L-PI-20-023, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Response to Request for Additional Information: License Amendment Request to Expand the Storage Capacity of the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Response to Request for Additional Information: License Amendment Request to Expand the Storage Capacity of the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)

ML20162A445
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	06/10/2020
From:	Sharp S Northern States Power Company, Minnesota, Xcel Energy
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
References
EPID L-2019-LLA-0169, L-PI-20-023
Download: ML20162A445 (81)

Text

1717 Wakonade Drive Welch, MN 55089 June 10, 2020 L-PI-20-023 10 CFR 72.56 ATTN: Document Control Desk Director, Division of Spent Fuel Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Prairie Island Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Docket 72-10 Renewed Materials License No. SNM-2506 Response to Request for Additional Information: License Amendment Request to Expand the Storage Capacity of the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) (EPID No.

L2019-LLA-0169)

References:

1) Letter (L-PI-19-009) from NSPM to the NRC, License Amendment Request: Expand the Storage Capacity of the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), dated July 26, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19210D273)

2) Letter from the NRC to NSPM, Prairie Island License Amendment Request - Request for Additional Information (EPID No. L-2019-LLA-0169), dated April 13, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20077K624)

In Reference 1, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, doing business as Xcel Energy (hereafter NSPM), submitted a license amendment request to renewed Special Nuclear Materials (SNM) License No. SNM-2506 to increase the maximum amount of spent fuel that may be possessed and stored at the Prairie Island Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (PI ISFSI) as well as approval of the design of an additional concrete pad to be built within the confines of the existing facility utilizing alternate methods from those described in the existing PI ISFSI Safety Analysis Report (SAR) and Addendum. The NRC identified the need for additional information and provided the Request for Additional Information (RAI) in Reference 2.

The Enclosure to this letter provides NSPMs response to the NRC RAI. Attachment 1 to the Enclosure provides PI ISFSI Safety Analysis Report (SAR) and Addendum pages for information only. Attachment 1 supplements and replaces the information provided in Reference 1.

fl Xcel Energy*

RESPONSIBLE BY NATURE~

Document Control Desk Page 2 Please contact Mr. Peter Gohdes at (612) 330-6503 or Peter.Gohdes@xenuclear.com if there are any questions or if additional information is needed.

Summary of Commitments This letter makes no new commitments and no revisions to existing commitments.

I declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on June /..!2., 2020.

fa~

Scott Sharp Site Vice President, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Northern States Power Company - Minnesota Enclosure cc:

Administrator, Region Ill, USNRC Project Manager, Prairie Island, USNRC Resident Inspector, Prairie Island, USNRC State of Minnesota President of the Prairie Island Community Tribal Council

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 1 of 33 Response to Request for Additional Information License Amendment Request to Expand the Storage Capacity of the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)

1.0 BACKGROUND

In Reference 1, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, doing business as Xcel Energy (hereafter NSPM), submitted a license amendment request to renewed Special Nuclear Materials (SNM) License No. SNM-2506 to increase the maximum amount of spent fuel that may be possessed and stored at the Prairie Island Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (PI ISFSI) as well as approval of the design of an additional concrete pad to be built within the confines of the existing facility utilizing alternate methods from those described in the existing PI ISFSI Safety Analysis Report (SAR) and Addendum. The NRC identified the need for additional information and provided the Request for Additional Information (RAI) in Reference 2. The enclosure to this letter provides NSPMs response to the NRC RAI.

to this Enclosure provides PI ISFSI Safety Analysis Report (SAR) and Addendum pages for information only. Attachment 1 supplements and replaces the information provided in Reference 1.

2.0 RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION STRUCTURAL RAI 2.1 In Section 3.2 Soil Liquefaction Analysis, of Enclosure 1 of the Prairie Island Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) license amendment request, the applicant discusses design inputs, acceptance criteria and conclusions related to the liquefaction analysis of the proposed pad. For the staff to ascertain that the current licensing basis is maintained, and that sufficient data is provided to make a safety finding, the following information needs to be included:

a.

Provide the logs and locations of the Cone Penetrometer Testing (CPT) performed for the proposed ISFSI pad.

Insert S-1 of Enclosure 2 states that To support the ISFSI expansion, additional field investigations at the ISFSI site were made in July 2018. The field program consisted of performing four soundings (CPT-1 through CPT-4) located directly south of the eastern original pad as shown in Appendix 2C. The staff cannot determine from the submittal if appendix 2C was updated with the information.

b.

Identify locations of potentially liquefiable soil pockets relative to the proposed ISFSI pad.

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 2 of 33 In Section 3.2.2 of the submittal, the applicant states that For the PI ISFSI project site, the screening determined that potentially liquefiable soil types were present and that they could become saturated at some future date. The staff cannot determine from the submittal the location and the depth of these liquefiable deposits in relation to the proposed ISFSI pad.

c.

Provide the values of Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) and Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) and/or Factors of Safety (FS) in graphical or tabular form for the depths of study as related to the proposed ISFSI pad. Also provide a calculation package or sample calculations describing the efforts made for this analysis. In Section 3.2.2 of the submittal, the applicant states the ratio of the shear resistance (CRR) of the soil under repetitive loading to earthquake-induced shear stresses (CSR) at various depths was calculated using both the CPT and SPT data. The staff cannot determine how the current CPT and SPT data correlate.

The above information is necessary to comply with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 72.102(c) and 10 CFR 72.102(d).

NSPM Response 2.1.a As discussed in Reference 1, a series of four cone penetrometer tests (CPT) were used to evaluate the subsurface data for liquefaction potential at the new ISFSI pad location, in conjunction with data from the standard penetration tests (SPT) performed in 1991 for the existing ISFSI pads within the ISFSI area as well as a boring performed in August 2014 to support construction of the nearby FLEX Equipment Storage Building. The CPT locations (CPT-1 through CPT-4) and logs are provided in new Appendix 2C. See Attachment 1 to this Enclosure for the markup to the ISFSI SAR which adds Appendix 2C.

NSPM Response 2.1.b Liquefiable deposits were not identified for the ISFSI site. As discussed in Section 3.2.2 of Reference 1, a soil liquefaction analysis was required based on the identified soil types present at the ISFSI site from a depth of 12 ft below grade (the groundwater depth) to a depth of 55 ft below grade (CPT refusal). Initial site screening was performed based on the material classification, relative density and presence of groundwater. Although an initial cursory screening indicated the soils may be liquefiable, a detailed numeric analysis of these layers using both the CPT and SPT data and the expected seismic excitation clearly indicated that there is no potential for liquefaction of these soils.

NSPM Response 2.1.c For numerical analysis of the soil liquefaction potential of the new ISFSI pad site, detailed calculations were performed for the site. A numerical analysis establishes the factor of safety (FS = CRR/CSR) against liquefaction for the sites. The ratio of the shear resistance (CRR) of the soil under repetitive loading to earthquake-induced shear stresses (CSR) at various depths is calculated using both CPT and SPT data. Calculation of CRR and CSR, and the liquefaction

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 3 of 33 evaluation using the resulting FS, follows the procedures described in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.198, Procedures and Criteria for Assessing Seismic Soil Liquefaction at Nuclear Power Plant Sites (Reference 3), and NUREG/CR-5741, Technical Bases for Regulatory Guide for Soil Liquefaction (Reference 4). A detailed calculation was performed following a procedure by Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., et al. (Reference 5), which is referenced by RG 1.198.

Figure 2.1 provides FS values at various depths of the site for both CPT and SPT data.

Figure 2.1: Soil Liquefaction Factor of Safety from CPT and SPT data 690 688 686 684 682 680 678 676 674 672 670 668 666 664 JO !5 662 "i 660 t 6SS w

6S6 654 652 650 648 646...

