page I of 2 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment C ATTACHIENT C

Pacific Gas and lectric Compay G4c!Cn=

245 Maret StreU. Room 413B Me Code N4C Page 2 of 2 P.O. Box 770000 GEO.DCPP.OI.28, Rev 3 iM Fncsw. CA 94177 Attachment C 415/973-2792 FX 41593-iS DR. PAZ MAKDISI GEOMATR CONSULTANTS 2101 WEBSTER STRET OAKLAND, CA 94612 November 19, 2001 Re: Tras=mt of additioal inputs for DCPP lFSI Transpo Route Analysis DR. MAKDISI:

As part of t scope of yor analysis of the stability of the transport rotfor the DCPP ISFSI, YOU rC assessing stability of the route at various Sectons Using both imreduced ground motions previously trnsMifted to you reroenc my October 31 2001 letter to you) and reduced ground motons based on incorporating rUts of a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and the estmted axosure htrval of the tansportr on te route. A probabilistically rded peak bedrock ground accertio of 0.lSg has ben derived in clculaton GEOD CPP.01 2,O and Uis value has bee proved for firher alysu. Accordingly, please scale the peak acceleration of the unreduced gond moatio to this level for you transport route analyses.

In addition, you a sssg the stability oftansporutov road fill wedges at reduced ground motion levels and with the tasporter load pren osy transmitted to you (frence my November S 2001 letter to you).

1he exact subsurface configuration of any fil wedges alon the access roa is currently unenown, and is show in only a gnea way on seCtions provided to you (reference my November 12 2001 letter to you) based on general desipons provided in the road construction specificaton.

However, given that the density of any compacted Sl derved from the native matril is Miely to be at or aboe the density of underlin ative material, fil strength is liy to be comparablc to the native material, and the exact configro of the fill is therefore not of consequence. Please proceed with near-facc stability analyses wit is Assumpion.

If you ha any questions regarding this inforation, please cal.

ROBERT K WHiTE Ikd!n 0A.*orW.1Il19/10

Page l of S GEO.DCPP.0t.28, Rev 3 Attachment D ATTACHMENT D

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geosciences 245 Malkct Satv.

Room 418B Page 2 of S Mail Code N4C GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 P.O. Box 770000 Attachment D.

San Francisco, CA 94177 415/973-2792 Fax 415/973-5778 DR. FAIZ MAKDISI GEOMATRI CONSULTANTS 2101 WEBSTER STREET OAKLAND, CA 94612 November 5, 2001 Re: Forwarding of Cold Machine Shop Retaining Wall Calculation Inputs from Project Engineer DR. MAKDISI:

Inputs to the calculation checldng the stability of the DCPP Cold Machine Shop Retaining Wall under proposed ISFSI transporter loads have been provided to Geosciences from Richard Klimczak, Project Engineer for the ISFSI project I am forwarding these inputs to you formally, as required by Geosciences Calculation Procedure GEO.00l, rev. 4. Please incorporate these into your calculation in place of previous inputs provided to you informally, and complete the calculation as required by Geosciences Work Plan GEO 2001-03, rev. 1, Appendix IL A description of the inputs follows. A cbpy of the Work Plan is also enclosed for distribution to those on your staff who are responsible for performing the calculation Please have them sign the Work Plan Attachment aclnowledging their review and forward copies to me.

Letter to Robert White from Richard Klimczak, dated October 3, 2001.

Subject:

Transmittal of Information on the Transporter Movement Along the Transport Route.

The reference letter contains a copy of PG&E calculation 52.27.14.01, pages RLOC 02553 1215 through 1255 (42 pages). These calculation pages are enclosed in this forwarding letter. The reference letter also contains 1 1x17 copies of drawings 516992 and 516993. These drawings are also enclosed in this forwarding letter. The reference letter also lists applicable criteria for the transporter. These criteria have been superseded by the following letter, and should not be used in your calculation.

page I of 2

!!!VAW-*W:1V5101

Page 3 of 5 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment D Letter to Robert White from Richard Klimczak, dated October 19,2001.

Subject:

Transmittal of Information on the Transporter Movement Along the Transport Route.

This reference letter contains modified transporter criteria and should be used in place of those criteria in the 10/3/01 letter above.

If you have any questions regarding this information, please call.

ROBERT K. WHITE Enclosures page 2 of 2

Page 4 of 5 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment D Date:

October 3, 2001 To:

Robert White Phone: (4 PG&E Geosciences Dept From:

Richard L. Klimczak, Project Engineer Re #: 72.10.05

15) 973-0544

Subject:

Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 Transmittal of Information on the Transporter Movement Along the Transport Route WI Pacific Gas and g3 Electric Company

Dear Rob,

This memorandum provides criteria for movement of the loaded Transporter from the Auxiliary/Fuel Handling Building (Power Plant) to the Cask Transfer Facility (CTF).

Information provided herein is applicable to Calculations GEO.DCPP01.02 and GEO.DCPP.01.27 and other evaluations of Transport Route stability.

Estimate of Total Yearly Travel Time of A Loaded Transporter Along the Transport Route: (Ref. Calculation GEODCPP.01.02)

Holtec Calculation HI-2002563, Rev. 3, Pg. K-2 shows 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months to travel between the Power Plant and the CTF. This calculation also conservatively assumes movement of 8 casks per year. Accordingly, we estimate 8 trips at 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months per trip for a total travel time of 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months along the transport route each year.

Transporter for II-STORM 100 Transfer Cask: (Reference Calculation GEODCPP-01.27)

The following criteria applies to movement of the loaded Transporter from the Power Plant to the CTF and along the Transport Route:

1) Cask Transporter Weights:

Transporter weight Payload weight Total weight:

170,000 lbs.

275,000 lbs 445,000 lbs

2) Track Contact Surface Area:

Dimensions for each of two tracks Total effective contact arm for two tracks Estimated contact surface pressure 294 inches x 29.5 inches 10,000 sq. inches 44.S psi I

2, 2001 Page 5 of 5 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment D

3) Center to center spacing between tracks:

182 inches The basis for this information is a 9/28/01 memorandum to the file, "Cask Transporter Track Contact Surface Area Estimate," prepared by Rich Hagler of the UFSP for static, level contact surface bearing pressures and the referenced HI-2002501, "Functional Specification for the Diablo Canyon Cask Transporter," Revision 4, July 30, 2001.

Evaluation of Stability of the Retaining Wall Located Adjacent to the Unit 2 Cold Machine Shop: (Reference Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.27)

The attached PG&E calculation and drawings apply to the evaluation of the retaining wall located adjacent to and to the east of the Unit 2 Cold Machine Shop

1) A copy of PG&E calculation 52.27.14.01, "Cold Machine Shop, Retaining Wall and Stairs," 42 pages, RLOC 02553 1215 thru 1255.

2) 1" x 1T' copies of the following PO&E Drawings:

Drawing Number Revision Title 516992 516993 8

Finish Grading Plan Cold Machine Shop 3

Yard Facilities & Details Cold Machine Shop This transmittal is per requirements of DCPP Procedure CF31D17.

If you have questions please contact me at (805) 595-6320 or A. Tafoya at (805) 595-6392.

Richard L. Klimczak Project Engineer Diablo Canyon Used Fuel Storage Project Attachments: As listed cc: JStickland BHPatton AFTafoya CEHartz RDHagler SLO B3 w/o SLO BB w/o SLO BO w/o SLO BO w/o SLO B13 245 Market N4C, 422B wo RKWhite 245 Market N4C, 418B w/o AISun 245 Market N4C, 422A w/o JCYcung 245 Market N4C, 413C w/o DCPP Chronological File DCPP RMS DCPP 119/1 DCPP File No. 72.10.05

1

Page I of 12 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rcv 3 Attachment E ATTACHMENT E

Page 2 of 12 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment E ANSIIASCE 1-82

4".oANSI Approved 0

November 5, 1986 We Alt K7te 7V OCTOBER,* 1**988~*

Vw s%

fr ez

Page 3 of 12 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment E N-725 Guideline for Design and Analysis of Nudear Safety Related Earth Structures Approved April, 1982 Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers 345 East 47th Street New York, New York 10017-2398

Page 4 of 12 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment E 4

DESIGN AND ANALYSIS Each section of this standard discusses site investigations to identify spedal con-siderations in performing such work.

However, at the end of this Section 3.0 ane identiffied reference materials on site Investigations, including labotory test-in& that are enesally applicable.

Geophy eTploration methods such s seismic refraction, reflection, and elec-i essAvty should be used to locate ground water table, fauling and de-termine depth to bedrock (if applicable).

The subsurface exploration program should cosst of borings, test pits, tren-ches or inspection shafts to reveal critical stratification, ground water table and obtain representaive and undisturbed test samples Laboratory test to determine soil parameters should Include standard classification tests, strength tests on un-disturbed samples and consolidation test-ing (if appropriate). In situ strength tests to determine strength parameters are also recomnended. Static or dynamic Dutch cone penetration test (CPI) and standard penetration tests (SM should be consid-ered to qualitatively evalute in situ den-sties of coheslonless sois for correlation with static and dynamic parameters. A qualitative measure must employ a site determined correlation. The ground water table level shall be recorded In selected boreholes, with suffident time allowed for stabilization of the water level. Any data relevant to the variability of the ground water table and the source of variation should be Investigated.

Of particular Importance are:

ANSI N 74 'Guidelines for Evaluating Site-Related Geotechnical Parameters for Nudear Power Sites, Prepared by ANS Committee 2.11, ANSI, 1978 ASCE aSubsurface Investigation for Design and Construction of Founda-tions of Buildings" Manual No. 56, 1976 ASTM Book of Standards, Part 19,

'Natural Building Stones; Soil and Rock Peats, Moses, and Humus' ASTM "Special Procedures for Testing Soil and Rock for Engineering Pur-poses,, STP 479 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.132 'Site In-vestigations for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants,' U.S. Nuclear Regula-tory Commissio Office of Standards, Sept. 1977 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.135 'Normal Water Level and Discharge at Nuclear Power Plants,' U.S. Nuclear Regula-tory Commission Office of Standards, Sept 1977 ANSI N 45.2.20 "Supplementary Qual-ity Assurance Requirements for Sub-surface Investigations Prior to Con-strction Phase of Nuclear Power Plants,' American National Standards Institute, 1979 ANSI N 45.2.5 'Supplementary Qual-ity Assurance Requirements for In-stallation, Inspectio and Testing of Structural Concrete, and Structural Steel, Soils and Foundations During the Construction Phase of Nuclear Power Plants QA-76 1978 Code of Federal Regulations 10 CFR 100 A x A 'smic a Geo-glSiting Cra for uear Pow-er Pants, U.S. Atomic Energy Com-mission, November 1973.

4.0 Ultimate Heat Sink Earth Strucure-Dams, Dikes, and Embankments 4.1 Sacp 4.1.1 PurpO.

The purpose of this sec-tion b to describe parameters and to present guidelines and criteria to be used In construction of ultimate heat sink structures, and to identify factors which should be considered troughout their

concepti, stin& design, and opera-tion 4.1.2 llse ad Tpe of Structuh.

This section includes earth structures, which are a means of water conveyance, Im-poundment, diversion or control. These include but are not limited to the follow-(a) cooling water supply reservoirs (b) essential cooling ponds (c) essential heat sinks (d) waste-water retention structures (e) flood-protection dikes and levees

Page 5 of 12 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment E NUCLEAR SAFETY RELATED EARTH STRUCTURES 5

The maintenance of water retaining func-tion is the prime consideration in the application of these structures.

4.2 Site InveNSiion. A general discus-Sicn of site investigation applicable to all earth Structures Is presented In Section 3.

4.2.1 SdimlW mnd Geolo.

General seismic dstg criteria are iven In t CFR 100, Appendix A.

Various other references provide useful normation on the requirements, which must be satisfied by a thorough seismologic and geologic Investiga-tlon.A 4.2.2 Hydrology. Structures in com-bination with fOdr appurtenant works (spways, ovefow sosu, etc.) shall bede to withstand historcal and ffoods asudetermined in ac-cordance wilth JNS N 170.~

4.2.3 Geotedmical. In the construction of earth structures, the structure aos section, materials of construction and their graduation, zoning and placement shall be consistent with site geology and foundation conditions. Investigations shall be undertaken and sufficient in-formation obtained so that the engineer can design a struchre which meets those requirements. References that discuss re-quired geotechnical investigations in considerable detail should be con-sulted." c

u. u.

4.3 Mterials. The Geotechnical En-gineer shag verify that materials used, and the specified mnaier in which they are used and placed, are compatible with the design. References that discuss sele-mon of materials and apopriate ross sections and zoning inulde references 11 and 12 thog 9.

Localy a1ailable materials may be used tag appropriate. The embankment alo~be properly zoned to provide the following (a) an impervious zone (0) transition zones between core and shells (c) seepage control (d) static and seismic stability (e) wave protection.

Laboratory tests shall be conducted to evaluate required characteristics of var-bus materials to be used in construction of embankments; these include lassifica-lon tests and tests to evaluite gradation, compacon, strength and compression characteristics of the various tyrpe of materialsAr IL U. M. 3a 4.4 Design 4.4.1 Desn Paametm.Paraieters to be established for the design and safety evaluation of dams, dikes and baffles shall Include the following (a) a geoteduical profile along the en-tire length of the structure foundi-tion and across the structure foundation at V4 the width in equal Intervals, or more, In order to pro-vide a basis for deslan (b) soil properties samnpTQ ad tested under anticipated environmental and loading conditions including strength, compressibility, per-neabity and durability (c) the potential for ground surface rupture or displacement due to geologic factors (d) ground surface vertical and hori-zontal acceleration and damping coefficents for the SSE (e) the design depth of water for the structure (f) the height, length and period for the design wid - generated wave 1 the characteristics of the maxdmum probabke wave which could Im-pinge upon the structures (I.e.

average of highest one percent of all waves, H, or tsunam, or dam

- break wave1

() p es and qualities of available cast shapes, rubble, stone, rock and flter materials used for con-strion of the structure (i) cross sections showing structure geometry and composition of mate-rials 0 liquefaction potential of structure!

soil foundations under (a) the SSE and (b) hydrodynamic changes In effective stress (k) stability of the structure and its foundation under all design load-ing conditions (including hydrodynamic force systems associated with te SSE)

Page 6 of 12 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment E DESIGN AND ANALYSIS 6

(i) ability of the structure to withstand continual hydrodynamic forces without relative movement of its in-ternal coponents, which are suf-ficent to cause structural failure.