642 640 6"8 63,6 634 632 630 Liquefaction Factor of Safety 0

1 2

S A

S 6

7 8

9 WU U 1S

~ 1S

~ 17 U

~ W i i.. t:.1

• -U

-t

+-

I I

.J_

f-t

+ I+ +

-t I I

!+

"rt

~t

,. t i '

+

1-~~

I*~ ~t t

t I

I I

t

++

-~

i

~

~~

.J_

I

• l

~t i

~ i

-I

'-I '

~~ -

J

~t f

-~

L 1

~~

-I r -~

T

• n t

r~

1 r ~~

I

_LU ~

'T 11

-L

£ I*;

t C

t 4-t+

I* t t

t CPT*1 CPT*2

--CPT*3

--CPT*4 X 8*12 e 8*13 8*14

• 8*15

& 8*16

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 4 of 33 STRUCTURAL RAI 2.2 In Section 3.3, Soil Structure Interaction Analysis, of the PI ISFSI license amendment request, the applicant discusses design inputs, acceptance criteria, analyses and conclusions related to soil structure interaction (SSI). For the staff to ascertain that the current licensing basis is maintained, and that sufficient data is provided to make a safety finding, the following information needs to be included:

a.

Provide the Acceleration Input Motions generated per Approach 2, Option 1 of NUREG 0800, Chapter 3.7.1.

b.

Provide the Upper Bound, Best estimate and Lower Bound strain compatible soil properties (shear modulus and damping) data per depth generated for the SSI analysis in graphical or tabular form.

c.

Justify why Model 3 for the single cask on the corner of the pad is the governing loading case.

d.

Provide a schematic of the ISFSI pad model used for SASSI2010 analysis including mesh distribution and sizes.

e.

Provide results of the 36 SSI analysis cases analyzed in tabular format, as appropriate.

The above information is necessary to comply with 10 CFR 72.102(c) and 10 CFR 72.102(d).

NSPM Response 2.2.a To perform soil-structure interaction analysis, artificial acceleration input motions that are consistent with the design input response spectra were developed following NUREG-0800, Chapter 3.7.1. The generated acceleration input motions are shown in Figures 2.2 through Figures 2.4 and acceleration response spectra comparisons are shown in Figures 2.5 through 2.7. The generated acceleration input motions also meet the requirements for the strong motion duration, the absolute values of correlation coefficient, the energy gap for the frequency range of interests, and the phase angle consistency.

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 5 of 33 Figure 2.2: Artificial (Synthetic) Acceleration Time-History, Horizontal H1 Figure 2.3: Artificial (Synthetic) Acceleration Time-History, Horizontal H2 PINGP Consistent T H H 1 1.2E-01 8.0E-02 4.0E-02 Cl z

...J w

()

()

<{

48.00 56.00 64.00

-4.0E-02

-8.0E-02

-1.2E-01 T IME IN SEC.

PINGP Consist e nt TH H 2 1.2E-01 8.0E-02 4.0E-02 Cl z

...J w

()

48.00 56.00 64.00

()

<{

-4.0E-02

-8.0E-02

-1.2E-01 TIME IN SEC.

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 6 of 33 Figure 2.4: Artificial (Synthetic) Acceleration Time-History, Vertical Figure 2.5: Acceleration Response Spectra Comparison between the Generated, Target, 130% Target and 90% Target Spectra - H1 CJ z

...I UJ

(.)

(.)

<l'.

PINGP Consistent TH V 1.6E-01 1.2E-01 8.0E-02 4.0 E-02 O.OE+OO 0.

48.00 56.00

-4.0E-02

-8.0E-02 T IME IN SEC.

0.1

§

---

t---+-,..,..,-:f;/) :;,-1"-+-+-l-+----t---+--+-i-t-H-++-----+--+--+--+--+-+-+-+-t C:

0

~

<(

a /,.. -_--i-+--+-++-+-+--

if i

_

/ff/

0.01 ow,;

~-

0

- Target Response Spectrum

-- Generated Resix,ose Spectrum

• 130% Target Response Sped.rum

---

--- 90% Target: Response $pec1rum 0.001 ~--~.___..__,___.__._,_~....,_ ___ ~_

....... _.__~~....... ~.__ __

Frequency (Hz) 64.00

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 7 of 33 Figure 2.6: Acceleration Response Spectra Comparison between the Generated, Target, 130% Target and 90% Target Spectra - H2 Figure 2.7: Acceleration Response Spectra Comparison between the Generated, Target, 130% Target and 90% Target Spectra - V

§ C

0 0.1 0.01

,o

~ 0.1 0.01

/

>-----+-----*, 1-

-+-+-<--+--+------+---+---+--+---+--+-+--+-+-----+---+---<e--+--+--+--+-+-1

/.:

/

,,.,,,,~ J 1----"d'*c1/2,..,-:...,, f--+-1-+-+-+-++-----+---+--+--i-f---if-+-+-+----+---+--+--+-+-+-++-I

/~~-7

--'- -+---+--+--+-+-+-+--H-----i---+--+--+--+--+--HH-----+--+---if--t--+--t--H~

0.,

1' 01 7'/ ~

, "/

t4-~-----

),~~J

- Targe1 Response Spectrum

--Genernled Respoose Speaium

• 130% Target Response Spectrum

---

90% Targel Aesponse Sped:n,im Frequency (Hz)

>--- >-- >- +-+-+-HH---*---,1---+--+---f-l-H-+-i

.~7f.-;_~~~?~4-*

0

- T a*Qe' Response Spectrum

-- Generated Response Spectrum

• 130% Target Response Sp@(lrum

---

90% Target Response Spectrum Frequency (Hz)

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 8 of 33 NSPM Response 2.2.b To perform soil-structure interaction analysis, strain compatible soil properties considering soil variation were developed using the SHAKE2000 program for the Upper Bound (UB), Best Estimate (BE), and Lower Bound (LB) conditions. Generated soil column shear moduli and damping values are shown in Figures 2.8 and 2.9.

Figure 2.8: Comparison of Shear Modulus 0

20 40

<t=

60

(])

""O (IJ BO L 0)

E 0

10 0 L

..c o_

1 20

(])

""O 0

140 (I) 1 60 1 80 200 0

---~7-tp

¢

i I * :~--.. ____ _

---

r-*--

-*.. --.~

I I

I

• r------------~

~---

1 I

1 20000 40000 60000 Shear modulus ( ksf)

• - -* G LB

-+- G BE

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 9 of 33 Figure 2.9: Comparison of Damping NSPM Response 2.2.c Three cask loading configurations were used in the soil-structure interaction analysis. Model 3 (single cask case) analysis results show the highest accelerations for structural design and stability evaluation as listed in Tables 2.1 and 2.2. The results are consistent with NUREG/CR6865, Parametric Evaluation of Seismic Behavior of Freestanding Spent Fuel Dry Cask Storage Systems (Reference 6), in which the single cask case is the controlling case.

0 20 40

I=

0 Q_)

u (I) 80 L 0)

E 0

00 L,.._

.c 0..

20 Q_)

u 0

40 (f) 0 80

.i-~

I I I 200 0

5

>t.. --~_

\\ X I "

}x 0

Damping(%)

---)(**,a p_

--e--

,a p_

5 20

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 10 of 33 Table 2.1: Summary of Cask Stability Check Uncracked Pad Soil Profile Model No.

Node No.

FSslide LB Model 1 1690 1.891 Model 2 1696 1.812 Model 3 1696 1.771 BE Model 1 1996 1.733 Model 2 1688 1.636 Model 3 1696 1.629 UB Model 1 1690 1.692 Model 2 1686 1.550 Model 3 1696 1.494 Table 2.2: Summary of Cask Stability Check Cracked Pad Soil Profile Model No.

Node No.

FSslide UB Model 1 1686 1.599 Model 2 1692 1.540 Model 3 1696 1.300 NSPM Response 2.2.d Schematic drawings of finite element analysis models used for the soil-structure interaction analysis are shown in Figures 2.10 through 2.13. The average mesh size is 2.25 ft by 2.50 ft.

The pad is meshed to have a minimum of four elements at the bottom of a cask and between adjacent casks and to have aspect ratio less than 2.0.

1696 1694 1692 1690 1688 CL 1686 825 Figure 2.10: Cask Nodes at Center of Gravity Used for Maximum Accelerations and Transfer Functions - Model 1

+ + + + + + + + + + + +

-:---:---:---:---:---:--+ + + + + +

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 11 of 33 1696 1694 1692 1690 1688 CL 1686 825 Figure 2.11: Cask Nodes at Center of Gravity Used for Maximum Accelerations and Transfer Functions - Model 2 1696 CL 825 Figure 2.12: Cask Nodes at Center of Gravity Used for Maximum Accelerations and Transfer Functions - Model 3 Figure 2.13: Finite Element Model for Cask

+ + + + + + *-

I_ I_ I_ I_ I_ I_

I I

I I

I I

/

Mass element

'/

Cask beam element Rigid bea I

I

• me ements [TYP)

• /

• - Base node t

Pad nodes (TYP)

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 12 of 33 NSPM Response 2.2.e Seismic analysis was performed for 36 cases and analysis summary is provided in Tables 2.3 through 2.14. Node locations are shown in Figures 2.10 through 2.12.

Table 2.3: Maximum Accelerations and Cask Stability Check -

Uncracked Pad and LB Soil Profile - Model 1 Node No.

X-Direction Input Motion Y-Direction Input Motion Z-Direction Input Motion SRSS(1)

Check(2)(3)

AXX AYX AZX AXY AYY AZY AXZ AYZ AZZ AX AY AZ (or AV)

AH FSslide 1686 0.079 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.093 0.014 0.003 0.012 0.059 0.079 0.094 0.061 0.123 1.909 1688 0.080 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.093 0.014 0.002 0.011 0.059 0.080 0.094 0.061 0.123 1.909 1690 0.081 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.093 0.014 0.004 0.011 0.060 0.081 0.094 0.062 0.124 1.891 1692 0.080 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.093 0.014 0.006 0.012 0.063 0.080 0.094 0.065 0.123 1.900 1694 0.080 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.092 0.014 0.002 0.013 0.065 0.080 0.093 0.067 0.123 1.896 1696 0.080 0.002 0.010 0.001 0.092 0.013 0.008 0.012 0.064 0.080 0.093 0.066 0.123 1.898 Table 2.4: Maximum Accelerations and Cask Stability Check -

Uncracked Pad and LB Soil Profile - Model 2 Node No.

X-Direction Input Motion Y-Direction Input Motion Z-Direction Input Motion SRSS(1)

Check(2)(3)

AXX AYX AZX AXY AYY AZY AXZ AYZ AZZ AX AY AZ (or AV)

AH FSslide 1686 0.086 0.002 0.006 0.006 0.095 0.014 0.006 0.012 0.061 0.086 0.096 0.063 0.129 1.816 1688 0.089 0.002 0.005 0.007 0.092 0.015 0.004 0.012 0.060 0.089 0.093 0.062 0.129 1.818 1690 0.085 0.001 0.006 0.004 0.092 0.014 0.005 0.012 0.062 0.085 0.093 0.064 0.126 1.857 1692 0.085 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.093 0.014 0.006 0.012 0.063 0.085 0.094 0.065 0.127 1.841 1694 0.083 0.002 0.005 0.003 0.093 0.014 0.003 0.013 0.064 0.083 0.094 0.066 0.125 1.868 1696 0.088 0.003 0.011 0.003 0.093 0.014 0.007 0.012 0.063 0.088 0.094 0.065 0.129 1.812 Table 2.5: Maximum Accelerations and Cask Stability Check -

Uncracked Pad and LB Soil Profile - Model 3 Node No.

X-Direction Input Motion Y-Direction Input Motion Z-Direction Input Motion SRSS(1)

Check(2)(3)

AXX AYX AZX AXY AYY AZY AXZ AYZ AZZ AX AY AZ (or AV)

AH FSslide 1696 0.095 0.002 0.007 0.003 0.091 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.065 0.095 0.091 0.065 0.132 1.771

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 13 of 33 (1) =

2 +

2 +

2; =

2 +

2 +

2; and =

2 +

2 +

2 (2) =

2 +

2 (3) =

()

Where:

W

= Weight of cask on a pad.

gh

= Horizontal acceleration of the cask, which is calculated as the vector sum of two horizontal Zero Period Accelerations (ZPAs) from the analysis.

gv

= Vertical acceleration of the cask, which is calculated as the vertical ZPA of casks at the center of gravity location.

= Coefficient of friction between the cask in an upright position and concrete.

Table 2.6: Maximum Accelerations and Cask Stability Check -

Uncracked Pad and BE Soil Profile - Model 1 Node No.

X-Direction Input Motion Y-Direction Input Motion Z-Direction Input Motion SRSS(1)

Check(2)(3)

AXX AYX AZX AXY AYY AZY AXZ AYZ AZZ AX AY AZ (or AV)

AH FSslide 1686 0.088 0.000 0.004 0.001 0.094 0.014 0.006 0.020 0.071 0.088 0.096 0.072 0.130 1.785 1688 0.087 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.094 0.014 0.006 0.020 0.070 0.087 0.096 0.071 0.130 1.787 1690 0.088 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.094 0.014 0.004 0.019 0.070 0.088 0.096 0.072 0.130 1.785 1692 0.087 0.002 0.007 0.002 0.093 0.014 0.009 0.019 0.072 0.087 0.095 0.074 0.129 1.795 1694 0.084 0.003 0.005 0.003 0.094 0.015 0.007 0.019 0.070 0.084 0.096 0.072 0.128 1.813 1696 0.092 0.003 0.010 0.002 0.094 0.014 0.010 0.017 0.069 0.093 0.096 0.071 0.134 1.733 Table 2.7: Maximum Accelerations and Cask Stability Check -

Uncracked Pad and BE Soil Profile - Model 2 Node No.

X-Direction Input Motion Y-Direction Input Motion Z-Direction Input Motion SRSS(1)

Check(2)(3)

AXX AYX AZX AXY AYY AZY AXZ AYZ AZZ AX AY AZ (or AV)

AH FSslide 1686 0.101 0.003 0.009 0.007 0.095 0.014 0.007 0.017 0.070 0.101 0.097 0.072 0.140 1.657 1688 0.103 0.005 0.007 0.008 0.094 0.016 0.009 0.021 0.069 0.104 0.096 0.071 0.142 1.636 1690 0.097 0.003 0.008 0.004 0.094 0.014 0.008 0.020 0.071 0.097 0.096 0.073 0.136 1.704 1692 0.099 0.002 0.006 0.003 0.093 0.014 0.010 0.019 0.072 0.100 0.095 0.074 0.138 1.678 1694 0.088 0.004 0.007 0.006 0.094 0.015 0.009 0.019 0.070 0.089 0.096 0.072 0.131 1.771 1696 0.100 0.006 0.011 0.004 0.096 0.014 0.008 0.016 0.069 0.100 0.098 0.071 0.140 1.659

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 14 of 33 Table 2.8: Maximum Accelerations and Cask Stability Check -

Uncracked Pad and BE Soil Profile - Model 3 Node No.

X-Direction Input Motion Y-Direction Input Motion Z-Direction Input Motion SRSS(1)

Check(2)(3)

AXX AYX AZX AXY AYY AZY AXZ AYZ AZZ AX AY AZ (or AV)

AH FSslide 1696 0.103 0.003 0.006 0.003 0.099 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.068 0.103 0.099 0.068 0.143 1.629 (1) =

2 +

2 +

2; =

2 +

2 +

2; and =

2 +

2 +

2 (2) =

2 +

2 (3) =

()

Where:

W

= Weight of cask on a pad.

gh

= Horizontal acceleration of the cask, which is calculated as the vector sum of two horizontal Zero Period Accelerations (ZPAs) from the analysis.

gv

= Vertical acceleration of the cask, which is calculated as the vertical ZPA of casks at the center of gravity location.

= Coefficient of friction between the cask in an upright position and concrete.

Table 2.9: Maximum Accelerations and Cask Stability Check -

Uncracked Pad and UB Soil Profile - Model 1 Node No.

X-Direction Input Motion Y-Direction Input Motion Z-Direction Input Motion SRSS(1)

Check(2)(3)

AXX AYX AZX AXY AYY AZY AXZ AYZ AZZ AX AY AZ (or AV)

AH FSslide 1686 0.094 0.001 0.006 0.002 0.095 0.014 0.009 0.020 0.074 0.094 0.097 0.076 0.135 1.711 1688 0.091 0.001 0.006 0.002 0.094 0.014 0.009 0.021 0.072 0.091 0.096 0.074 0.132 1.754 1690 0.096 0.002 0.006 0.002 0.095 0.013 0.010 0.021 0.072 0.097 0.097 0.073 0.137 1.692 1692 0.089 0.002 0.008 0.003 0.094 0.014 0.009 0.020 0.071 0.090 0.096 0.073 0.132 1.756 1694 0.093 0.003 0.006 0.005 0.092 0.015 0.011 0.020 0.069 0.094 0.094 0.071 0.133 1.746 1696 0.098 0.006 0.011 0.003 0.093 0.014 0.010 0.018 0.069 0.099 0.095 0.071 0.137 1.695

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 15 of 33 Table 2.10: Maximum Accelerations and Cask Stability Check -

Uncracked Pad and UB Soil Profile - Model 2 Node No.