4.4.2 Opnfing Cnditiows.

Operating conditions for Imp e

will vary according to purpose, location (on-stream or off-stream) and other conditions unique to the plant being considered.

These conditions may influence design of the structure as well as loading con-ditions, factors of safety-slope protection, materials of constructon zoninge age analyses, and o r parameters. he may influence the design of a fadlites. TheGeotenical rsha consider all normal operating conditions In design of the structure, as well as an-tldpated transients, abnormal and ex-t.eme envirormental conditions, which are considered as design basis during the life of the structure (as defned by the Owner in the design catons).

4.4.3 Static Lading Conditions. The owi condions hall be considered for dams and dke:

(1) During construction (2) End of construction (3) Sudden drawdown from 9p1way crest to minimum pool evalaton:

This may wot be necesy if dze of outlet or other pasive means does not permit trawdown. The relative penneability of the dam's upstream material and the potential rate of the maximum drawdown should be consddered.

(4) Sudden drawdown from top of splllway gates to crest of pIIway (if any), If such a condition could occur.

(5) Full reservoir or partial pool, down-stream dope, steady seepage: The alticl case should be determined through a parametric study of the factors influendng the selection of condition. Generally, the full reser-voir case will govern unless it is an assured temporary condition.

Steady seepage with a reservoir surarge may fall into this cate-gory.

(6) Sudden drawdown on downstream slope: This case may occur where the downstream toe Is subject to prolonged fooding and then rapid reduction of the toe water level.

This case will not normally be crit-cal where the downstream toe Is relatively porous.

4.4.4 Staic Staifty and

fomac 4.4.4.1 Dams and DiMes. Factors of safety for embankment stability studies should be based upon the ratio of avail-able ength to applied stres or other load effects. The minimum factors of safety for the static loading conditions listed in Paragraph 4.4.3 shal be as fol-Condition binimum Factor of Safety 1

2 3

4 5

6 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.2 In using these minimum recommended safety margins the Geotechnical Engineer should have a high degree of confidence in the reliabilty of the values used for the following parameters:

(a) and gradation of material fdtion)

(b) thoroughness and completeness of field exploration and laboratory testing (pe n

of materials)

(c) loading condiltions (d dege of control and workman-ship expected 4.4.4.2 ffls. For baffles (or dams whi nay be submeged), the fuly sub-merged and trawdown cond shall be considered. The effects of the failure of an earth structure upon the containing dike shall also be considered. Considera-tlion shall be given to the fow of water through and over the earth structure. The miniu fctor of safety of the baffle and ib containing dike (or dam) shall be the same, or gater, as for the dike (or dam)

Itself.

4.5 C

ts.

he efects of eu eed forces, cur rents, ffoating debris, and wave acton on

Page 7 of 12 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment E NUCLEAR SAFETY RELATED EARTH STRUCTURES 7

behavior and peformance of safety class earth dams, dikes and baffies must be considered. The postulated fidure con-ditions due to a dynamic load tobe evalu-ated are as followc (1) Failure due to disruptin of the st e by majr diferential fault movement in the dam foundation.

(2) Slope faie induced by SSE vibm-tory gound motions.

(3) Sliding of structures on weak foundaton materials or materials whose strength may be reduced by liquefaction.

(4) Piping falue or seepage thrugh aaks induced by ground motions.

(5) Ovroingf te t e due to seiches in the reservoir, slides or rock-fafls into the reservir or fail-ure of the spilway or outlet works.

Other dynamic-Induced forces to be con-sidered in design are:

(a) transfer of momentum effects from moving currents at design max-imum flood condition (b) impact of any postulated floating missiles at design maximum flood condition (c) design wave load effect (Iuding the effect of wave frequency and momentum).

In generaL failure mode (1) I precluded by siting estriction. While earth struc-tures tend to be able to acmmodate relatively large differential pound mu-on, at the present time thiere is no ac-ceptable design procedure tat would accommodate major differential fault movement in the reroi emakmet foundation. If the dam or dike is sited in a region (as defined by Federal Regulation) where such differential fault motion is credible, the dam or dike shall be assumed to fall.

4.4.6 Dynamic Stability and Perfor-mac. During an earthquake, large cydic inertia forces are induced in an earth dam. These forces may be sufficently large and may occur with sufficient cycles to produc excess pore water pressures or cause a reduction in shear strength of certain types of materials used in con-struction of an earth structure. Depend-ing on the severity of the ground vibra-tory motions and the types of embanik-ment materials, snall to large permanent defomations of the embankment could occur during or after an earthquake. In loose saturated coheslordess soils com-plete loss of strength may occur, leading to faiure of an earth structure. This same phenomena could also result from the effects of dynamic wave action, although the dynamic frequeny harwacteristic of wave action make it a much less likely occurrence. Dams containing cohesive materials or well-compacted and graded materials generally suffered little or no damage as a result of strong ground hakaig.% In asessing the aetyr of an earth dam during and after an eartquak (or oher dynamic loading) the folowi factori should be consldered:

(a) the magnitude and type of an-ticipated loading (b) the deg of confidnene in the metho n

used in defini-tion of material and design parameters.

The following minimum factor of safety is specified for the dynamic loading con-ditions lsted in Section 4.45.

Condition Minimum Factor of Safety 1

Precluded by siting criteria 2

1.3 3

1.3 4

1.2 5

1.3

'Must evaluate based on the Impact of a fathtre 4.S Anaytl Method 4.5.1 Methos of Static Analysis. Vari-ous analical methods for evaluating the static stability of an earth dam ex-ist. Il =34 The state of the art of static analytical methods is probably sub-stantially more advanced than other facets of dam design, and for a given set of Input data, most of these acceptable techniques will give results consistent with each other.

The method utilized shall be compat-ible with the anticdpated mode of failure, dam crosssectlon and soil test data. The complexity of the method selected should

Page 8 of 12 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment E DESIGN AND ANALYSIS 8

also be consistent with the size of the structure. Whichever method Is used, the Geotedudcl Engineer shall state the jus-tification for the method used.

Analyses dsll be performed for the various loading condtions given i Sec-lion 4.4.3. The critical filure surface shall be ptesented for eaci case together with Its corresponding factor of safety. The analyses all take into consideration varibles as material types used for each zone of the dam, dam geometry, variability of soil properties ud location of phreatic surface and variation of pore pressures within the embank-ment).

4.5.2 Methods of Dynamic Anal-ysb. Various methods of analysis are available for evaluating the seismic sta-bility of an earth dami. "

4 These may be classified as follows:

(a) pseudo-static methods (b) simplified procedures (c) dynamic response analyses.

Conventional pseudo-static methods of analysis are acceptable f the seismic coefent sected ap tely reflects the geoilogic and seismologlc codtons of te site and ff te materal are not subject to significant loss of strength un-der dynamic loads. Values of shear strengthO used in this type of analysis should reflect any anticipated loss of strength due to the postulated design eamhuake.

Although pseudo-static methods of analysis are simple to use, they do not provide Information on the magnitude of permanent deformations, which would deveop witn the embankment as a re-sult of an earthquake. Where ths In-formation is of Importance, methods (b) and (c) should be used. In reent years severa mplified procedures have been developed based on Newmas orig-inal concept of cumulative deforma-tion5.

a

a. a a Theseimplified pro-cedures may be used for eart dams con-structed of materials that are not subject to significantloss of strength due to qcdic loading. (ese Include cohesive soils and well-compacted materials).

Dynamic response analyses using state-of-the-art methods shall be con-ducted for those dams located in highly seismic areas (or constructed of materials that could undergo significant loss of strength due to cyclic loading, ie., hy-drauic fill dams and tailing dams). Finite element tedhniques have been widely used for this purpose (although In recent years finite difference methods have also been developed.^ a a a g ^ Approrate dynamic material properties and grund motion pameters defined for ste shllE be used In anlyses Consderble experience and egteering judgment are necessary in asseig the stability of an earth dam based on the results of a com-plex computer dynamic response analysis. In all cases, the results of such analyses shallbe verifed y general equ-librium checks.

5.0 Site Protection Earth Structures-Dams, Dikes, Breakwaters, SeawaLts, Revetmens 5.2 Scope 5.1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to descbe crteria to be used as a guide in the design, evaluation ard construction of those dams, dikes, breakwaters, seawalls and revetments classified as Seismic Category L This standard is Intended to identify factors to be considered In the construction of those structures and should In no way limit the investigation and analysis deemed neces-sary for determination of the suitability of such a structure and Its site.

5.1.2 Useand Type of Structures. Dams, dikes, breakwaters, seawalls, and revet-ments are intended r to protect the nuclear plant ste from hydraulic loads.

5.2 Site Investigations. A general dis-cussion of site investigations can be found in Section 3.0. The investigation of sites for hydraulic protection earth struc-tures shall be conducted In conformance with the following basic guidelines.

5.2.2 Waterfront Associtd Panameters.

These consist of natural shore and offshore zone characteristics, water mo-tion characteristics, and shorefront be-havior patterns. These shall be evaluated in conformance with Ref. 40. Investiga-

Page 9 of 12 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment F NUCLEAR SAFETY RELATED EARTH STRUCTURES 9

tion rquirements shall be sufficient to dearly define the fowing basic water front associated parameters:

(a) coastal area and offshore profiles from the land bluff or escarpment for a suffident distance offshore to define that depth of bed below stiwater level which can control the design wave form (b) bathymetric and topographic con-tour maps of bed area sufficient to define the immediate influence of such features upon design of the structure (c) natural protection features in-fluendng water waves and Flood (d) exposure to storm attack (e) characteristics of water waves, cur-rents, surges and foods lnfluenc-bi the earth structure (f) rate and composition of littoral transport and drift (g) long-term stability of shoreline in terms of erosion at accretion rates.

Water and water level investigation re-quirements for design of the above struc-tures shall indude the following basic informatlonF' (a) stiliwater or mean water level (b) astronomlcal tide data (c) seiche, wave setup and storm surge (d) design madmum flood elevation.

A determination of wind-generated water wave conditions as a basis for de-sign shall induden (a) evaluation of all wave data appli-cable to the project site (b) determination of the significant wave height and range of periods for the wave spectrum (c) determination of the design depth of water at the structure (d) determination of the design wave height, direction and condition (brealdng, rinbreaking or broken) at structure site (e) analysis of the frequency of occur-rence of design conditions.

5.2.2 Geotecknical. Geotechnical parameters consisting of geologic, groundwater, foundation engineering and earthwork parameters shall be evalu-ated in conformance with Ref. 2.

Geotechnical investigation shall be suf-fident to dearly define the flowing ba-sic Items:

(a) subsurface profiles along the length of the structure, and subsurface sections across the structure, pre-pared in a manner suffioent to de-fine the spatial arrangement of sol and rock materials that could in-fluence the structure design or safety (b) detailed geologic and desitin of each maeilieh Sed on te ssurface profiles and (c) definition of physical properties, strength characteristics, and dynamic properties of the soil and rock materials defined on the sub-surface profiles.

In establishing geotechial site design parameters, if structures being consid-ered are not at the nudear plant site, then a literature review and search equivalent to that performed to develop nuclear plant site design parameters sll be un-dertaken to estalislh 4nlte geo-logc, sismc, and natu phenomea.

Establshment of detailed geotechnical characteristics of subsurface materials shall indude:

(a) surface geophysical surveys (b) exploratoryborings and excavations (c) borehoe geophyscl surveys (d) sampling of soi and rock material (e) the in testing of s and rock materials (f) the laboratory testing of soil and rock materials.

Specific techniques and references applicable for each of the above outlined in reerne (4) Special Procedures.

5.3 Mails. The investigation of soil, precast, armour, rock, rubble or stone for the construction of earth waterfront structures shall be sufficiently extensive to Identify sources of adequate quality and volume for each of the required materials. Selection of a structure tpe and determination of the feasibility of the structures are dependent upon an ade-

Page IOof 12 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment E 10 DESIGN AM ANALYSIS quite sourand Ults associated quality. In generaL Section 4.3 material seetonre qui s are equally applcle to site structurl.

5.4 Design. Parameters to be es-tablished for the design and safety evaluation of dams, dikes, breakwaters, seawals, revements are generally the sam as those given in Section 4.4.

5.4.1 Operaifnlg Conditions. Design conditions for site protection structures are generafly those assodated with ex-treme hyrological phenomena. How-ever, normal operating conditions (wich indude erosion, weathering seepage or other normal operating phenomena that would affect performance of the pro-tective structure) shall be considered in 5.4.2 Static Loading Conditions. The followi conditions shall be considered for protective structures:

O1 Durig constrcin (2 End fcntutio (3) Desi mam flood evaluation as a ydrostatic load (4) Load nse where maxdmum design surcharge is present and water level is at Its design minimum elevatio.

.4.3 Static Sabift and Peonrancr. Fac-tors of safety for structural capacity should based upon the ratio of ava-able strength to applied stress or othe load effects. The minimum factors safety for the static loading condition lsted in Paragraph U.2 shall be as follows:

Condition Minimum Factor of Safety (c) certainty of loading conditions (d) degree of control and workman-ship that can be assured.

5.4.4 Dynamic Loading Conditions. The dynamic force applicable to site protec-tion structures are the same as those con-sidered in Section 4.4.5.

5.5 Ana l Mtods. Te analytical methods a able to ate e ink st e also app e to site pro-tection structures.

6.0 Site Contour EArth Struter-RetaWng Walls, Natural Slopes, Cuts and Fills 6.1 scpe.

6.1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this Sec-tion Is to describe citeria to be used as a guide In the design, evaluation and con-struction of those site contour control structures such as r ngw s,

opes, cub and fill (das ed as eismic Cate-gory I). This standard is intended to iden-tify factors to be considered in construc-tion of those structures and should in no way limit-the investtgation and analyi deemed necessary for deteriation of th sitbiiy f uc asrutue-rthe effect su an earth strcture would have on other nudear plant structures.

6.1.2 Use oud Type of Structure 6.1.2.1 Retaining Wais. A retaining wal Is any permanent structural element built to support an earth bank that cannot support itself. It is used primarily to con-trol site contours and may have specific application to construction of elevated or depressed roadways, erosio Protection facilities, bridge abutments d reta potentially unstable hillsides. Pdndpal types of retalningwalls considered intis standard inude gravity walls, semigrav-ity walls, cantilever walls, countefort walls, buttressed walls, crib and bin walls, rednforced earth walls and an-chored (or tie back) walls. The emphasis in thisSection Is on the designoearth structures used as retanng walls, and determination of loads on walls made of other materials.