X-Direction Input Motion Y-Direction Input Motion Z-Direction Input Motion SRSS(1)

Check(2)(3)

AXX AYX AZX AXY AYY AZY AXZ AYZ AZZ AX AY AZ (or AV)

AH FSslide 1686 0.107 0.005 0.011 0.007 0.100 0.014 0.010 0.019 0.074 0.108 0.102 0.076 0.149 1.550 1688 0.106 0.005 0.007 0.011 0.094 0.015 0.016 0.022 0.070 0.108 0.097 0.072 0.145 1.600 1690 0.103 0.003 0.009 0.006 0.093 0.014 0.009 0.022 0.075 0.104 0.096 0.077 0.142 1.625 1692 0.097 0.002 0.007 0.004 0.094 0.014 0.012 0.020 0.073 0.098 0.096 0.075 0.137 1.688 1694 0.093 0.004 0.008 0.009 0.094 0.015 0.014 0.021 0.067 0.094 0.096 0.069 0.134 1.737 1696 0.097 0.010 0.013 0.004 0.094 0.014 0.011 0.018 0.068 0.098 0.096 0.071 0.137 1.695 Table 2.11: Maximum Accelerations and Cask Stability Check -

Uncracked Pad and UB Soil Profile - Model 3 Node No.

X-Direction Input Motion Y-Direction Input Motion Z-Direction Input Motion SRSS(1)

Check(2)(3)

AXX AYX AZX AXY AYY AZY AXZ AYZ AZZ AX AY AZ (or AV)

AH FSslide 1696 0.110 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.110 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.068 0.110 0.110 0.068 0.156 1.494 (1) =

2 +

2 +

2; =

2 +

2 +

2; and =

2 +

2 +

2 (2) =

2 +

2 (3) =

()

Where:

W

= Weight of cask on a pad.

gh

= Horizontal acceleration of the cask, which is calculated as the vector sum of two horizontal Zero Period Accelerations (ZPAs) from the analysis.

gv

= Vertical acceleration of the cask, which is calculated as the vertical ZPA of casks at the center of gravity location.

= Coefficient of friction between the cask in an upright position and concrete.

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 16 of 33 Table 2.12: Maximum Accelerations and Cask Stability Check -

Cracked Pad and UB Soil Profile - Model 1 Node No.

X-Direction Input Motion Y-Direction Input Motion Z-Direction Input Motion SRSS(1)

Check(2)(3)

AXX AYX AZX AXY AYY AZY AXZ AYZ AZZ AX AY AZ (or AV)

AH FSslide 1686 0.104 0.002 0.007 0.003 0.095 0.013 0.009 0.029 0.078 0.104 0.099 0.079 0.144 1.599 1688 0.098 0.001 0.007 0.002 0.094 0.014 0.007 0.028 0.071 0.098 0.098 0.073 0.139 1.667 1690 0.099 0.003 0.007 0.003 0.095 0.012 0.010 0.028 0.070 0.100 0.099 0.071 0.141 1.647 1692 0.103 0.003 0.009 0.004 0.096 0.012 0.008 0.026 0.075 0.103 0.100 0.076 0.144 1.604 1694 0.102 0.003 0.007 0.007 0.097 0.015 0.014 0.026 0.070 0.103 0.100 0.072 0.144 1.611 1696 0.102 0.007 0.010 0.005 0.097 0.015 0.015 0.024 0.069 0.103 0.100 0.071 0.144 1.613 Table 2.13: Maximum Accelerations and Cask Stability Check -

Cracked Pad and UB Soil Profile - Model 2 Node No.

X-Direction Input Motion Y-Direction Input Motion Z-Direction Input Motion SRSS(1)

Check(2)(3)

AXX AYX AZX AXY AYY AZY AXZ AYZ AZZ AX AY AZ (or AV)

AH FSslide 1686 0.105 0.009 0.014 0.013 0.096 0.016 0.010 0.027 0.075 0.106 0.100 0.078 0.146 1.579 1688 0.099 0.005 0.012 0.013 0.094 0.017 0.011 0.029 0.071 0.100 0.098 0.074 0.140 1.654 1690 0.107 0.004 0.010 0.009 0.098 0.013 0.008 0.028 0.075 0.108 0.102 0.077 0.149 1.549 1692 0.108 0.003 0.008 0.006 0.099 0.013 0.009 0.027 0.074 0.109 0.103 0.076 0.150 1.540 1694 0.105 0.004 0.009 0.009 0.098 0.015 0.013 0.028 0.068 0.106 0.102 0.070 0.147 1.582 1696 0.104 0.009 0.012 0.004 0.095 0.015 0.015 0.024 0.068 0.105 0.098 0.071 0.144 1.613 Table 2.14: Maximum Accelerations and Cask Stability Check -

Cracked Pad and UB Soil Profile - Model 3 Node No.

X-Direction Input Motion Y-Direction Input Motion Z-Direction Input Motion SRSS(1)

Check(2)(3)

AXX AYX AZX AXY AYY AZY AXZ AYZ AZZ AX AY AZ (or AV)

AH FSslide 1696 0.125 0.006 0.004 0.006 0.128 0.003 0.004 0.007 0.069 0.125 0.128 0.069 0.179 1.300 (1) =

2 +

2 +

2; =

2 +

2 +

2; and =

2 +

2 +

2 (2) =

2 +

2 (3) =

()

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 17 of 33 Where:

W

= Weight of cask on a pad.

gh

= Horizontal acceleration of the cask, which is calculated as the vector sum of two horizontal Zero Period Accelerations (ZPAs) from the analysis.

gv

= Vertical acceleration of the cask, which is calculated as the vertical ZPA of casks at the center of gravity location.

= Coefficient of friction between the cask in an upright position and concrete.

STRUCTURAL RAI 2.3 Provide additional structural analysis details.

In Section 3.4 Structural Analysis, of enclosure 1 of the PI ISFSI LAR, the licensee discusses design inputs, acceptance criteria and conclusions related to the structural analysis of the proposed pad. In order for the staff to ascertain that the current licensing basis is maintained, and that sufficient data is provided to make a safety finding, additional details on the structural analysis need to be provided. Structural analyses or calculation packages that include the following information need to be included:

a.

Details on calculation of subgrade modulus for the SAFE analysis.

b.

Pad settlement and differential settlement evaluations

c.

Schematic of finite element mesh generated by SAFE for ISFSI pad.

d.

Results of load combination permutations used in SAFE design models as stated in the last paragraph of Section of 3.4.2.2.

e.

Final pad reinforcement details resulting from shear and flexure design for the various cask load configurations and combinations.

f.

Results of maximum soil bearing pressure evaluation The above information is necessary to comply with 10 CFR 72.102(c), 10 CFR 72.102(d) and 72.24(d)

NSPM Response 2.3.a Geotechnical tests performed for the expanded ISFSI and existing tests performed for the existing ISFSI pads were used to determine elastic modulus and settlement of each soil layer.

Based on settlement of the foundation under static loading, subgrade modulus for the SAFE analysis was determined.

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 18 of 33 Immediate settlement takes place as the load is being applied or within a time period of approximately one week. Settlement of the foundation is calculated using the following formula in J.E. Bowles, Foundation Analysis and Design, Fifth Edition, 1996 (Reference 7).

=1 Where:

s

=

Settlement of the foundation.

q

=

Additional stress/load on a specific soil layer from the foundation.

E

=

Elastic modulus of this specific soil layer.

H

=

Thickness of this specific soil layer.

Using the above equation, settlements/subgrade moduli at various positions of the pad were calculated and the averaged value is used as the subgrade modulus for the SAFE analysis.

Table 2.15 list the calculated settlement at various pad locations and subgrade modulus used for the SAFE analysis.

Table 2.15: ISFSI Pad Settlement and Subgrade Modulus ISFSI Pad Settlement, (inch)

Subgrade Modulus (pci)

Differential Settlement, (inch)

Center 1.12 5.1 Middle of Long Edge 0.71 8.1 Center-middle of long edge: 0.42 Slope: 0.17%

Middle of Short Edge 0.57 10.0 Corner 0.36 15.9 Center-corner: 0.76 Slope: 0.06%

Average 0.69 8.3 (Use 8.0)1 Note:

1. While 8.3 was the calculated average subgrade modulus, 8.0 was used as a measure of conservatism.

NSPM Response 2.3.b Pad settlement for the fully loaded pad is listed in Table 2.15. Since the casks will be loaded during a long period of time (not all at once), the settlement of the pad when occupied by various numbers of cask is evaluated as well. Calculated differential settlements are listed in Table 2.16 through 2.19.

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 19 of 33 Table 2.16: ISFSI Pad Settlement (Partially Loaded Pad) -

2 Casks (18 ft x 40 ft Effective Area)

Location Settlement (inch)

Differential Settlement (inch)

Center 0.63 Middle of Long Edge 0.43 Center-middle of long edge: 0.20 in.

Slope: 0.19%

Middle of Short Edge 0.35 Corner 0.25 Center-corner: 0.39 in.

Slope: 0.15%

Table 2.17: ISFSI Pad Settlement (Partially Loaded Pad) -

6 Casks - 25% Loaded (2 by 3) (40 ft x 54 ft Effective Area)

Location Settlement (inch)

Differential Settlement (inch)

Center 0.96 Middle of Long Edge 0.57 Center-middle of long edge: 0.39 in.

Slope: 0.16%

Middle of Short Edge 0.54 Corner 0.33 Center-corner: 0.63 in.

Slope: 0.16%

Table 2.18: ISFSI Pad Settlement (Partially Loaded Pad) -

12 Casks - 50% Loaded (2 by 6) (40 ft x 108 ft)

Location Settlement (inch)

Differential Settlement (inch)

Center 1.07 Middle of Long Edge 0.66 Center-middle of long edge: 0.41 in.

Slope: 0.17%

Middle of Short Edge 0.56 Corner 0.35 Center-corner: 0.72 in.

Slope: 0.10%

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 20 of 33 Table 2.19: ISFSI Pad Settlement (Partially Loaded Pad) -

18 Casks - 75% Loaded (2 by 9) (40 ft x 162 ft)

Location Settlement (inch)

Differential Settlement (inch)

Center 1.11 Middle of Long Edge 0.69 Center-middle of long edge: 0.42 in.

Slope: 0.17%

Middle of Short Edge 0.57 Corner 0.36 Center-corner: 0.75 in.

Slope: 0.07%

NSPM Response 2.3.c The finite element mesh and cask locations on the pad are provided Figures 2.14 and 2.15.

Figure 2.14: Finite Element Analysis Mesh

~cp 0 0

~ 0

0) 0 0

0 0

0 0

p 0

---**I I

i i

i i

i i

i i

i i

i i

0 0 ---**

0 ---**

0 ---*

0 ---**1 I'

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

00 0 0

0 I

0 -. -

...-.--.---r' ~~~~-.--.-.-r I

I I

MAXIMUM MESH SIZE = 2ft x 2ft I

0 ---

I I

I I

r-0 -. -.. ~ ' +--+-+-+-+-++--l--++++++-l~-+--+-+-+-+-+++

0 -----

=1~ =:;::::;r +1=:r +h_ ::=1~ ::=1 __ =:,=:: _=:: __ +:::::_::::::=:_ =:,=::_ =:: __ =t+_ ++*

r +t_ 7:::;1:=::

_ ~=::_+_+_+~:::::::::::~ =::_

I 0 ---

I I

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 21 of 33 Figure 2.15: Finite Element Analysis Mesh (Note that the orientation of the Cask Transport Vehicle (CTV) is arbitrary)

NSPM Response 2.3.d Various cask loading configurations and load combinations (LC) were used to determine forces/moments to design the ISFSI pad and supporting foundation. Reinforcement design is controlled by vertical tornado missile cases except negative moment, which is controlled by single cask loading with the cask transport vehicle (CTV) at the corner of the pad. Static bearing pressure is controlled by the flood case with 6 casks and transient bearing pressure is controlled by the earthquake case with fully loaded pad. Controlling load combinations for the pad design are listed in Table 2.20.

00 0 0

© 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

00 0 -*-**i ;

I i

i i

i j

j i

i I

j i_

0 *-

0 **-

0 ---,

0 **-*1 00 0 0

I I

I I

0 --- --~i __

• ____ i ___ ~ i __

0 --- --

0 --- --

0 --- **r CASK

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 22 of 33 Table 2.20: Summary of Structural Design Results Failure Mode IC Applied Allowed Controlling LC(1)

Thru-Thickness Shear of Pad 0.52 17.3 kip/ft 33.4 kip/ft 731 Moment, Bottom Face Reinforcement, North-South (Mx,pos) 0.58 115.4 kip-ft/ft 199.1 kip-ft/ft 731 Moment, Bottom Face Reinforcement, East-West (My,pos) 0.64 134.6 kip-ft/ft 209.0 kip-ft/ft 712 Moment, Top Face Reinforcement, North-South (Mx,neg) 0.39 53.8 kip-ft/ft 136.5 kip-ft/ft 741 Moment, Top Face Reinforcement, East-West (My,neg) 0.71 100.0 kip-ft/ft 141.6 kip-ft/ft 011 Static Bearing Pressure 0.53 2100 psf 4000 psf 512 Transient Bearing Pressure 0.29 2300 psf 8000 psf 624 Note:

1.

LC 712: Tornado missile load combination, 6 casks.

LCs 731 and 741: Tornado missile load combination, single cask.

LC 011: Static load combination, single cask with VCT.

LC 512: Load combination with flooding, 6 casks.

LC 624: Earthquake load combination, fully loaded pad (24 casks)

NSPM Response 2.3.e The pad is reinforced with #11 reinforcing bars spaced at 12 in for the bottom face and #9 reinforcing bars at 12 in for the top face in both directions.

NSPM Response 2.3.f The static bearing pressure is controlled by a flood case with a partially loaded pad (6 casks) and the transient bearing pressure is controlled by an earthquake case with fully loaded pad.

The ratio of the applied to allowable for static bearing pressure is 0.53, indicating significant margin. See Table 2.20 for further details.

STRUCTURAL RAI 2.4 Clarify cask load configurations used in structural analysis.

Section 3.4.2, Supporting Analysis and Acceptance Criteria, of enclosure 1 of the PI ISFSI LAR states that A total of four different cask load configurations were considered in order to envelope the worst-case moment, shear, and settlement in the new pad. In section [3.4.3],

Results and Conditions of the same document, it is stated that The pad was analyzed using three cask configurations. Additionally, Section 2.4, Cask Loading Pattern of Soil Structure Interaction Analysis of the ISFSI Expansion Pad also discusses the use of three cask loading

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 23 of 33 patterns. Because an apparent inconsistency in the licensees assessment of cask load configurations exists, the following information is requested:

a.

Specify the cask load configurations referenced in Section 3.4.2, and

b.

Confirm that the analyzed cask load patterns are conservative and bound all other possible scenarios.

The above information is necessary to comply with 10 CFR 72.102(c), 10 CFR 72.102(d) and 72.24(c)(3).

NSPM Response 2.4.a The soil-structure interaction analysis of the ISFSI pad determines the maximum accelerations of casks. According to NUREG/CR-6865, the single cask configuration controls seismic responses of the cask on the ISFSI pad. Based on this, three cask load configurations (i.e.,

single cask, 12 casks and 24 casks on the pad) were considered to ensure that the maximum accelerations of casks were determined conservatively. For each cask load configuration, the seismic analyses were performed using three soil cases (i.e., Lower Bound, Best Estimate, Upper Bound). Additional seismic analyses were also performed for the cracked concrete pad using three cask load configurations and critical soil case.