6.1.2.2 Nauml Slopes, Cuts and Filis.

Natural sldpes considered In this section 1

2 3

4 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.5 In using these minimum recommended safety marginu the Geoted ical Engieer should have a high degree of confidence in the reliability of values used for the following parameters:

(a) type nd gradation of matrial (b) t gs and completeness of field exploration and laboratosy testing I

Page 11 of 12 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment E NUCLEAR SAFETY RELATED EARTH STRUCFURES 11 are any landforms existing on, or adja-cent to, the proposed site. A cut slope Is any dope resulting from the excavation of in sltu solls. Manade flls are provided to maintain site gade. Sopes, cuts and fils covered by this spedifcation are pro-vided primarily to maintain site contours (and whose failure would advesely affect the function of any safety related nudear plant structue).

6.2 Site Itwgation. A general discus-sion of site investigation applicable to all erth structures is presented In Section 3.0.

6.2.1 Sebmoogry an Geolog.

General seismic geology sitng citerla are given In 10 CFR 100, Appendlx A.m Various other rr eces d useful infrmation on requirements that must be satised by a thoroug emologIc and geologic in-vestigalio.O w 6.2.2 Hydrlogy. Earth structures used asretailizg a~s, slopes, cuts and fills eensitive to surface water erosion and g ndwater level and movem nt. Su strctures ha be de-signed to withstand historical and design basis foing and r

aton in ic-cordanc wih ANSI N 170.a 6.2.3 G aotekil. In the construction of earth structures it is imperative that the structure cros-section, materials of con-struction and their gradation, zoning and placement be consistent with site geology and foundation conditions In-vestigations shall be undertaken and suf-ficlent inrmation obtained so that the engineer can, with confidence, design a structure meeting those require-ments. References discussing the quired gecotechnical investigations in considerable detail should be con-sulted.cm L IL K IL I.

U" Since natural slopes and cuts consider the use ofin stu materials, available liter-ature and information concerning the foundation geology of the soils (and of rocks on the site) shall be consulted. Past records of construction in the area and old well logs shall also be examined. Air-photo interpretation and site reconnais-sance should be completed to reveal old slide scarps or other evidence of dope movements. Cross-sections and profiles of the slope should be made in suffident quantity and detail to represent the dope and foundation conditions.

6.3 Materials. Section 4.3 material enm req t areequally a 1-eabk to reta wall, slopes andL.

6.4 Design 6.4.1 DeAgn Parameto. Parameters to be established for the design and safety evaluation of retaining wals, natural lopes, cuts and fills shall ide the (a) a geotkchnical profile along the en-tire length and auross the structure at intervals not to exceed 250 ket, which is adequate to serve as a basis for design (b) the potential for ground surface rupture or displacement due to geological factors (c) und surface acceleration value or the SSE (d) Pes of available cast shape, nuble, stone, rock, in ditu and fil-ter materials used for construction of the structure (e) cross-sections showing structure g

ey and composition of mate-rials (f) liquefaction potential of the earth structure and its foundation under (a) the SSE and (b) hydrodynaric changes In effective stres caused by the maximum design event (g) stability of the structure and its foundation under hydrodynamic and surcharge force systems assodc ated with m m desgn event (O) hydrological paramets sa be In accordance with ANSI N 170.d 6.4.2 Operaft Condfts. Operating conditions for contour control structures will vary according to the purpose, loca-tion and other conditions uique to the plant being considered. These conditions may influence the design of ancmly facilities. The GeothEngeer consider all normal operating condits In design of the structure, as wl as an-tidpated transients, abnormal and ex-traemenxvironmental conditions consid-ered as design basis during the life of the structure.

Page 12 of 12 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment E 12 DESiGN AND ANALYSIS 6.4.3 Static Loading Conditions. The following conditions shall be considered for contour control structures:

(1) During construction (2) End of constction (3) Maxdmum design surcharge to In-dude any loading above grade by earth, material, structure, equip-ment and vehicles for design ag sliding (4) Load condition 3 coincident with most disadvantageous ground water design level (5) Maxtum design surcharge to in-dude any loading above grade by earth, material, structure, equip.

ment and vehicles for design against overturning (6) Load condition 5 coinident with most disadvantageous ground water design level (7) Design maximum flood and pre-cdpitatlon as a hydrostatic load.

6.4.4 Static Stality and Peiformance.

Factors of safety for slope stability studies should be based upon the rate of avail-able strength to applied stress or other load effects. The minimum factors of safety for the static load corulitions lsted in Section 6.4.3 shall be as follows:

Condition Minimum Factor of Safety 6.4.5 Dynamic Loading Condition. The effects of earthquake-induced forces, dynamic surcharge loadings and the ynamic effects of the Design Mamximum Flood and Precipitaion~ must be consid-ered. The postulated ladi conditions due to dynamic loads to be evaluated are as foows (1) Failure due to disruption of struc-ture by ma0or differential fault movement due to a SSE (2) Slope failure induced by SSE vibra-tory gr oud motion (3) Sliing of the earth structure on weak foumdation materials or mate-rials whose strength may be re-duced by liquefaction (4) Failure due to dynamic surcharge load effects if any (4) Failure due to dynamic loads associated with the Maximum De-sign Flood or Precpitatiorn.

6.4.6 Dyna1c Stabiity ad Penorance.

During an earth e, or In response to other dy aic load phenomena, large cydic forces may be Induced In a slope or fil These forces may be sufficiently large and may occur with a suftcent number of cycles to produce excess pore water pressures or reduction In shear strength of certain types of materials used In con-struion of an earth structure. Depend-Ing on the severity of the ground vibra-tory motions and the types of embank-ment materials, small to arge permanent deformations of the embankment could occur during or after an earthquake. In loose saturated coheslonless soils com-plete mss of strength may occur, leading to faiure of an earth structure. This same h

a could aso result from the effects of dynai wave action although the dynwamic frequency characteristics of wave acon make tt a much less ikely occurrence. Structures containing cohe-sive materials or well-compacted and graded materials generally suffered little or no damage as a result of strong ground shaking.=

In assessing the safety of an earth structure during and after an e

k other dynamic loading-the following factors should be consid-ered:

1 2

3 4

5

6 7

1.3 2.0 1.5 1.3 20f 1.8 1.0

-For foundation failure by bearing in day use a F.S. of 3.0. In using these minimum recommended safety margins the Geotechnical Engineer should have a high degree of confidence in the rebab-ity of the values used for the following parameters:

(a) type and gradation of materil (b) thoroughness and completeness of fiedt exploration and laboratory testing (c) cerity of loading conditions (d) degree of control and workman-ship that can be assured.

Page I of 3 GEO.DCPP.01.28, Rev 3 Attachment F ATTACHMENT F

Subject-TMA

!{\\

CQ\\CJA\\

fAj sZ Project No tT oI r.

Task-No-i)

CQt By L iS, Checked By W 4o7 Re 1

3 Date I(/29 /o3 Date 3MOZ Sheet of 3

W;< i~nPG it k, 4~4 \\Ti 1t rrW,+ &Jx

tsiNk 4 sJ ZL X'20v

)1V~ 4*43e cAN o-4n4Q 1 obon Nt (cqA 4 &t) ew4;&

obi>

44..S te(6L O

f4 MV4 qt1

'q -. C\\ 1' q9 w X 11 14 -l I

~-L pz~

~

~~~&

tse, 6%,

c:;.

s u

o OLz

\\\\1s 4LOK JNa\\W

++<

\\q k

o&i 4

IOt L6,l QN

qK;>'

eRtt4.Sv-3jttly v

GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS

Subjectt(OiWAly N^

vlb CQ\\cJalIDA1 ByL1S Checked By Date Project No. -Z7, 1 oBI as.6 C. 9H. i

offleNu Au. 3 Sheet 3

of 2

Date t/l" iO3 1

Il2.

vs I-

~11 I K I

to A.)

GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS

Page I of 37 GEO.DCPP.0128, Rev 3 ATTACHMENT G

-t 6

Pacific Gas and Geoscmim vepartmnt Electric Company laA l

~e RoomN44 P.O. Box 770000 San Fn cisco, CA 94177 Toe (415) 92480 Fa= (415)973-58 Dr. Faiz Makdisi Geomatrix Consultants 2101 Webster Street Oakland, CA 94612 March 17,2003 RE:

Transmittal of Cross Section M-M' and Rock Mass Models for Stability Analysis of Transport Route on Rock

Dear Faiz,

TrAnsmitted herewith please find the cross section (Section M-M') and two rock mass models developed by VWilla Lettis Associates (WLA) for slope stability analysis of the northern alignment of the transport route on rockl Electronic files for the Figures TR-1 thru TR4 (in pdf format) were forwarded to you on March 14 via the e-mail with the subject title of"FW: Transport Route Memo. Figs." The full docunentation on the cross section development of modeling of the rock masses is attached to this 2 trjnittal.

Please use Cross section M-M' (Figure TR-2) to develop the analytical profile, and Model 1 (Figure TR-

3) and Model 2 (TR-4) as potential sliding masses in your stability analysis.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call.

Attachment:

Me rndum from Jeffrey L. Bachhuber (William Lettis and Associates, Inc) to William Page (PG&E),

PG&E Diablo Canyon ISFSI Response to NRC Review Request No. S - Transport Route Rock Slope Stability, Rock Mass Models, March 14,2003.

TuSncatM-MA

-Page I of I T131/203 2.04 PM

Pay. 'CP.

G t -

OP Pacific Gas and Electic Company Geosciences 245 Markel Date:

March 17, 2003 San Fans Maiking Ad, To:

JOSEPH SUN Mad Codeh PO. Sax 77C Geosciences Technical Coordinator for the DC ISFSI Project San Framcisi 415.973.27c From:

WILLIAM D. PAGE Fax: 415.97:

Senior Engineering Geologist, Geosciences Department

Subject:

ITR of NRC Review Request No. 5 - Transport Route Rock Slope Stability, Rock Mass Models.

Dear Joseph:

As the Independent Technical Reviewer for NRC Request No. 5, I have completed my review of Mr. Jeffrey L. Bachhuber's Technical Memorandum dated March 14, 2003, titled:

PG&E Diablo Canyon ISFSI Response to NRC Review Request No. 5 - Transport Route Rock Slope Stability, Rock Mass Models.

I find the approach to selecting and delineation of the potential rock mass models follows procedures established for the analysis of the ISFSI Site Area that are presented the SAR. The portrayal of the clay beds used in the models is conservative because any evidence of clay in the Boring HLA-9 is inferred to be a clay bed and not from other origins (Le., analysis of clays in the borings for the ISFSI shows that many clay zones in the strata are filling joints or related to faults as shown in Data Report, Table B4). The dip of the strata is accurately shown and the section is drawn generally down dip, along a steep portion of the slope. The depiction of potential rock mass models for stability analyses is logical and kinematically reasonable.

My technical and editorial review comments provided to Mr. Bachhuber in my emails of March 5, 2003 (addressing the February 28 draft of the technical memo) and March 14, 2003 (addressing the March 12 draft of the technical memo) have been satisfactorily addressed and there are no outstanding issues.

It is a pleasure to provide the project with this review. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

WILLIAM D. PAGE 223-36784 et 31 R4 o.1,68

,fvi3

6 e Steet, Room 410A co, CA 94105 M'atss N4C 2000

o. CA 94177 12 1.5778

Glo.OcPP.o i.1e ft4 3 Atno.

G rx 7v AWilliam Lettis & Associates, Inc.

1777 Botelho Dnve. Suite 26Z Walnut Creek, California 94596 Voice: (925) 256-6070 FAX: (925) 256-6076 March 14, 2003 Dr. William D. Page PG&E Geosciences Department 245 Market St., Room 421, N4C San Francisco, CA 94177 RE: Technical Memorandum: Response to NRC Request No. 5 - Transport Route Rock Stability, Rock Mass Models

Dear Dr. Page:

Attached is a final version of the William Lettis & Associates, Inc. (WLA) technical memorandum "PG&E Diablo Canyon ISFSI Response to NRC Review Request No. 5 -

Transport Route Rock Slope Stability, Rock Mass Models". This technical memorandum was performed under our CWA contract No. 1223-92, and was requested by PG&E to develop the technical basis and input geologic cross section and models for evaluating the stability of the portions of the ISFSI Transport Route underlain by bedrock. The attached version addresses all your comments sent to me on March 5 and March 14, 2003. A list of your comments, and my responses, is also attached to this letter.

Please call me at 925-256-6070 if you have any questions. Thank you very much, Sincerely, JreyL.Bacbhuber, C.E.G.

Principal Engineering Geologist

Attachment:

Review Response List, Final Draft Technical Memorandum WLA Project 1223-092

GV5. Oc o.p el i

tq a As~h a"t G

RE: Response to W.D. Page comments on Draft Technical Memorandum: Response to NRC Request No. 6 - Transport Route Rock Stability, Rock Mass Models By: Jeff L. Bachhuber March 14,2003 The primary identified issues from your March 5 and 14, 2003 reviews of the memorandum, and my responses, are listed below.

1. "The man needs the strikes and dips used in the cross sections added to it so the reader can see them and not refer to the Site Geology man."

The strikes and dips used in cross section M-M' have been added to the final plan map Figure TR-I.

2. "The clay beds in boring 01 -H need to be extended to follow the formula used for drawing clay beds (they are chopped off to the west)."

The cross section procedure actually stipulates that clay beds encountered in one boring, but not on an adjacent boring, be terminated in the cross section at a point mid-way between the two borings. Boring 01-B was projected a greater distance into the cross section, but the clay beds were still terminated at the mid-way point to adhere to the cross section criteria.

3. "The old preconstruction topooraphv line on the section anpears to be in error. I do not see how it can have been above the marine terrace. I sketched what I thought was reasonable on the Fax that I sent yesterday and discussed it with Charlie."

We replotted the original topography from the pre-construction Towill maps by registering cross section M-M' on the Towill map using the State of California northing and easting grid lines. The original ground topographic profile resulting from this process did not match the unmodified portions of the as-built cross section, and I adjusted the profile to achieve a visual best fit. The resulting profile has a somewhat lower elevation in the area of the Transport Route and Qs marine terrace, but still shows that significant excavation occurred in this area. Because the marine terrace exists at the margin of the excavation, it could have also been cut during the site grading. In fact, it appears that parts of the terrace have been nearly, or completely, removed by the past grading.

The modified pre-construction profile is shown on the attached final cross sections. The modified pre-construction profile does not impact the stability analyses of rock mass models because the analysis is based on the existing as-built profile that has not changed.

4. "explain why Section M-M' is not perpendicular to the slope".

This, and other editorial comments, were integrated into the final memorandum text.

WLA Project 1223-092

po (0 4 3-1 6G.OcPP. ot.'L6 &A3 TO: Dr. William D. Page - PG&E Geosciences FROM: Jeffrey L. Bachhuber - William Lettis & Associates, Inc.

DATE: 14 March, 2003 RE: PG&E Diablo Canyon ISFSI Response to NRC Review Request No. 5 -

Transport Route Rock Slope Stability, Rock Mass Models 1.0 Introduction This memorandum presents the results from the William Lettis & Associates, Inc. (WLA) development of stability models for evaluation of the bedrock slope stability under the ISFSI Transport Route. This work was performed at the request of Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) under Contract Work Authorization No. 1223-92. Specific tasks included:

Review of NRC request for information;

Review of existing geologic cross sections and data in Calculation Package 0.21, Rev. 2, dated December 14, 2003;

Selection and preparation of the analyses cross section M-M';

Development of alternative slide mass models; and,

Preparation of this memorandum.

Development of the slide mass models was performed by Mr. Jeff L. Bachhuber, C.E.G. Internal WLA review was performed by Dr. William R. Lettis, C.E.G., and Mr. Charles M. Brankman, R.G. Dr. William D. Page, C.E.G. of PG&E Geosciences Department provided Independent Technical Review (ITR).

2.0 NRC Request for Information This memorandum presents the technical basis and input cross section for slope stability modeling in response to NRC Request No. 5 "provide an assessment of the long term stability of the subsurface materials under the transport route for sections of the transport route underlain by bedrock, considering the transporter loading superimposed on the long-term static loading."

3.0 Review of Existing Information In preparation of the new cross section for stability analysis, existing data were reviewed from the ISFSI Safety Analyses Report supporting documents, and WLA project file. Of particular relevance was existing cross section B-B"' included in GEO.DCPP.01.21, rev 2. Subsurface information shown on this cross section is based on geologic mapping and borings completed during the ISFS1 studies, and previous studies by Harding-Lawson Associates (HLA) in 1973 and 1970 (Hagler, Richard D., February 26, 2003 Transmittal Letter for HLA borings). The a

locations of borings in the analyses section area are shown on Figure TR-I.

WLA TransRteMemoNRCReqNo.S final 1

4.0 Selection of Cross Section Location Several criteria were used to locate the analyses section M-M'(Figure TR-1). These criteria include:

The cross section should cross the Transport Route where it is located on near-surface bedrock;

The cross section should cross the hillslope where bedrock bedding dips downslope, permitting kinematically possible sliding along clay beds; and,

The cross section should cross the steepest topography that meets the first two criteria.

5.0 Development of Cross Section M-M' Analyses Cross Section M-M' (Figure TR-2) was developed according to the procedures described in GEO.DCPP.01.21, rev. 2. That portion of section M-M' downhill, and west of, the Transport Route aligns with the location of existing cross section B-B"' presented in GEO.DCPP.01.21, rev. 2. The topography for this part of M-M' was taken directly from section B-B"'. The geology along this part of the cross section was modified from section B-B"' to reflect more detailed analyses of available borings. Uphill of the Transport Route, the location of the eastern part of section M-M' deviates from section B-B"' by continuing straight uphill, rather than making a 90 degree northward bend. The topography and geology for the upper part of the section was derived from the Site Geologic Map, Figure 21-4 and section B-B"' in GEO.DCPP.01.21, rev. 2. Subsurface information was compiled from test pits and borings that are located within 100 feet of cross section M-M', and was projected at a right angle into the section line. The original boring logs from the investigation by HLA (1970, 1973) and from the ISFSI investigations (Data Report B, William Lettis & Associates, Inc., 2001) were reviewed, with particular attention to occurrences and characteristics of clay beds and seams, and subsurface bedding dip directions. In addition, the nearest bedding measurements from surface outcrops were also used to establish control for bedrock structure in the near surface. Clay beds were extended from the borings in accordance with the criteria presented in GEO.DCPP.01.21, rev. 2 and as was done for the cross sections through the slope above the ISFSI:

Clay beds >1/4-inch thick - extended for 100 feet as a solid line and 100 feet as a dashed line from surface exposure, and to both sides of borings; Clay beds 1/8 - to 1/4-inch thick - extended for 50 feet as a solid line and 50 feet as a dashed line from surface exposures, and on both sides of borings; and, Clay beds <1/8 -inch thick - extended for 25 feet as a solid line and 25 feet as a dashed line from surface exposures, and on both sides of borings.

Clay beds are shown with shorter lateral continuity where they are known to be absent in adjoining boreholes. In these instances, the clay beds were extended to a point halfway between the two borings.

WLA TmnsRtMeM=NRCReqNo.5 final 2

?aji 6 G\\ a1 Hirt G

Two primary rock units are present on section M-M': dolomite (Tofb-l), and sandstone (Tofb-2)

(Figure TR-2). The dolomite is present as a thin sequence in the upper part of the cross section.

Most of the section, including the Transport Route is underlain by sandstone. Postulated slide mass models used for the stability analysis are located along clay beds entirely within the sandstone unit. Sandstone is exposed in the 15-to 20-foot high bedrock cutslope along the uphill margin of the Transport Route bench. Below the Transport Route, cross section M-M' extends across a small bedrock syncline, and the bedrock is covered by colluvium and Pleistocene fan deposits (Figure TR-2).

The location of the cross section is oriented in the downdip direction of bedding and inferred clay beds, and is skewed somewhat (about 10 to 20 degrees) from the topographic downslope direction. The downdip direction of bedding and clay beds is believed to provide the primary structural control for rock model sliding direction, and exerts a greater influence on the stability analyses than the skewing of the cross section location relative to the topographic downslope direction.

6.0 Rock Mass Sliding Models 6.1 Kinematic Stability Analysis A suite of slide mass models were considered for stability analyses based on evaluation of kinematically-permissible failure modes and geologic conditions.

Kinematic analyses methodology and results are discussed in Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.22, rev. 2. All rock mass slide models involve failure surfaces controlled by geologic structure (bedding) and inferred clay beds, and involve movement of a substantial amount of rock below the Transport Route bed. The northernmost part of the Transport Route that is founded on shallow bedrock crosses the axis of a bedrock syncline at about Station 46+10 (Figure TR-l). South of the syncline axis and on the south limb of the fold, bedrock dips into the hillside and large-scale rock sliding along bedding or clay beds is not kinematically feasible.

No other persistent discontinuities were observed in the bedrock in this area that could serve as potential sliding planes. Therefore, large scale bedrock sliding south of Station 46+10 is unlikely, and was not considered for modeling.

North of Station 46+10 on the north limb of the syncline, bedding and potential clay beds dip downslope to the southwest to the direction to a point about midway between the Transport Route and power plant where the section crosses the syncline fold axis (Figure TR-2). The dip of the bedding and clay beds on the lower slope below the syncline axis is oblique into the slope, inhibiting bedding plane and clay bed sliding and constraining the daylighting locations of the slide mass models to the part of the slope east of the syncline axis. All proposed models therefore toe-out above the location of the syncline axis.

WLA TransRteMemoNRCReqNo.5 final 3

M kn*'

s 6 G -W? P. 0t.1B, RQt 3 6.2 Model Basal Slide Planes Basal failure planes for each slide mass model are located along clay beds or clay zones that are interpreted to exist from evaluation of exploratory borings.