In the structural design of the ISFSI pad, the controlling moment, shear, and settlement were determined by considering the three cask load configurations used for the SSI, plus one additional cask load configuration (i.e., 6 casks on the pad, 1/4 of pad capacity), for a total of four cask load configurations, to ensure all possible unbalanced loading patterns are addressed. This is because the controlling moment, shear, and settlement may not necessarily occur with the single cask load configuration but is closely related to the unbalanced loading pattern. To maximize seismic effects, the maximum acceleration determined from the SSI analysis is applied to all casks in the structural analysis.

NSPM Response 2.4.b Four cask load configurations (single cask, 6 casks, 12 casks and 24 casks on the pad) represent critical cask loading patterns during the cask installation. This includes the single cask case, two unbalanced loading cases and the fully loaded case. Analysis results show that controlling moment, shear, and static bearing pressure occur for the single and unbalanced loading cases. The fully loaded pad with 24 casks results in the critical loading case for the transient soil bearing capacity. Design summary is listed in Table 2.20. As such, the four cask load configurations that are considered in the design will bound all other possible scenarios.

Sufficient design margins are also provided for in the design (i.e., a maximum Interaction Coefficient, which is the ratio of structural/geotechnical demands to structural/geotechnical capacity, of 0.71).

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 24 of 33 THERMAL RAI 6.1 Provide a detailed discussion of the method of evaluation (MOE) used to demonstrate that the thermal performance of the TN40HT casks currently in place on the existing ISFSI pads are not adversely affected by the deployment of the proposed ISFSI pad expansion.

The applicant has provided a high-level summary of the evaluations performed, including some calculations, to demonstrate that the addition of a third ISFSI pad at the Prairie Island ISFSI will have minimal impact on the thermal performance of the casks on the existing ISFSI pads.

This information was provided to support a request that the NRC review and approve an alternate methodology for demonstrating thermal performance of the spent fuel storage cask system in this license amendment request.

The differences in the alternate methodology, when compared to the existing methodology, are primarily related to the numerical modeling software used to perform the thermal analysis. In lieu of reviewing input and output parameters of the actual analysis files developed by the applicant, the NRC staff is requesting that a more thorough and complete narrative of the MOE, consistent with the guidance in NEI 12-04, draft NUREG 2215, and NUREG 2152, be included in the FSAR, such that the staff could perform appropriate inspection and oversight activities.

A thorough description of the MOE is important because it will demonstrate that the design basis functions will protect the integrity of important shielding or fission product barriers, and thus those features that protect against dose to the public or release of radioactive material. It will also control the analyses and assessment process through control of the methods and will assure that the required response of the shielding or barriers as previously established by NRC review will be maintained. This narrative may include:

1.

Comparison tables of input parameters used for the existing finite element analysis of the ISFSI and those used in the CFD analysis for the alternate MOE.

2.

The approach taken by the applicant was to use a previously approved modeling approach to validate the alternate modeling approach. Since a method of evaluation includes inputs and other modeling choices, it is appropriate to provide a clear representation of similarities between the existing analyses and the proposed MOE, for each of the elements relied upon to make the proposed MOE complete.

3.

A thorough discussion of the following:

a. mesh generation, including appropriate plots, and applicable sensitivity studies.

b. treatment of boundary conditions.

c. the final thermal radiation model used.

d. how the heat transfer out of the top of the casks is treated.

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 25 of 33 As with item (1), a reasoned and orderly presentation of specific modeling choices is important to fully evaluate whether an element of a method of evaluation is appropriate and complete.

4.

Any additional relevant information related to the numerical modeling aspects of the MOE that might be revealed during an audit of actual input and output files.

The applicant is responsible for a complete discussion of all elements of an MOE on which they rely to illustrate that said MOE is sufficient to demonstrate the performance of that design in light of the requirements presented in 10 CFR Part 72. If the essential elements of the MOE are not adequately identified in the application, the staff cannot make a finding of reasonable assurance of adequate protection. This may result in the MOE not being approved for use beyond the existing licensing action.

This information is needed to assess compliance with 10 CFR 72.122(h)(1), 10 CFR 72.128(a)(2,3,4).

NSPM Response 6.1 The RAI response is broken down into several major parts as identified below:

Alternate Method of Evaluation Although the STAR-CCM+ software used to perform the thermal analysis can perform computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analyses, the analysis performed for this application does not utilize the STAR-CCM+ CFD capabilities. Only the thermal analysis capabilities are utilized, most notably the surface-to-surface radiation modeling features. Since the air is not modeled in the problem, as described in Section 3.5.2 of Reference 1, there is no fluid, and therefore the guidance for CFD analysis relative to solving fluid flow problems provided in NUREG-2215 and NUREG-2152 are not applicable. However, the guidance provided in NUREG-2152 regarding quality of the mesh and convergence of the results was utilized.

Section 2.5.5, Cask Heat Transfer Evaluation, of Enclosure 1 of Reference 1 requested NRC approval to use an alternate method for performing the cask heat transfer thermal evaluation to analyze the expanded ISFSI. The following clarifications are made for this request:

The request to use STAR-CCM+ instead of ANSYS is limited to the use of the thermal analysis capabilities of STAR-CCM+ to analyze the increase in the cask exterior (side) temperature due to the addition of the new ISFSI pad only.

NSPM is not requesting approval to use the CFD capabilities of STAR CCM+.

This request is specific to this licensing action only. NSPM is not requesting generic approval for the use of STAR-CCM+.

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 26 of 33 Description of Method of Evaluation Section 3.5 of Reference 1, Enclosure 1, provides a description of the method of evaluation (MOE) for the thermal analysis. The following discussion supplements the LAR to provide a more detailed discussion of the MOE used to demonstrate that the thermal performance of the TN40HT casks currently in place on the existing ISFSI pads are not adversely affected by the deployment of the proposed ISFSI expansion.

Most of the inputs used in the STAR-CCM+ thermal analysis are taken directly from the existing ANSYS finite element analysis. The only inputs that are not based on the ANSYS analysis are geometry inputs that are not specifically identified in the existing analysis but are defined by the expanded ISFSI design. Only the effect of the new ISFSI pad on the cask surface temperature is evaluated, thus, detailed inputs describing the cask internal components and geometry are not required for the STAR-CCM+ analysis. Table 6.1 provides a comparison of the inputs used for the STAR-CCM+ analysis to those of the ANSYS analysis.

The inputs listed in Table 6.1 are the complete set of inputs required to perform the thermal analysis as described in LAR Section 3.5.

Table 6.1: Analysis Input Comparison Design Input ANSYS Model Value STAR-CCM+ Model Value Distance between two adjacent pads N/A 38 ft Width of existing pad 36 ft 36 ft Distance from cask centerline to existing pad edge 9 ft 9 ft Width of new pad N/A 40 ft Distance from cask centerline to new pad edge N/A 11 ft Center-to-center distance between casks 18 ft 18 ft Cask outer diameter 8.4 ft 8.4 ft Cask height 12.8 ft 12.8 ft Ambient temperature 100°F 100°F Ambient (incident) emissivity 1.0 1.0 Cask emissivity 0.9 0.9 Ground (concrete) emissivity 0.9 0.9 Cask heat generation (Decay heat load + solar heat load) 116,727 BTU/hr 116,727 BTU/hr Heat loss from bottom of cask to ground 3,492 BTU/hr 3,492 BTU/hr Heat loss from cover of cask (to environment) 3,424 BTU/hr 3,424 BTU/hr Solar heat flux on ground 0.853 BTU/hr-in2 0.853 BTU/hr-in2 Figure 6.1 shows the entire geometry of the model, while Figure 6.2 shows a cross-section through the geometry. As seen, the model includes homogenous solid cylinders (internal details of the casks are not included), which represent the casks, and a thin (1 ft) homogenous solid slab, which represents the pad/ground. The model includes external surface-to-surface

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 27 of 33 radiation heat transfer among the various cask side surfaces, the ground, and the environment. Environment is at 100°F for both natural convection and radiation and has an emissivity of 1. Air flow around the casks is not modeled, but convection heat transfer is included in the model as a boundary condition on both the cask side surfaces and the pad/ground. Heat transfer between the casks and pad/ground is included in the models; the cylinders are not in contact with the pad/ground and heat transfer from the casks to the ground is specified to be equal to that in the ANSYS analysis. The bottom surface of the pad/ground is adiabatic. See Figures 6.2 and 6.3 for a graphic representation of the boundary conditions applied to the model.