Although no clay beds were observed in outcrop above or below the Transport Route, they are assumed to occur within the slope as interpreted from the borings. The controlling clay beds for the analysis were interpreted from boring HLA-9 (Figures TR-l; TR-2), and consist of five clay zones documented in the original boring log (Attachment A). These potential clay beds are summarized in Table 1. The clay zones were not described on the boring log as clay beds by the HLA geologist, and no geometric information is included on the log to verify that these zones are actual clay beds rather than "clay-filled" rock fractures. Hence, all the clay zones are conservatively interpreted to be laterally extensive clay beds, and were modeled as potential slide planes for the slide mass models. The clay zones encountered in HLA-9 were not encountered in the closest up-dip borings, 01-B and 01-H, and are terminated between the borings in section M-M'.

TABLE 1. Interpreted Clay Beds and Properties from Boring HLA-9 Interpreted Depth (ft.)

Description Thickness for Model (inches) 22.1 "1/4"clayseam"

> 1/4 28.0 "clay cuttings" 1/8 to 1/4 44.5 "clay clumps" 1/8 to 1/4 51.0 "into clay, smooth drilling" 1/8 to 1/4 65.5 "1/2" clay filled fracture"

> 1/4 (1/2)

The apparent dip of the inferred clay beds in cross section M-M' are based on the nearest bedding measurements, in surface exposures and bedding and clay bed orientations from the nearest ISFSI borings that had downhole structural measurements.

The apparent dip of the bedding is well constrained by multiple measurements in the upper portion of section M-M' that traverses the ISFSI site, and in the power block area. However, between the Transport Route and the power block, the bedrock is covered by colluvium and Pleistocene fan deposits, and the HLA borings in this area did not include downhole structural measurements. The axis of the small syncline below the Transport Route is projected from the nearest bedding measurements.

The apparent dip of bedding and inferred clay beds was uniformly flattened between the projected syncline axis and nearest uphill outcrop bedding measurement (Figure TR-2).

6.3 IUpslooe Margin of Slide Models The upslope, headscarp margins of the rock mass margins were constrained by the following considerations:

6.3.1 The upslope termination of the clay beds constrains the uphill location of the slide mass models and location of tension cracks; WLA TansRmteMemoNRCReqNo.S anal 4

GUJ.0C?2.ot/M, 6L4 3 itY I

terrace shoreline angle and contact between Tofb-1 and Tofb-2, and is placed at the base of the cutslope along Reservoir Road, as described above.

8.0 Conclusion The alternative slide mass models, shown on Figures TR-3 and TR-4 capture the potential range of possible rock mass movements based on geologic and topographic conditions. These models are considered reasonable and are recommended for stability analyses of the Transport Route bedrock stability conditions.

9.0 References Hagler, RD., February 26, 2003, DCPP Boring Logs: Transmittal Letter for 1973 Harding-Lawson Associates boring logs.

William Lettis & Associates, Inc., 2001, Diablo Canyon ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 1, Borings in ISFSI Site Area.

Hanson, K.L., Lettis, W.R., Wesling, J.R., Kelson, K.I, and Mezger, L., 1992, Quaternary marine terraces, south-central coastal California: implications for crustal deformation and coastal evolution: in, Quaternary coasts of the United States: marine and lacustrine system: SEPM Special Publication No. 48, p. 323-332.

Geosciences Calculation packages GEO.DCPP.01.21, rev. 2, Dec. 14, 2001 Analysis of Bedrock Stratigraphy and Geologic Structure at the DCPP ISFSI Site.

GEO.DCPP.01.22, rev. 2, June 14, 2002, Kinematic Stability Analysis for Cutslopes at DCPP ISFSI Site.

WLA TransRteMemoNRCReqNo.S final 6

6.3.2 Constraint on the uphill location of potential slide blocks is provided by the approximately 430,000 years old Q5 marine terrace shoreline angle (Hanson and others, 1992) that is mapped approximately 120 feet uphill from the intersection of the Transport Route and Section M-M' (Figures TR-I, TR-2). This marine terrace shoreline angle is at an elevation of about 290 feet, and trends northwest along topographic contour approximately normal to the analysis section. The shoreline angle does not appear to be displaced or disrupted by past bedrock movements, providing geologic evidence that rock mass movements have not extended upslope of this horizon for at least 430,000 years; 6.3.3 The contact between dolomite (Tofb-1) and sandstone (Tofb-2) occurs uphill from the Transport Route, at about the location of the Q5 terrace shoreline angle (Figures TR-I, TR-2). This contact does not show evidence of past displacements, and no translated blocks of Tofb-1 dolomite were found in the existing roadcut or described in the borings below the road. This provides further constraint on the uphill margin of sliding block models, which should therefore daylight below the geologic contact; 6.3.4 Analysis of preconstruction air photos and detailed mapping of bedrock at the ISFSI site (Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.21, Rev. 2) above the Transport Route show no evidence of ancient rock slides in the bedrock above the route; and, 6.3.5 The Transport Route locally is on a bedrock cut bench with a 15-to 20-foot high rock cutslope along the uphill margin of the route. The cutslope exposes stable bedrock that has performed well since construction of the road bench. The changes in slope geometry from construction of the road bench are favorable for stability and reduce the driving forces on the slope below the road. The inboard edge of the road bench is an area of minimal cover over the clay beds, and also is a geometric comer that is a loci for stress concentration. Therefore this point forms a logical daylighting point for the headscarp tension crack in the rock models.

7.0 Rock Slide Block Models Figures TR-3 and TR4 show the slide mass models that were selected for stability analyses.

These two models capture the reasonable range in size and uphill-downhill geometry for possible mobilized rock masses that are feasible based on interpretation of the geology and inspection of the kinematics for potential slope instability. Both models have basal sliding surfaces on clay beds that were interpreted from boring HLA-9, and are inferred to have a gentle downslope dip of between about 2 and 8 degrees (Figures TR-1; TR-2). These inferred clay beds would daylight at the surface under thick overburden Pleistocene fan and Quaternary colluvial deposits on the slope below the road. The uphill margins of the slide block models would break up through jointed rock in a stair-stepping manner between clay beds, either at termination points along the beds, or after traveling a distance of about 25 feet along the inferred clay bed.

Evaluation of clay bed continuity, waviness, and rock mass jointing spacing suggest that the 25-foot length is a reasonable assumption for the continuous length of failure planes along the thinner clay beds. The extent of the failure planes along the clay beds was also constrained by the location of the slide block headwall/tension crack, which is constrained to occur below the Q5 WLA TransRteMemoNRCRcqNo.5 final Is

P45R 4

lL G I S C0. teP. e i tc W+/-LcXvmt,.k4 G

ATTACHMENT A - Boring Logs Used for Section M-M' WLA TransRteMcmoNRCReqNo.5 final 1 1

LOG of ROCK BORING al -

i.-I,

4..

CI.,

a i

~

I2~*IPage'~

ai__

F.

~Id w

&t-wnhp

'kaa~jg md b~

tiUiVC Dcpp-,EjrS-j j~aunc-mewclE9l FC. a.

Se AurT-x Ica.a Dedleir IfCpna&c

&I r S Si Sc i..

3 4.4+; -t.

S. C04% SAP eWA&l i1 4

7

AI"

/

C-r

-N,

clto -C-*

1=1 54Adosr60 J A

4..a-

4.#

Lf F)

L..;.

c Cie.

6

.)L I/.1I III 1: -SoAcia"S"al, T484qd" &Jo I MI 0 P eV& Got t

4"Wo.

A%4rfw,&:

pij:d

obre-0-1 AftPv%.Atqft 8

4aiqdt Am yqkafrmaae

&Aires Ar &%r.%A.%

P#

(JAu,60

.I i

6,b

V&b..joo

--$I 0, Stop, wo.-St. -0 P L.

1 gli I

9 l1r

PMeq Ph gi,

,r:-

10,

, fI-4'ita~ Cd.

(.

0 i70fSI

12 S"

e"S -a cw% 4.* a%# C t,-I esjip

!.j '- 5o)'cse.

T.*e. fill'I,@j i

'ToadIP is U,-f

1e "

I

I I I 9 -

a -1 I -

I I

w.p~

d14ba.

is, W

I I I IErn.~.

crt ad 11111C1..I49411k UW41LKW ft-Easii UWAOn. CW4WIPWI ad UR" U&4 Slums fpUwk. £Z-yvadw U.krn~

LUinhgw 3.uoOWW

£aagbmaw CSu-mua&

SiIMigkuiY 11,11b.1 3..hugk. ad 'VI.V-y £ewghj Aplown ff.4jkd. ke.ikucd.6.p4W aud TI.TW. RMy at jaraflUn. okieid"'"C'

~5 5 KSJ JL&

aa I.i i

.'rq 4 36, G. Oqpk P woV s, 4 pisxht

-t II. /

ROCK BORING LOG IP*

bm Moww 12z34 - 1 I1° Page of I

, 11of111 /

T lSo I

MI-Was 41 is 10' I

rA 1v:1-riptiofles I6 16

atinuiUeS

,.;pso zes wsi, W. OX

'7 I a I 9 I.

'III

1a2 I

i

., I) 4

'124 I26 12 3 119

\\-.3

. p iy, itoer l

t'.se-r l'.O TD, all Pon lot,I&

-set cg1 e

ji

h t 1 w J. -g 1,P O

k. 6",o U.gs.,

> l o;

els its: ho M.^,

,it^

TSa

-^o~au~sof I ox b7,1-6,0-41 Xe.ox I

% pi SIO#r, Ox w.o, Is t S

, of a I

&M. 1.

<jw'S tax~

-Sft

,S, at

- r.,s,-esz 5orcl.

Ise 0

s c ;vc

°tso-9.#-

v r.

RemaftcS Sp:..U4 P-o VI L.aesf-.

I

.1-cs. Po g;J #k_ 7_

I

-

h l el. °l asm I j

q 'cSW z

. ~ v1_

_i.

l s s

s.r~

ui r.vKnrsre

~ ~r 4 Jc S V.

y h I ~ l h u g i k e I - u^ n u U.h i y S M £ 4 4 b U fi at, h _ u ~i V. W.R 1 ~

v i 3 U U I I~

L ~ I S bd t 'Iu U q

s-i Disidw~

r L

L i9a~i j

I Mzkubffdat~

L gfl U_6aS

$9sSr 3hI I

-p inIs t~ o t s eXW i:if 0

.e I

go

Mr 4

,4k G ROCK BORING LOG Page 3 of __

jP.

sUPP I

ilr r1223. - I Ia 114l1.

1 °i-B c

f Description 'Disconti nU!UeS Remarks 30 31 I

=32 1

A j,-

_T a

I I

3S I

3 SW P2

4.

be

'9 a

77 I If

=I I

A or.:'.3S SS z_&4;

.I*4tiCVrts er4tu4 S*fto%*4 g4~*I..t4

ce..a 41I I

36 L+/-A.l%

1'I1 44* 6. _

-_9 la,

-36 q1 q3 S

1%

2 Pe I.;

T IN 00 If

^A s$1 s X$P1a5l) t %1,*;,?l

,sI,DP

-,Sof,.S

'v

^ 6 I,So;r les

, o

-.A-,s,,Of I -

e.,st, TI t

",Lt, S,-saV Sh~tS' etSI. Ucio

-re3, ca

,rt,"s,

Y S,-,uI ghlo~e B 1'.41°0 2°1 4%:Ae SAM t.*"t ST* C rT.Sqt64a I

sC wre wi t, U4,6 -

ca+161L_

Su

~

"1 Et PI

_U 4Cjf--

L.

_ tlL a;I 9w'-

JsU' I

3a.VC w

0 - ISPs I It I. Fij N-7j 3', *%I6 0q' 6'0f,. r.

.9 f0 i6i (

oq1S.;t L"%4 #.II U#

f av 0

9 tD~

-I 90r.

INK I

ka%

I.

I*

IL

_L_4_

cm"_.940 CO"+."

sWO~

el,%a"

_o.sYUA&*

Itc 9Sw#4 V&f%-W a Z I

t 4

Ss'

-4

'1....

1-44 ru-. -

a, 94 1 re-S....W,^4..jX 0?c~ C.

kI.

Atot¢@

Sqg:+*K.E.

VIA-IS I

k.nwu.

c.

.i-V ~

II~

~F~.

w~yWi~lW

(-

I Mew-tj-L j

uV.CI(.lIw I~a~d Ieq U-b-b I 44fTf r.mj t.L3fajy~Ue~~wIp~ral

£mr as Fa.t-Emw aoU U w-J £ wam

.. 1* i

y. Vft.

wymL A s Iaw" S

bl Fiume

=!*

-: tIn

*o m o T ih r l a

@S of 4K P t; -

cv.4 X% fuWft#

Ls+ I4."f

P L 4

z s3

.OCPP. ol.tC 6'4g.3 Pb2LLsrsAt G Page j ROCK BORING LOG I

vP rrz-591CTF lzL5z.m-I I l 12'Ih i

_ of S

Al

/q+W

/

Wt i

Descrpgo Yi4 tnles Remarks q a j16 I:5 4 a Lig0 2;I 52 311 iS7 1

=,,

i 1-I' I

I 14 I

I I'

'I 0j a,-

Er "SI 1S.

SW I

tq.%C s

ik W4v

(

i-6:.,cwia ^

es 5, IJrowJ 1-wel S5.

16ft6

W C-C1.*_ds i=a m

P_*A A6.so, l

34;,

ft G

S§:s I.1 I

Al I.'2 F_

10 64 2IS xnT',ru7 (b

I..

C, JI.

A, I

0 10 I

I

'LI.

>,7 efl,sem rtM 4

r,.,

iLs~

It

_4. _.snmej.rat in -J -t

I **

.a. r_ fo.J%"..

IP _

1

X;,,r

'o_

5',

O

-'9 S8

'9.

?a e

I S

k.

go*, 71944 toj&6_

4,. 6-I 4

Ii sa,bvaa.

V "S

5,W AXPOS' 8.,p.~khh 1 *E 574*

'/3%

.,~

%-I&;

twk.aaC 7 ;P- $,SP% L S~et^,,9#W etrv,.

W^ rae c S.

j.e f-l 6u M' S+;Itj4..

rqC&.MOS eV$ t SIT

Sf af;o O'da il-ut51¶

,0^*

Eli k

I4t'&.-

1g

%cw.. ecy rz.

It 4'L14 14 C Agwm4 W

4

.Wli

,4&;Avo I'

21 v

I b

I

?i--*,.

goiets4 I rtujo,w,"-slx r

a w

w X

X C6.ab-e JL el uS1&so

Nee t4 eV i1 WG0m.ep ol.UB AL4. 3

.-, /

)~

If&m)nft'"

G onIrlv amolbei I

O___ -

%~r c1vng g

Page _0 1"mDC9 rosltr r 1*/Ct Z5 e3 - I I

a/Zt

/2 Lo I-E Of I I!IJD Ur j

~Rernalt Lc 41 I~.

C3 1, 4 a

W, c8

' 9 f7° i11 i 7 I

I

.9 i

Os N

I.

It il

_.5 s.7o

_4

_4 _9 9

IL N.

4 Es 4

I 313t..

V iNs.

, ISP6.0 RI RI "IV9de70

.ad.&

.L

(

.f ')

I 1

t.

aI pV WI to U 4S F

L-ef ur"sted,{

lie f.,

fa4r

.C4 AL. 1,r d4H D- 0 D a.%

m ue I

I 00s,op fits e a.1OF do A pf4 61 'lesf m l c:u.w L "V&COi&d.

rmc

_4 _

c 6.'

'4 4

S0 11 It, I

I Mt me ma ve;Ma'Ior~o Aft

,ftt1,o AW tax 9k Mt ASt 70,

te a.

as,i sta 1 7/1.W 'OuSVA

I G6b:otK c

D

_9 9

7 73.

4.

I I L

I I

I-I.1.L

.I I

I I..A......I LI I_______________I 3U F

.SW4Z.

k iftL4 m* i&A"m

.MW Arnt Vp*

ar WY WYrfl6dan 1

rin

-ecveychu(.l. SnUI..

e _l3J..s I.lI&sa.9m4. 4aZSmu U2.Wt2 KlZ-* ~*.ai£0mnmyWa*LI~h Dna~im:3ct:0k qpl.uM o

_~b~i.F FbFFgunb Sk~.rm r~

.Shu-*-i i

kl&smzpia_:Dip. Simj,4auU4ifeffSl W,-WaqI.

£.1mm.E-rn 1 3rg wL

^e d

r rtw_#

k& Ah t.w l G

LO * 'ROCKB LR-N L

Is I

LOG of ROCK BORING 01-14

,CA *_; ;v

r.

4Sr-4&0, C t*}<

-. 0 C-61 Sltitt

--~

01-i /l

_1 el Flow Ms-k xa-I uc pf rs-rsr 16i I T V3 3lami

-' 1 I ck mum d Daum GIF O

o

.k Sqo m le..-

ow ime.I

( S b.t..

3c,.,

VA O-0 tto aeJAk kuk" LDE Ce orAL

?i VS 4.i -*#&,Iig-Ni eC ILl--#

m DmIii&rc

.j dI e 6cmow 0

&:miW F1 DmikAcei4CKWd £ l_

CA, t,,

~ I --

st6 -

I I

/is la, I bzrvl -Y~ ~iln

--- I t

, ).

ffiI VW Md too J.

.t -1 WAA O<.CA 1S L" I

I TEWi Tf 8 -il6 I A,, q-r ton It I

_L1-

[</X

/p/~K ft ot o

dg6md*08#E6>~gaF6~tholgkesipun rOOiScnPJnd~e Remarks IJ.

I n

2:

t 3-5-

6-a-

r1-I '

¢tf 13.

.>14.

Avycto 3.S'

,1 1

1 1

I7 4-Lk TIs.

Mo 6c R2-Dlzl i's iS Ldfw==

iU"PJ 0%0"A 5 t m d6.A C A' tls5

et@<J4 t.rgWa-,,

S.4,as$l -%&J

,,.T.,

2 Aw Lim 4 I.4&

6^

his" IxVA So 4-St *-b ves -,;5, To Ss

~

1; let~

§ ti g

c, (

x0m)

Z;,Mo,,-:md-f *-kt' V b *X;.A hA X

%,L,$

Sr4 *

~,i.D',$

" rctas4 AovA,Skrs.m, ma-r MA %kbf,% -W, (muxw6-w-A 1;,o*4 Rle.,E.

i,. S "; fk k

I r

I s-..r fiSl~j*

CjO0%ft%

A 0

C _

G WJ.

i VA N

C Se I

5.9 B

C 44 I 03-u'- £.

V., VL,JO'

$.3v~w w~as[

ftE Wsw~

^

e

. atk?

_4

_1 a

a...

.'V-MUQMtojfft.s% ss ONg uaa).

S l

1.~

ra<wLtt*K~t r.,rSi ios4Ia',i zp~ *u lot

I-'

7,5, wa39 01 1C 411, e 1a.'

." 1'W M-4 Ito,"

wk~

(A

v' fl %dwa' 3

.3 A;~

3 1,#

U.

.4q F

SW al^k W

"raf I

CW~ Edd

. &V U41in" ml-F mU W.V y W&

v v

m r ~~

Sw ~

I4qrf.*Whi h

U ra Am D

UhLm7_

p.Sms k amgma u

£Sa aSt s4i1ghIty Ie qad, g

h 3, kj.

W"l of F Orwe ll W

Gto. oc>p. G.1-,

h 3

NVL"t G 01-I.L ROl F T5i CK BORING LOG Page 2

,o Is&-

I

- \\

W4el8Jbg ill-2

'35 T

Z2 jeat 41Z5 5 26 la.

a4v 4.'

at, ff-2 Poesflo of LogcDescripton f otii te Remafs I

=.-

I -

F`

.-Y -

I-I r

r r

r I

3 34 J

tr,

. - Kb P.

P.2 RI.

1

0x C.

SM

,J esbd

" lAw4o".

^^-tg*t^

b.4f<

5wTe

£ar DJ*

Erb4.

1r, S!w 1

)

U114=;

"d

,!W o.Nwvl^

baD%,

C.W,

\\tL'-

,w 10RS&tt4v I A t'jj T.k, oW, 51Z, s...>~.

,LI,.',.

W.~

I I

C.

32P.

MoC Pfi 470 6A V

Go*

5w s

5!.0

-4 So OFtss#

"D,,y 10 IL15.,

btielt

,.p Idpi)

-I-

,Z,W,T1,%

Skit 1r w PU Itv.

S...

bX,jvrqvn

,StIgohA S^.s=SV.

51.',_

7s W6. Wr,Au 6 t 4

,W..

,t 110%

-o-_,

9-1l lle 11 50% Stv%

I%% fs!

rzots~

,ft; e -L.& I SOA, Vebm%

p 1

eopst; Ds~._.-._-

SW R2 e

(I.bd...4A en-

,1U.91tts b %w S

41 6-"O,*

%Otepr.MZI..14' I

s6 Is.5 C.U, ALSZ.l L4`14 r tb.o GAsutsiaI-,

.1 I I I I I l; 11 I

fs.4 -

.~~

-%-rA I

I -I I I F"

$Ib wiM L4wL

>S U

l S

M a

y ~

f 4,aidw0ih.% krdmuis_

inSm

0~ £f7.1 a3 6f. tCep. I-tib ),ffi4 kvAiw1hrA G Page.

onme ARDRIN LOG 21-Of

-I-FO~3 w-.

1jf.

I1 lot!M, nn rclr 1 -go / 1'

,01 I of' I

w Juk I

I-I

___j a::M g3P/*oXg~ic DspUon

~jw AlTC eqJ~a V>p~

Remaz*s s~*

4-sI~

yi-T~

1 o

I F

J2 41g1 3-34 35 36 37 38 41 n

I FUF W

4~

bF II

==skit%

4SW" I L1A.q'3L3

~^

-gcn T.r£f%, w% Ik~i

,r f

-f I;t

_I,_

Li dc'm IF qq

)oil C.3al rstm K^fpv

.hsp if"ZWf

,B LL S

sm 1IL bo M%

VL e

it -i'~

CA, mtsorw~;-,., -

Ski nsu scL bL.~I e'2§s

-Pm z0 Iu

°'u vos4.t "M¶ aI~ St,

ei" wtiaa a"

'. t goIAP

Wi -5gSgP6Sb;WI~

b. em pa lk ORM I

,.fl..,

IDV~

,C<s,@.{

C"~

ot~~zsW.

Dtel~,

rhir-irew.

I-to et1 7-00b r *4>,

etzlt' k.^-.-

1ls tsis

hX 5At 4

ocy,e voe elns",vb;^

Xts 15?kS; 1d' 7,wfn}

?-"Io

-'a

.1 u;~'

1%

i' I.'

s Wo4 1 14p II I

I I I I I I I.,..w ia.e i

_a^ir 1 I

I I

Is I I v"9 41-414 at..$

1o-0S l

lw-W.M-UW44i.r. _.s;~~.mg~

L i4

.%a t 0.l*~.Wiw

.sy(

M I S.

e U.WL Iwo aF gsk wnL_

pat26 4 sr Go. bCPp. e0.16, Z4. S P&MA-td G

ROCK BORING LOG

rage L lo-

~

1tD(PTfsT I22 3.. -'

a"'l1 Ic'-

A I j4

{_ of 7

.o of XDescni~ofe of DiscnauR ies Remarks

_0

.1&

km3*8I f.*W n.*3e] vW^tu f'*-

.i.bk.VI 4 10%

I To'sp w ri si" fI I 1

' tr.17 ii"C" a.4,bI.IIFd.

Oj U

1 W54L 54.5

,W CM1 16*fe; ejs ftbf Z^p leofw 2l0 ps-

'Dyvl 11st'

Q69, ift C.

I I

?t w Mm;....

i~~~