Figure 6.1: Overview of the Computational Domain (Cross-Section in Figure 6.2 is Highlighted)

Figure 6.2: Cross-Section of the Computational Domain

~ \\

t. ~.,...

Convec 1on11j_

• Radiationfi Adiabaticfi Conductionfi

~~~

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 28 of 33 Figure 6.3: Boundary conditions This modeling approach is conservative and justified since the cask volumetric heat generation is known and does not depend on the cask arrangement on the pads; the heat losses from the top and bottom of the pads are also known as documented in Table 6.1. Using the top and bottom heat loss from the ANSYS analysis is conservative since any increase in casks temperature would also cause an increase in heat loss from the top and bottom of the cask.

Keeping the casks top and bottom surface heat loss the same as in the ANSYS analysis conservatively causes an overestimation of the casks side temperature in the STAR-CCM+

analysis. Thus, the casks side local temperatures are the only unknowns of the problem that depend on the general arrangement of the casks. The thermal model computes the casks side temperatures balancing the heat flux on the casks side surfaces considering the surface-to-surface radiation and convection with the surroundings - this is the main purpose and goal of the thermal model (i.e., accurately solve the local heat balance on the casks side surfaces).

This calculation could have been done by hand if the local view factors between the various surfaces were known. However, due to the complexity of the geometry, it was decided to use STAR-CCM+ to compute the view factors and solve the heat transfer problem. The CFD capability of STAR-CCM+ was not utilized for this problem (i.e., no flow of fluids was included in the model). Since the casks and pad/ground were modeled as solid volumes, heat conduction is also resolved in the model. However, the details of the pad/ground and cask internal temperature were not of interest for this calculation and have been proven to have no impact on the results of the computation. Sensitivity runs were performed by considering thermal conductivities ranging from 0.5 W/m-K to 5.0 W/m-K, which envelop typical expected values for soil, concrete, and casks. A change in thermal conductivity by a factor of 10 (0.5 to 5 W/m-K) caused a maximum change in cask side temperature of approximately 0.2°F, which is Heat loss = 3.424 BTU/ hr Cask volumetric heat generation+ solar heat load

= 116,727 BTU/hr Natural convection [computed as h,..,A(T wrtac,_tx,,-T..,, )]

Radiation heat transfer between ground, envi ronment, other casks computed internally by t he code with the surface-to-surface radiation model using surface local temperatu re values t "'" "

0

' ""' rno~c,;oo [comi a as *- ** **"-~***.JI

~

-~-~-~.,_~-~-~-~-

I 1 tt Adiabatic

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 29 of 33 negligible and thus confirms that the main problem being solved is the heat balance on the casks side surfaces.

The thermal radiation model used is the Surface-to-Surface (S2S) radiative heat transfer for modeling non-participating media radiation. The S2S radiation model in STAR-CCM+ allows the analysis of thermal radiative heat transfer between surfaces of arbitrary complexity. In this model, no medium is present between the surfaces. The radiation properties and the thermal boundary conditions that are imposed on each surface define uniquely the amount of radiation that a surface receives and emits. The surface properties are quantified in terms of emissivity

(), reflectivity (), transmissivity (), and radiation temperature. For the STAR-CCM+ model, transmissivity is set equal to zero and thus reflectivity is computed as 1 -, based on the standard thermal radiation energy balance. The S2S model enforces the radiation balance on the entire set of surfaces by considering each surface and how it exchanges radiation with all other surfaces and environment. The calculation approach consists of the following main elements:

The boundaries of the computational domain are spatially subdivided into contiguous, non-overlapping patches.

From the center of each patch, a specified number of beams are emitted over the enclosing hemisphere with solid angles that are discretized using an angular quadrature. Each beam is traced through the computational domain until it intercepts an opposing patch, thus defining a pair of patches that exchange radiative energy (i.e.,

defining the view factors between the difference patches).

The radiation energy transfer to or from each patch is then calculated from the radiation transport equation and the boundary conditions.

Approximately 1000 beams per patch and 700 patches per each casks side surface were used in the STAR-CCM+ thermal model.

Figure 6.4: Overview of the computational domains mesh (cross-section in Figure 6.5 is highlighted)

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 30 of 33 Figure 6.5: Cross-section of the computational domains mesh Figure 6.6: Overview of the surface mesh around the casks Figures 6.4 and 6.5 show an overview and cross-section of the mesh used for the analysis, respectively. Figure 6.6 shows a close-up view of the surface mesh since it is relevant to the analysis performed in this calculation. The model is discretized in a total of approximately 300,000 cells. Each casks side surface accounts for approximately 700 trimmer faces 0.7 ft wide; the pad/ground upper surface accounts for approximately 95,000 polyhedral faces between 0.7 ft (in proximity of each cask) and 5 ft wide (farther from the casks). Mesh independence studies were performed to ensure that the results were mesh independent.

ISFSI SAR Revisions The ISFSI SAR will be revised to clarify the use of the STAR-CCM+ software as a thermal analysis tool. See Attachment 1 to this enclosure for the corresponding revisions to proposed ISFSI SAR Insert T-1 for page A3.3-28.

MATERIALS RAI 8.1 Include the use of ACI 201.2R in the safety analysis report (SAR) description of the new ISFSI pad design or provide justification for how the durability of the concrete will be ensured without SAR requirements to follow this ACI guidance.

SAR Section A4.2.1 states that the new concrete pad is designed to the requirements of ACI 349-13, Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures. An exception is being taken to reduce the minimum compressive strength of the concrete from the 4,500 psi requirement of this ACI code. The staff notes that ACI 349-13 establishes the 4,500 psi

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 31 of 33 minimum strength to meet durability requirements for concrete that is exposed to freezing and thawing cycles.

of the license amendment request (evaluation of the proposed change) states that the guidance in ACI 201.2R-16, Guide to Durable Concrete, will be followed to ensure the durability of the concrete with the reduced minimum compressive strength. However, the use of ACI 201.2R-16 is not discussed in the SAR. It is unclear to the staff how the durability of the concrete will be achieved without a SAR specification for the use of ACI 201.2R-16.

This information is needed to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 72.24(c)(4) and 72.122(b)(1).

NSPM Response 8.1 The 4,500 psi minimum concrete strength in ACI 349-13 is not a structural requirement, but a material requirement for long-term concrete durability. Because this requirement cannot be met while still meeting the limitations of the cask drop analysis, an alternative means of ensuring long-term durability is provided by applying the ACI 201.2R requirements.

Per ACI 201.2R, durability against freeze-thaw is primarily controlled by three items: reducing freezable water (lowering water-cement ratio), entraining air to provide voids for water to expand into while freezing, and detailing to avoid standing water. The ISFSI Pad design follows the durability suggestions for Exposure Class F2 freeze-thaw protection and provides a reasonable approach to ensure durability while still meeting the cask drop analysis requirements.

See Attachment 1 to this Enclosure for the corresponding revisions to proposed ISFSI SAR Inserts S-5 and S-8.

MATERIALS RAI 8.2 Clarify apparent discrepancies between the temperature values and footnotes in SAR Table A3.3-7.

SAR Table A3.3-7 includes new footnotes that describe revisions made to the maximum component temperatures for buried casks. However, the temperature values in the table have not been revised from the prior version of the SAR in accordance with the new footnotes.

This information is needed to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 72.24(c) and 72.120(d).

NSPM Response 8.2 The maximum component temperature values for the buried cask condition do not need to be increased in Table A3.3-7. The cask exterior initial temperatures are increased by 5°F and the cask interior initial temperatures are increased by 2°F due to the proposed ISFSI expansion.

The assumed boundary conditions for the buried cask are adiabatic, which is conservative.

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 32 of 33 Therefore, the cask temperatures are impacted only by the cask internal heat. Starting at a higher initial temperature than previously considered will result in a decreased time to reach the maximum component temperatures for the buried cask condition, as shown in the markups for Table A3.3-7.

A revised markup for Table A3.3-7 is provided in Attachment 1 to this Enclosure to provide further clarification for the new footnotes.