~~~~

I,_ t-;

QSF_%_-

miC2~u~) Swv 14Iuq 13 isum

.DW.Ifr tWG

's m,_fl~

')

ib 5.10 F r~o bu-i..

W_.r.lh&

biI&C" Dus.dt Rw'_m04m_ U*4~

bS~ b-am,.m VXkY ~4wtr1U< ci SJ1 gpmlr.-4 we a1 rm3 dk L

?l

'L i VA'1 6ff. DUP pIt6

-. O 1464-3 0 -541j N"

"dic G ROCK BORING LOG Paige -A_ of _;

.rspst Jn'MloIlot

,l U thogicDescription ofisonties Remnarks 0

s3 EXi

.~

F---,-

UP Am'ae t. a.. W as e~3 2

t ~

Isle 46OWAI-sle -rlw o

?OA"/oSvoRo1 BS s'

W"wr.*

L i Tc i`

t z

IS V.[Kw6wi3*Sth_+-o SI" Sot s-QT.1sWa.2 Z0C) jr r,=P>^W AVA'Ssilocom I1 ro _s _ _3 _1 S_ gd.Auq;Swa.AT, 00S

%51 2fff

£KPWb

%uhcobe T~'"1 1

36, Vow.

W4 Pw

/*Iss

§ i~. h s;,*~.r " -z

.s h ~ g i r

a2rys

-f.

3.&c. Fa.Fub.a F.JdkI3aJh f C C. t.

°-i bb$

t~~~~~~w-XLir~,isgi,,rL g4~~~~~~~~~~M -nWt 4 _ 1aro.................raw

_ _ r

P4o.pSO et 31 GW.D.CPP.oS.t6, a4 L

Nea*W.4t G ROCK BORING LOG Page C.

I YL o rs s J'A'

'- 'IallMi-

' of 0; Al kD g

X/

t ogic Descipfiones vO

-r Rernaft I

-I 175'

]

I a-£ la*

"9 A

-WI 0% I K

¶RJAtS M,

%.ca,-Y41 to vO-5A e~aI.

f"W I

p.ASIU.

"'..I&

4 w-essfuc S44g'>

I4

-9q-4~

RI-

$.ae

& AboW

-I I

/$5

.A I so

g*

F2 b

884 0

1 1

1 47 ut.

I 0fl.3 -71.-

s w,~ael&

Ax5."

a.L.

s,

LJi,

$9 bsa*'g

So, fW.,Dive

-3b,c, Pie $,oTlo loe MO Jsg'g

,.St P.

-c'a,%,

stFs,,e.t4

.oSI ers S,

UfSNll, I%

j.#,, L^,,,n,

^

o~s

>v re Si, Ti :rLS is%

b

_i;* v

..Se LIz r

Vr 2Z@S 'I

¶e 2es

=

r. *4..

._w_

ASG

-Sc.kcfai 1*20%-

cae-D nLIb h 2_P Teobp t 7zufil C

. 9-4

_. -_O w

..1 2tt a

@^l4-, HMs 1I!

Vd^-

w4 bW 0

et t#

zds.

l-la-Sn^W-sf s

I Is 1oc tes

_ r P51 C

Mo n

IEI-J I t.

a KI SmAt,#El e,

.^ewr;,

IN 66 1

T rI-m~

g5~

16 Z0, %g4, V Sju.t 9gq',2 M1I.J raA. -I,

$dJ,,tS C4.

eqe dg*2 k

fs II 99.U

.9-*~

-1 8.

5b 2*%

/6 U4 I

1

-4. -

lI I-Tefb-2 J1 wak en

&*- tS.

I alo 4.nc U

0 P.4 4sAtl

%%Z'~

O48f 04-re V%,,

4 "

wV 1_suV.

5%

Dac C.

I.1

£L£&-.4 0

_C JI sit PA ts 10 a -

%--I 1

)W%

__I to

_ _ _ _ir;T.

co. piS%

p:.?*%

u I

L bemmui-.rih. I. C F.dIbhW I

4i.Ibm.A -

u~am Dhm kP.tue'I Pa hi Rinwd w

-*R.c U dnv s

u5_

1 r

a gb".m u

C S166 m"W C

9i=;rr:dL

@Dt w

X~

~O w

_.n mlVAy S vs

_ru S r0frw

-wn

~t.S I

P tl DV S9 6Tb. OctP. o kA6) ew. S Pft49,* GI ROCK BORING LOG p

.~&

IIditLMP SSfST I -qlto I

OI.jA.

4 Page -_7 oft I__-

I.

SIO/

s r-r r

r r

r q-

.f Remarks o0

'13 451 4

,lie 191 i;tj 102:

3-(4)9 oS kq C In

_q q -

_g-I Cl ci 9i.Re

-3 L41 I0.

RI s

SW, I6 his.t ^.'

f STtY '-s' lb.

-L640" a T*3"Mist xst.,J mv D.W Vaq sf G" S' _.ls4.d I %.IS I

5 '.'wrfI"f k

w 4aso.^ -Z I.

,.,.: orn

^w g4. _

,ld

\\6*

&*;,a

,Thr. -mei U4. M se T,sn Cs r.,<,i~k w-2rte, W* 1~

C.O, lf,,lT, Sabll00Sin, r-As I

14@ Ed Psi 6P".' IsolI go' -o I

1i DX 45 L§O911 cap D

.-t w La-.. -_ 4

_1 MeL 6%

C1 z~LV" 2S601;:

.soj' LM0 Il I

I A

I I

I

' I rod q 4-TO lot, 5*iopim/..14p

-.1J.I I I ILL I I I I.I I

11-1 VC Fqrm4Jns SW-U&IL i~b~U~ib R&Umwi ogMu Smmwpm 3i.~

7 id.U t56 PnV"W'$ 0LMeb

Alduhm~lt G K

Shear Strenth (lI*/8q fl) g J

LOG OF S(

A 't a L Z :

VA X 1

Equipment i S§ gi 8

Eveatio.

RI NG 9 (cor Oote

U r

mm

. =

m I-DL It.,

ITo 0.

90

\\ 95.

BROWN CALCAAEOJS SANI'STOt-IE rfw-rained, closely fractured, modrtely hard, week, moderately weathered BROWN TIJFFACEOUS SANDSTONE medtiun-Falned, massive, thffk4Iedded, closely fractured, moderately hard, weak to moderately strong, moderately weathered swu ARDINO.LAWSON ASSOCIATES 0

Consuafliu Eragiuner Ld Geologiaf No 5622J.

. - Api:,..Lr Date12/13/73 LOG OF BORING 9 P5661i1ty Evaluatiown Pawer Plont Cut Slope Diablo Canyon Site

ATTACHMENT 7-1

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY GEOSCIENCES DEPARTMENT CALCULATION DOCUMENT Page 1 of 24 GEO.DCPP.01.30, Rev. 3 Calc Number: 30 Calc Revision: 3 Calc Date: 3/17f2003 Quality Related:

ITR Verification Method: A 1.0 CALCULATION TITLE, DETERMINATION OF POTENTIAL EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED DISPLACMvpNTS OF POTEN$TIAL SLIDING MASSES ALONG DCPP ISFSI TRANSPORT ROUTE (NEWMARK ANALYSIS) 2.0 SIGNITURES PREPARED BY ZPi Lnted me Printed Name Z4I)ATE.

I-0 Organziation VERIFIED BY:

_( ___ ___

~ --

72.

i Z. /4

sZa Printed Name APPROVED BY:

d,

/

Z 4

/

'J-,f Prinieoame DATE

/2//et 3

Organization DATE 3Z:

Organization qj'VtD3 I

Page 2 of 24 GEO.DCPP.01.30, Rev. 3 3.0 RECORD OF REVISIONS Rev.

Reason for Revision Revision No.

Date 0

Initial Issue 11/21/01 Revised to address comments from 6/4/2002 NQS Assessment Report 01339023.

I Removed superseded figures from attachments.

06/25/02 Added new attachments (e.g. list and excerpts of input and output files).

Numerous editorial changes.

Rev No. on this sheet for 6125/02 corrected to 1. Page 8 of calculation 2

revised to show correction to CD label name. Page 39 of calculation 12/20/02 revised to show what is listed on CD.

1. Added analyses for a new section M-M' along north end of transport route.

2. Re-calculated deformations for all sections using seismic coefficient time histories computed in GEODCPP.01.29, revision 3.

3

3. Attachments 1 through 7 are copied fromn GEO.DCPP.01.30, revision 03/17/03 1, no unchanged were made.

4. Added new Attachment 8 which includes excerpts of files used for the deformation calculations for sections L-L', M-M' and E-E' based on seismic coefficient time histories developed in GEO.DCPP.01.29, revision 3.

I I

I

Page 3 of 24 GEODCPP.01.30, Rev. 3 4.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this calculation package is to estimate earthquake-induced permanent displacements of potential sliding masses along DCPP ISFSI transport route using Newmark-type analyses.

The calculations reported in this package were performed in accordance with the requirements of Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. Work Plan, Revision 2 (dated December 8, 2000), entitled "Laboratory Testing of Soil and Rock Samples, Slope Stability Analyses, and Excavation Design for Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Site" for sections L-L', E-E' and D-D' along the transporter route as identified in calculation package GEOJDCPP.01.21. In response to PG&E AR A0574914, analysis for a fourth section (Section M-M') representing the northern end of the transporter route was made.

Also in response to PG&E AR A0574914, seismic displacements of all potential slide masses on sections L-L', M-M', E-E', and D-D' were re-calculated using the seismic coefficients computed based on summation of boundary forces as documented in GEO.,DCPP.0129 Rev. 3, and the yield accelerations that incorporates the effects of inertial load from the transporter as documented in GEODCPP.01.28 rev. 3.

5.0 ASSUMPTIONS The order of magnitude of seismic displacement of potential slide masses along the transport route during the design ground motions can be reasonably represented by the displacements computed for the four cross sections presented in this calculation package.

6.0 INPUTS

1. Five sets of rock motions originating on the Hosgri fault: Transmittal from PG&E Geosciences dated September 28, 2001 (Attachment 1 as confirmed in Attachment 7).

I

Page 4 of 24 GEO.DCPP.01.30, Rev. 3 2 Plan and three cross-sections along the transport route (Sections D-D', E-E', and L-L) from calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.21.

3. Plan and cross sections M-M' along north end of transport route from calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.21, and GEO.DCPP.01.28, revision 3.

4. Azimuths of three cross-sections along transport route (Attachment 3, as confirmed in ).

5. Orientation (azimuth) of the strike of the Hosgri fault: Transmittal from William Lettis &

Associates dated August 23, 2001 (Attachment 4).

6. Direction of positive fault parallel component on Hosgri fault: Transmittal from PG&E Geosciences dated October 18, 2001 (Attachment 5 as confirmed in Attachment 6).

7. Yield accelerations that incorporate the inertial force from the transporter and locations for potential sliding masses from calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.28, revision 3.

8. Seismic coefficient time histories computed using the boundary forces acting on the potential slide masses from calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.29, revision 3.

7.0 METHOD AND EQUATION

SUMMARY

Development of Rotated Motions along Sections L-L' and E-E' Geosciences department of PG&E developed five sets of earthquake rock motions (sets 1, 2a, 3, 5, and 6 as listed in Table 1) for the ISFSI site (see Attachment 1, as confirmed in Attachment 7) to be used as input to the analyses. These motions are estimated to originate on the Hosgri fault about 4.5 kn west of the plant site. Both fault normal and fault parallel components were determined for each of the five sets of motions. The fault parallel component incorporated the fling effect and its positive direction was specified in the southeasterly fault direction (see, as confirmed in Attachment 6). The fault normal component has a direction normal to the fault, and its polarity can be either positive or negative depending on the assumed location of the initiation of the rupture. Based on Attachments 2 and 4, the direction of movement along cross section L-L' (which as shown in Figure 1 has an azimuth of 67 degrees) is 91 degrees (counter-clock wise) from the direction of the strike of the Hosgri fault. The fault normal component can be at +/- 90 degrees from fault parallel direction, that is 91+90 = 181 (or 91-90 = 1) degrees from the direction of section L-L'. From these relations, the ground motion component along section L-L' can be determined from the specified components along the fault normal and fault parallel directions. Section M-M' is about 100 degrees (counter-clock wise)

Page 5 of 24 GEO.DCPP.01.30, Rev. 3 from the direction of the strike of the Hosgri fault. Section E-E' has an azimuth of 35 degrees as shown in Figure 1, and thus is 123 degrees (counter clock wise) from the direction of the positive fault parallel component of the Hosgri fault. The computed motions along the directions of sections L-L' and E-E' will be referred to as the rotated components.

The rotated component along each of the specified section is the sum of the projections of the fault normal and fault parallel components along the direction of the section. The formulation is as follows:

Rot' = Fp. cos(c) + FN sin(0) and Rot- = Fp cos(QD)- F. sin(s) in which the Fp and FN are fault parallel and fault normal components of the acceleration time-histories, Rot+ is the component along the section (for a positive fault normal component) and Rot is the component along the section (for a negative fault normal component). 0P is the angle between up-slope direction of the section analyzed and the fault parallel direction (southeast).

The five sets of earthquake motions on the Hosgri fault, are now rotated to earthquake motions along the up-slope direction of cross sections L-L' and E-E'. For a given angle between the analyzed section and the fault direction, there are 10 rotated earthquake motions, because for each set the positive and negative directions of the fault normal component are considered separately.

Procedures for Permanent Displacement Calculation The procedure used to estimate permanent displacements is based on the concept of yield acceleration proposed by Newmark (1965) and modified by Makdisi and Seed (1978). It involves the following steps:

1. A yield acceleration, ky, at which a potential sliding surface would develop a factor of safety of unity, is estimated using limit equilibrium, pseudo-static slope stability methods.

The yield acceleration depends on the slope geometry, the ground water conditions, the undrained shear strength of the slope material, and the location of the potential sliding surface. The analyses are presented in calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.28, revision 3.

I

Page 6 of 24 GEO.DCPP.01.30, Rev. 3

2. The seismic coefficient time history (and the maximum seismic coefficient, k.) induced within a potential sliding mass is estimated using two-dimensional dynamic finite element methods. The seismic coefficient is the ratio of the force induced by an earthquake in a sliding block to the total mass of that block. These analyses are presented in calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.29, revision 3.

3. For a specified potential sliding mass, the seismic coefficient time history for that mass is compared with the yield acceleration ky. When the seismic coefficient exceeds the yield acceleration, down-slope movement will occur along the direction of the assumed failure plane. The movement will decelerate and will stop after the level of the induced acceleration drops below the yield acceleration, and the relative velocity of the sliding mass drops to zero. The accumulated down-slope permanent displacement is calculated by double-integrating the increments of the seismic coefficient time history that exceed the yield acceleration. The program DEFORMP (see software section below) was used to compute the permanent displacements. The results of these computations are presented below.

8.0 SOFTWARE The program DEFORMP was verified in GEODCPP.01.35 and used in this package for the displacement computation. A list of the DEFORMP input and output files included in the enclosed compact disc is attached (Attachment 8). Key excerpts of files are also attached.

9.0 BODY OF CALCULATION The earthquake-induced deformation was initially estimated (in an approximate manner) using a Newmark type (Newmark, 1965) analysis for a sliding block on a rigid plane. A representative yield acceleration of 0.5g (based on estimates from calculation package GEODCPP.01.28 for sections E-E', L-L' and D-D') and a yield acceleration of about 0.3g for section M-M' from the same calculation package, were used to estimate the deformation potential for the various rock input motions. The displacement was computed for the negative direction (representing down-slope movement) only. The down-slope permanent displacement of the sliding mass was integrated by using the input rock motions in the positive direction (representing up-slope direction) only. These preliminary displacement estimates formed the basis for selecting the I

Page 7 of 24 GEODCPP.01.30, Rev. 3 ground motion time histories that provided the largest displacement potential, for subsequent use as input to the dynamic response analyses.

Table 1 shows the calculated down-slope permanent displacements (for the five sets of rotated rock motions) using the program DEFORMP, following the Newmark rigid block approach described above. The input and output files using program DEFORMP are included in the enclosed compact disc. The results indicate that, on average, ground motion sets 1, 5, and 6, provided the largest displacements (0.24 feet to 0.51 feet) for yield acceleration of 0.5g. Set 1 motion produced 0.30 feet of displacement at section E-E', however sets 5 and 6 motions when combined with the negative fault normal component, produced comparable displacements at section E-E'. Section M-M' (which has a yield acceleration close to 0.32 g) has similar orientation to section LL', and thus ground motions rotated to L-L' direction were used to evaluate which sets of ground motions would generate the largest displacement potential for Section M-M'. The results shown in the last column of Table 1 suggest that ground motion sets 5 and 6 would have the highest displacements potentials for Section M-M'. On the above basis, ground motion sets 5 and 6 were selected to be used for the seismic response calculation documented in GEO.DCPP.01.29.

Both motions are rotated relative to the orientations of sections L-L' M-M', and E-E' using the fault parallel and the negative fault normal components.

TABLE 1.

DOWN SLOPE DISPLACEMENT CALCULATED BASED ON ROTATED INPUT MOTIONS ALONG SECTIONS L-L' AND E-E' (DISPLACEMENT UNIT: FEET, YIELD ACCELERATION: 0.5g)

Set No.

Earthquake Polarty ky--.50g ky=0.32 g of FN E-Eim L-41 91 L-11 Set 1 Lucerne FN-0.05 0.11 1.06 FN+

0.30 0.16 0.57 Set 2a Yarimca FN-0.10 0.23 0.91 FN+

0.08 0.03 028 Set 3 LGPC FN-0.09 0.09 0.60 1

FN+

0.08 0.06 0.66 Set 5 El Centro FN-024 0.18 1.58 I

I I

I

Page 8 of 24 GEO.DCPP.01.30, Rev. 3 FN+

0.13 0.15 1.11 Set 6 Saratoga FN-0.51 0.38 1.51 FN+

0.07 0.05 0.28 I

I I

10.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Earthquake-induced Displacements at full ground motions The results of stability analyses were reported in calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.28, revision

3. In this revision, the inertial force of the transporter was considered in the stability analyses of the transporter route, represented by cross sections of L-L'. M-M' E-E' and D-D', to obtain the revised factors of safety and corresponding yield accelerations. Using the yield accelerations for potential sliding masses having the lowest factor of safety obtained for sections L-L', M-M', D-D' and E-E' in calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.28, revision 3, the potential for permanent displacements was evaluated using the concept of yield acceleration and procedure described above.

The potential sliding masses, defined by selected elements in the finite element meshe of the two dimensional dynamic response models, are shown in Figures 2 through 4 for sections L-L', M-M' and E-E' respectively.. In this calculation package, the above calculation was performed in QUAD4MU using its built-in to compute the seismic coefficient time histories by summing the forces acting on the element boundaries separating the slide masses from the underlying stable mass. The computed seismic coefficient time histories for the potential sliding masses are presented in Figures 5, 6 and 7 for sections L-L', M-M' and E-E', respectively. The computed peak seismic coefficient, k,,, for the potential sliding masses at sections L-L', M-M' and E-E' are listed in Table 2.

The seismic coefficient time histories shown in Figures 5, 6 and 7 were then double integrated for the portions above the corresponding yield acceleration, using the program DEFORMP, to obtain earthquake-induced displacements. Note that the positive direction (shown in Figure 1) of the rock motions is consistent with the coordinate system selected for the dynamic analysis, i.e.

the horizontal coordinate increases in the up-slope direction. As mentioned before, the integration was made for the ground motion amplitudes exceeding the yield acceleration in the positive direction only, and the resulting displacement in the down-slope direction was computed for each potential sliding mass.

I

Page 9 of 24 GEODCPP.01.30, Rev. 3 The relationships between calculated displacement and yield acceleration, ky, for each of the three potential sliding masses considered, are presented on Figures 8, 9 and 10 for sections L-L',

M-M' and E-E', respectively. The relationships between calculated displacement and yield acceleration ratio, kA,/. for the potential sliding masses considered, are presented on Figures 11, 12 and 13 for sections L-L', M-M' and E-E', respectively.

The yield accelerations estimated for potential sliding masses at sections L-L', M-M', E-E', and D-D' are also presented in Table 2. These results that incorporate the effect of the inertial force from the transporter were from calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.28, revision 3. For the yield acceleration values listed in Table 2, the earthquake-induced down-slope displacements for the potential sliding masses at sections L-L', M-M' and E-E' were estimated from Figures 11, 12 and 13, and are summarized in the same table. For the potential sliding mass at section D-D', the seismic coefficient time history for a potential sliding mass at section E-E' was used to calculate earthquake-induced deformation (i.e. Figure 10). The orientations of section E-E' and D-D' are very similar, but section E-E' has a thicker colluvium deposit than that at section D-D', so the seismic amplification effects at section E-E' would be greater than those at section D-D'.

Therefore it is conservative to use the response from section E-E' for estimating the displacement at section D-D'.

In Section M-M', model 1 yields the larger seismic induced displacements as shown in Table 2 and thus model 1 will be used to represent the displacement potential for the northern section of the transport route on rock. Computed permanent displacements using set 5 motion as input, range from about 1.4 feet, for the potential sliding mass at section M-M' to about 0.2 feet for the potential sliding mass at section D-D'. Computed displacements using ground motion set 6 as input, range from 1.5 feet for the sliding mass at section M-M", to about 0.3 foot for the potential sliding mass at section E-E'. In both cases, displacement computed at section M-M' are slightly higher than those computed at sections L-L', E-E' and D-D'.

I

Page 10of24 GEO.DCPP.01.30, Rev. 3 Earthquake-induced displacements at reduced ground motion levels Peak accelerations computed along the slope surface at sections L-L' and E-E', using reduced input bedrock motions (scaled to 0. 15g), were reported in calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.29.

The computed peak accelerations in the vicinity of the potential sliding masses at the two sections analyzed were of the order of 0.3g. The estimated peaks (ken) of seismic coefficient time histories within the specified potential sliding masses are expected to be less than 0.3g. The computed yield accelerations shown in Table 2 for the corresponding sliding masses are of the order of 0.5 g. Therefore, because the earthquake-induced peak accelerations are less than the yield acceleration, the potential for downslope displacements are expected to be negligible.

I TABLE 2 COMPUTED DOWN-SLOPE DISPLACEMENTS USING SET 5 AND SET 6 INPUT MOTIONS Sliding Input Factor of Yield Peak Seismic Down-slope Mass Motion Safety Acceleration, Coefficient, Displacement, Location Ky, (g) k@, (g) feet L-L' Set 5 2.02 0.48 1.01 0.8 M-M' Set 5 2.35 0.33 0.93 1.4 Model 1 M-M' Set 5 2.78 0.44 0.95 0.5 Model 2 E-E' Set 5 3.36 0.50 0.94 0.6 D-D' Set 5 2.21 0.63 0.94 0.2 L-L' Set 6 2.02 0.48 0.88 0.5 M-M' Set 6 2.35 0.33 0.88 1.5 M-M' Set 6 2.78 0.44 0.90 0.8 Model 2 E-E' Set 6 3.36 0.50 0.81 0.3 D-D' Set 6 2.21 0.63 0.81 0.1 11.0 LIMITATIONS I

Page 11 of 24 GEO.DCPP.01.30, Rev. 3 The displacements computed in this calculation package are a reasonable representation of the expected range of seismic induced displacements during the design ground shaking, considering that the four cross sections analyzed represent the likely variation of ground conditions along the transport route.

12.0 IMPACT EVALUATION The results are only applicable to the transporter route.

13.0 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 2, dated December 8, 2000.

2.

Geosciences Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.28, Revision 2, Stability and yield acceleration analysis of potential sliding masses along DCPP ISFSI transport route.

3.

Geosciences Calculation Package GEOJDCPP.01.29, Revision 2, Determination of seismic coefficient time histories for potential sliding masses on DCPP ISFSI transport route.

4.

Geosciences Calculation Package GEODCPP.01.35, Revision 2, Verification of computer code - DEFORMP.

5.

Makdisi, F.I., and Seed, H.B., 1978, Simplified procedure for estimating dam and embankment earthquake-induced deformations: Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, v. 104, no. GT7, July, pp. 849-867.

6.

Newmark, N.M., 1965, Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments: Geotechnique,

v. 15, no. 2, p. 139-160.

14.0 ATTACHMENTS

1.

09/28/2001, PG&E Geosciences, Robert K. White, Re: Confirmation of transmittal of inputs for DCPP ISFSI slope stability analyses.

2.

6/7/02, PG&E Geosciences, Robert K. White, Re: Determination of azimuths for cross-sections D-D', E-E', and L-L' for DCPP ISFSI transport route stability analyses

3.

11/9/01, William Lettis & Associates, Inc., Jeff Bachhuber, Re: Azimuths for Analytical Cross-sections - ISFSI, e-mail transmittal to F. Makdisi.

I

Page 12 of 24 GEODCPP.0130. Rev. 3

4.

08/2312001, William Lettis & Associates, Inc., Jeff Bachhuber, Re: Revised Estimates for Hosgri Fault Azimuth, DCPP ISFSI Project.

5.

1018/2001, PC;&E Geosciences, Joseph Sun, Re: Positive direction of the fault parallel component tine history on the Hosgri fault.

6.

10/2512001, PG&E Geosciences, Robert White, Re: Input parameters for calculations.

7.

10/312001, PG&E Geosciences, Robert White, Re: Confirmation of preliminaxy inputs to calculations for DCPPISFSI site 8

Iist and key excerpts of input and output files.

Compact Disc (CD), labeled, GEODCPP.01.30, rev. 3', Dated 3/21103, with input and output files for computed earthquake-induced displacements of potential sliding masses.

N Sectdon EE' Section M-M Moton, A Figure 1. Oflentatons of Sedon E-E. Section LL', SectIon M-M and Hosgri Fauk I

(

I a

a I

i I

I I

I 260-240-

% 22}

cr 0 200 180 160-140G 30A 2

4 8

040404048 8

0 2

4 6

8 0

I I

IIIIIIIII

=O 32 34 36 38 400 4z 440 460 480 500 5210 540 560 580 600 Horintal Distnce, feet Figure 2. Potential Sliding Mass to Compute Seismic Coefcient lime Histories for Cross Section L-L'.

8 0

w O P m g W Wc R

(

C

(

II I

I I

i at X

l l

320-3001 280-

260-ml 240-220-e.I I

I I

I 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 280 280 300 320 340 380 380 400 Horzontl Disti e, feet Figure 3. Potential Sliding Mass to Compute Seismic Coefficient Time Histories for Cross Section M-M'.

hip w 2

0>

4b w tP.)

(

C 240 220 200 I

I I

a II I

I I

I 1@

4-

.a 180-o 160-1 140-m 12D-100-L I

I I

I l

t P I

I I

I DOu 7I0 750 800 850 900 950 ioo 1050 1100 0iio 1OO 1250 Horizontal Distance, feet Figure 4. Potential Sliding Mass to Compute Seismic Coefficient Time Histories for Cross Section E-E'.

0 m

0b Pa.

t.

w AO

(

1.0

~0.5 0.0 0sf Seismic ipefficient In potential sliding masess at section

-1.0 1.0 0.5 E 0.0 80.5 Seismic coefficient in potential sliding mass using set 6 motion

-1.0II 0

10 20 30 40 Time (second)

Figure 5. Seismic coefficient time histories of potential sliding masses at section L-l'..

(

(C 1.0 0

0

-1.0 0

10 20 30 40 1.0 I

0.

0 8-0.5

-1.0 Seismic coefficient In potential sliding mass using set 6 motion 0

10 20 30 40 Tme (second)

Figure 6. Seismic coefficient time histories of potential sliding masses at section M-M'.

(O

((

(

1.0 0.5 0

~0.0

-03

__________Seismic ceflntIn potential sliding rriass using set 5 motion 4

-1.0 0

10 20 30 40 1.0 C 0.5 0

1I0.0 8-0.5 0

Seismic cpeffclcenit in potential sliding rssuigset 6 motion 40 0

10 20 30 40 Time (second) 0 Figure 7. Seismic coefficient time histories of potential sliding masses at section E-E'.

CD 00 w oI-

Page 19 of 24 GEO.DCPP.01.30, Rev. 3 100.00 10.00 8

8 1.00 0.10 0.01 0.0 0.2 OA 0.6 0.8 ky 1.0 Figure 8. Permanent displacement versus yield acceleration from seismic coefficient time histories, section L-L'.

Page 20 of 24 GEO.DCPP.01.30. Rev. 3 100.00 l

I I

=

l 4

I

-Il Potential sliding mass In section M-M' from set 5 motion, kmax = 0.93g from set 6 motion, kmax = 0.88g

\\

l

§ 1O.00 Is 8

A 1.00 z:

.1'

_ \\--__

A_' iN I\\ I 0.10 0.01 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ky Figure 9. Permanent displacement versus yield acceleration from seismic coefficient time histories, section M-M'.

Page 21 of 24 GEO.DCPP.01.30. Rev. 3 100.00 I

I I

I.4 I

I Potential sliding mass In section E-E' from set 5 motion, kmax = 0.94g from set 6 motion, kmax = 0.81g I,*

10.00 CI 8I.

1.00

,\\ I%

1-eT T x 7I 1

I7 1

_.._1 1xt~I1

-Eq

\\I 5

)

N I

I

% %I I~

I; 0.10 n ni

0. 0 a

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ky Figure 10. Permanent displacement versus yield acceleration from seismic coefficient time histories, section E-E'.

Page 22 of 24 GEO.DCPP.01.30. Rev. 3 100.00 10.00 C

1.00 0.10 0.01 _-

0.0 0.2 OA 0.6 0.8 kyBomax 1.0 Figure 11. Permanent displacement versus yield acceleration ratio from seismic coefficient time histories, section L-L'.

Page 23 of 24 GEO.DCPP.01.30. Rev. 3 100.00 10.00 Is0 C

E 1.00 8

0.10 0.01 _-

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ky/kmax Figure 12. Permanent displacement versus yield acceleration from seismic coefficient time histories, section M-M'.

Page 24 of 24 GEO.DCPP.01.30, Rev. 3 100.00 10.00 T

8 1.00 0.10 0.01 0.0 02 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ky/kmax Figure 13. Permanent displacement versus yield acceleration ratio from seismic coefficient time histories, section E-E'.

GEO.DCPP.Oi. 30 REVISIONj ATTACHMENT 1 PAGE i OF 81

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geosciences 245 Market Street, Room 418B Mail Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94117 4151973-2792 Fax 451973-5778 GEO.DCPP.01. 3 0 REVISION 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 "tme-histories-3comp_revl.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.

PAGE 19o 81 pag I of 2 at;2ml.doc:kw:9t28/01

GEO.DCPP.Ol. 30 Conftnmadon of transmittal of inputs for DCPP ISFSI slope stability analyses REVISION 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.

ROBERT K. WHIE Attachment cc: Chris Hartz PAGE 20OF81 page 2 of 2

GEO.DCPP.01.3 0 REVISION 1 ATTACHMENT 2 PAGE 2 1OP81

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geosciences 245 Market Stmet, Room 4181 Mail Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 415/9 2792 Fax 415/973M78 GEO.DCPP.0I. 3 0 REVISION 1 DR FAIZ MAKDISI GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS 2101 WEBSTER STREET OAKLAND, CA 94612 7 June 2002 Re: Determination of azimuths for Cross Sections D-D', E-E', and L-L' for DCPP ISFSI Transport Route Stability Analyses DR. MAKDISI:

For your use in DCPP ISFSI transport route stability analyses, we have determined the azimuth of each section from Figure 21-3 of Geosciences Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.21, rev. 2, as follows:

Section D-D': 38 degrees Section E-E: 35 degrees Section L-L': 67 degrees If you have any questions regarding this information, please call.

ROBERT K. WHITE PAGE 2 OF8I page I of I 1f2fW22.doc:drkw:6f7

GEO.DCPP.01. 3 o REVISION 1 A¶ITACMENT 3 PAGE 2 3 OF 81

GEO.DCPP.01. 3 0 Falz Makdisl REVISION1

--- I From:

ent:

Cc:

Subject:

Jeff Bachhuber tbachhuber@lettis.comi Friday, November 09, 2001 9:42 AM Page, William FMakdisl@geomatrix.com AZIMUTHS FOR ANALYTICAL CROSS SECTIONS - ISFSI Nov. 9, 2001 Bill:

Per your request, we have calculated azimuths for cross sections used for stability analyses for the DCPP ISFSI project. The azimuths were determined using a protractor and the WLA (2001) Geologic Map of the ISFSI Site and Transport Route Vicnity (Figure 21-3 from Calculation Package 21).

The following azimuths were determined:

Section D-D':

above transport route - 0290 below transport route - 0380 average total section above and below transport route - 032@

Section E-E':

below elevation 600 - 035" above elevation 600' -01 9-Section I-l': 300° Section L-L':

067' Please can me If you have any questions regarding these azimuths, or require additional Information.

WILLIAM LETTIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Jeff Bachhuber Jeff Bachhuber William Lettis & Associates, Inc.

1777 Botelho Dr., STE 262 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 bachhuber@lettis.com (925) 256-6070 TEL (925) 256-6076 FAX PAGE 24 om81 1

GEO.DCPP.01. 30 REVISION 1 ATTACHMENT 4 PAGE 25OF81

(

, 7 William Lettls &c Associates, Inc'.

,*~~7

&*SImWlhobrive, Sullc M W1nut tCre0 California 94S5lS

fVoice: p925) 2.fi-Wkn FAX, (M2) 25A-n~W7 MEMORANDUM GEO.DCPP.01. 3 0 REVISION TO: Dr. Faiz Makdsi - Geomatrix Consultants, Inc.

FROM: JeffL. Bachbubcr - William Lettis & Associates, Inc.

DATE: August 23, 2001 RE: Revised Estimates for Hosgri Fault Azimuth, DCPP ISFSI Project FAIZ:

This memorandum provides a revised strike azimuth of 338g for the Hosgri fault for evaluation of grolnd motion directional components for slope stability analyses at the PG&E DCPP ISFSI 6ite. The revised azimuth presented in this memorandum supercedes the previous estimated azimuths (328° to 335) presented in our memorandum dated August 8, 2001, and is based on a re-evaluation of fault maps in the PG&E LTSP (1988).

and ISFSI project Calculation Packago GEO.01.21.

The revised estimated average strike for the Hosgri fault nearest the ISFSI site (bctwccn Morro Bay and Sn Luis Bay) is 3390.

Figurc 21-23 of C ulatiDon Packagc E.0 1.21, which previously showed an azimuth of 3400 for the Hosgri fault, will be revised to correspond to this re-interpreted average strike. Discrete faults and local reaches of the fault zonC exhibit variations in strike azimuth between about 3280 and 338', but the average overall strike of 33ge is believed to be the best approximation for the ground motion modeling.

Please call me if you have any questions or require further input for this issue.

Jeff Bachhubcr Cc: Rob White/lill Page - PO&E Geoscicnces PAGE 26 o8 81

GEO.DCPP.01. 3 0 REVISION I ATTACHMENT 5 PAGE 27 oF81

GEO.DCPP.01. 3 0 REVISION 1 I

a Pacific Gas & Electric Company l q1&lfl Geosciences Oepartnent P.O. Sex 170000, Mail C-,-

San Francisco, CA 94177 Fax: (A1S) 973-77g

_0 S TELEFAX COVER SHEET To:

FaZ2 k2;GdAL; Company: -mfvjy...

Date: 4otf 1J Number of pages including cover sheet:

From:

Company:

P&

Phone:

(415) 973-.4b1, Fax:

(415) 973.6778 Phone:

eSfI) 663-4y?!W Fax:

C 5'o) 63-J44-I cc:

REMARKS:

a Per request Q) For revfew Ci Reply ASAP O3 Please comment l

51L,

-- I Murray ea3IS*fSV 4:~,#X PAGE 2 8 0 81

GEO.DCPP.01. 3 0 REVISION I PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY GEOSCIENCES DEPART1fNT CALCULAlON DOCUIENT Calc Number 61o. pcPFol, f Revision i

Date Oc Aoe-,

AS:

Z d-f Calc Pages: 2-6 Verification Method: A VerfimcatonPgca:gs/? 4 (I?4inne, TrriLE t u e G hd f a(

o 7

ht I, a SC L_

M i,/% r/;

PREPARED BY:

. DATE 0 C -4

-lf a

/

A.

A tSg 4eU'rS0 Pinted Name Organizadon VERUED BY:

APPROVED BY:

JcSQa=

SIA~

hinted Nam e (4e -W~#

I JdnlrtE triccdt e

DATE I cS. t Organization DATE L/fZ/ 4 A.0 Organiaton l-*

I lo

'11 10jr " 11 -0 I r. 0 f/l 01 -

f--/-C 1/0 Z.

PAGE 29o1p81 fin f% M.

X

GEO.DCPP.01. 30 REVISION 1 Calc Number: GEO.DCPP.01.14 Rev Number: I Sheet Number: 4 of26 Damo: 10/12101

6. BODY OF CALCULATIONS Step 1: S-wave arrival times The approximate arrival times of the S-waves is cstimated by visual inspection of the velocity time histories (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4. and 5). The selected snival times are listed in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1. Time of Fling Set Reference Time History Approximate Arrival rMe Polaity*

Arival time of of fling (tj)

S-waves I

Lucerne 8.0 7.1

-1 2a Yarimca 9.0 85

-1 3

LGPC 4.0 3.4

-1 5

El Centro1940) 1.5 0.0 1

6 Saratoga 4.5 3.7 1

The polarity is applied to the fault parallel time history from calculations GEO.DCPP.01.13 (rcv 1) to cause constructive interference bewee the S-wave and the fling. (eq. 5-2).

A fling arrival time is selected by visual inspection of the Interfence of the velocity of the trasient motion and the fling (Figures 1. 2, 3, 4, and 5). The selected fling arrival time are listed in Table 6-1.

Since DCPP is on the east side ofthe Hosgzi fault and the fault has riglt-lateral slip, the permanent tectonic deformation at the site will be to the southeast In the time histories the fling has a positive polarity. Since the tectonic deformation will be to the southeast, the positive direction of the fault parallel time history is defined to the southeast Ste, 2: Fling Time History Using the values of A., to ad Tfg given in input 4-1, and tbe values oft1 given in Table 6-1, the fling time history is determined using eq. (S-1). The computed fling time histories for the 5 sets are shown in Figures 1. 2, 3, 4, and S.

PAGE 0oP 81

v t e Letter Sequence Supplement
TAC:L23399, (Approved, Closed)
Initiation Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request Acceptance Supplement, Supplement, Supplement, Supplement, Supplement, Supplement, Supplement, Supplement, Supplement, Supplement, Supplement, Supplement, Supplement, Supplement Administration Meeting, Meeting, Meeting Questions 4 September 2002 6 December 2002 3 January 2003 Answers 31 January 2003 15 October 2002 15 October 2002 15 October 2002 15 October 2002 15 October 2002 15 October 2002 15 October 2002 27 March 2003 Results Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval Other: L-02-010, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Submittal of License Application Amendment 1 (TAC L23399), ML020980082, ML020980126, ML022950286, ML022950304, ML030430463, ML030430490, ML031250472, ML031250503, ML031250545, ML031250548, ML031250551, ML031250606, ML031250607, ML032320119, ML032970368, ML032970369, ML032970370, ML040350009, ML062980229
MONTHYEAR2002-08-29 [Table View]

ML031000509

Text

SUMMARY

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Dear Rob,

Dear Faiz,

Attachment:

Subject:

Dear Joseph:

Dear Dr. Page:

Attachment:

SUMMARY

13.0 REFERENCES

Subject:

Navigation menu

Search