MATERIALS RAI 8.3 In the SAR, clarify if the existing aging management programs are to be implemented for the new pad and casks immediately upon placing them into service or sometime afterward (e.g.,

after 20 years of service).

SAR Sections 9.8 and A9.8 describe the aging management activities associated with Prairie Islands renewed ISFSI license. Enclosure 1 of the license amendment request states that the new SSCs will be included in the ISFSI aging management programs (AMPs). The SAR does not specifically address the inclusion of the new SSCs in the AMPs. To provide clarity for the staffs review of the amendment request (and for subsequent NRC AMP inspection activities) the SAR should state the timing for the implementation of the AMPs for the new pad and casks.

This information is needed to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 72.120(a).

NSPM Response 8.3 Added SSCs that are in-scope for aging management would be subject to AMP implementation beginning at 20 years of service. The basis for this is that in-scope SSCs that are not addressed via time-limiting aging analysis are subject to an AMP. The PI ISFSI AMP was described pursuant to 10 CFR 72.42(a)(2) and ultimately approved by the NRC with the renewal of the license. The aging management review performed for license renewal presumes 20 years of service prior to the effects of aging-related degradation being of concern. Thus, the description of the PI ISFSI AMP includes the provision that aging management requirements for in-scope SSCs begin at 20 years of service. The added in-scope SSCs will be included in the PI ISFSI AMP with the proviso that AMP inspection and monitoring requirements apply beginning at 20 years of service.

A markup to Section 9.8 of the PI ISFSI SAR is provided in Attachment 1 of this Enclosure to provide clarification.

3.0 REFERENCES

1.

Letter (L-PI-19-009) from NSPM to the NRC, License Amendment Request: Expand the Storage Capacity of the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), dated July 26, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19210D273)

L-PI-20-023 NSPM Enclosure Page 33 of 33

2.

Letter from the NRC to NSPM, Prairie Island License Amendment Request - Request for Additional Information (EPID No. L-2019-LLA-0169), dated April 13, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20077K624)

3.

NRC Regulatory Guide 1.198, Procedures and Criteria for Assessing Seismic Soil Liquefaction at Nuclear Power Plant Sites, Revision 0, dated November 2003 (ADAMS Accession No. ML033280143)

4.

NRC NUREG/CR-5741, Technical Bases for Regulatory Guide for Soil Liquefaction, dated March 2000 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003701612)

5.

Textbook, Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., et al., Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soil, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, dated October 2001

6.

NRC NUREG/CR-6865, Parametric Evaluation of Seismic Behavior of Freestanding Spent Fuel Dry Cask Storage Systems, dated February 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051120008)

7.

Textbook, J.E. Bowles, Foundation Analysis and Design, Fifth Edition, dated 1996

ENCLOSURE, ATTACHMENT 1 PRAIRIE ISLAND INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION Request for Additional Information License Amendment Request to Expand the Storage Capacity for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation ISFSI SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT AND ADDENDUM (Revised Markup - For Information Only)

(45 Pages Follow)





APPENDIX 2C ISFSI South-East Pad CPT DATA, LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS, AND ST-5 BORING LOG

AA/EOE Braun Intertec Corporation p

1826 Buerkle Road Saint Paul, MN 55110 Phone: 651.487.3245 Fax: 651.487.1812 Web: braunintertec.com August 8, 2018 Project B1806014 Mr. Gregory M. Peebles Program Manager Sargent & Lundy - Mailcode 25X50 55 E. Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60603-5780 Re:

Summary of CPT Soundings Prairie Island ISFSI Expansion 1717 Wakonade Drive Welch, Minnesota

Dear Mr. Reyes:

This letter serves to summarize geotechnical services provided by Braun Intertec Corporation as part of Prairie Island ISFSI Expansion Geotechnical Investigation.

=

Background===

We received written authorization for this project on June 15, 2018 in the form of Purchase Order 37234 received from Sargent & Lundy, LLC. Our authorized scope of services included performing a series of 4 Seismic Cone Penetration Test (CPT) soundings. The initial schedule of quantities included 425 feet of CPT soundings with anticipated termination depths of 100 to 125 feet below the ground surface. Our investigation was performed in accordance with ASTM D3740.

Field Procedures Field procedures for this project were completed on July 11, 2018. Sounding locations were staked in the field by Braun personnel prior to the arrival of our testing equipment. Additional discussion of the CPT sounding procedures is provided below.

CPT Soundings: CPT soundings for this project were performed using designated push equipment manufactured by A.P. van den Berg. The rig is mounted on a rubber-tracked Marooka carrier and is capable of generating 15 tons of reaction force. CPT soundings were performed using an A.P. van den Berg icone (60 degree cone apex and 15 square centimeter tip area) with porous stones mounted in the U2 position. The serial number of the icone used for these soundings is 170717, as noted in the attached CPT sounding logs and on the attached icone calibration record.

A new porous stone was used for each sounding and was fully saturated with silicone oil. Tip resistance (Qt), sleeve friction (FS) and pore pressure (U2) were measured continuously as the probe was advanced.

Seismic testing was performed at 1 meter intervals and we obtained shear wave (S-wave) and compressive wave (P-wave) data in general accordance with procedures described in ASTM D5778 and D7400 at all 4 CPT locations.

Appendix 2C BRAUN INTERTEC The Science You Build On.

The shear wave velocity (Vs) and compression wave velocity (Vp) was estimated based on the wave arrival times to the A.P. van den Berg geophone module attached to our icone. We used the software suites CPeT-IT and SPAS by Geologismiki to reduce the data and produce the graphical CPT logs and seismic wave plots. Note that P-wave data obtained below groundwater, about 12 feet below the ground surface, is included in the attached graphical representation of the wave forms but is unreliable due to the compression waves propagating at a very high velocity through the water and less through the soil matrix. A summary of our wave velocity profiles is attached. The banded results on the attached wave velocity profiles indicate the maximum and minimum values measured from independently analyzing the arrival times from the shear wave source on the right and left side. The line in the center and the values presented are the average of the two values at each test depth. A tighter band around the data indicates less variability in the estimated Vs results.

Shallow refusal of the cone was encountered at every sounding location locations due to apparent dense soil layers or other obstructions. We terminated each sounding when our equipment reached 90 percent of its maximum capacity.

Table 1: CPT Summary Sounding Name Sounding Depth (ft)*

Comments Seismic Test Depths (ft)

CPT-1 55.91 The Vs data collected at 7.5 feet appears anomalous. This could be due to the interface of the recompacted soil in the predrilled borehole.

7.5, 9.2, 12.3, 15.5, 18.6, 22.2, 25.5, 28.7, 32.1, 35.5, 38.6, 42, 45.3, 48.8, 51.9, 53.3, 55.9 CPT-2 14.76 This location was offset 7 feet north of the original testing location.

7, 9.2, 12.6 CPT-3 44.95 The Vs data collected at 6.8 feet appears anomalous. This could be due to the interface of the recompacted soil in the predrilled borehole.-

6.8, 9.2, 12.6, 15.7, 18.9, 22.3, 25.6, 28.9, 31.9, 35.4, 38.8, 42.4, 44.9 CPT-4 46.00 7.6, 8.9, 12.3, 15.6, 19, 22.1, 25.4, 28.7, 32.1, 35.4, 38.8, 42.1 Appendix 2C

Detailed CPT logs are attached with this report. All raw data and processed CPT logs will be provided electronically. Following the completion of testing, CPT sounding locations were abandoned per Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) regulations and sealing records were submitted to the MDH. A copy of these sealing records is included in the Appendix of this report.

The Vp data collected is presented in Table 2. We have omitted results from below a depth of about 12 feet because of the reasons previously discussed in this report.

Table 2: Compressions Wave Velocities Test Depth (Feet)

Compressions Wave Velocity (feet/sec)

CPT-1 CPT-2 CPT-3 CPT-4 8

2066 1604 2105 11 3715 1857 1336

• Data from these locations was unreliable and we were unable to determine Vp.

This data was used to in conjunction with our shear wave velocity results to estimate values of Poissons ratio at each of the test depths. These values are presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Estimated Poissons Ratio Test Depth (Feet)

Estimated Poissons Ratio CPT-1 CPT-2 CPT-3 CPT-4 8

0.38 0.25 0.47 11 0.48 0.44 0.33

• Data from these locations was unreliable and we were unable to determine Vp to calculate Poissons Ratio.

Appendix 2C

Appendix 2C Remarks Sargent & Lundy, LLC Project B1806014 August 8, 2018 Page 4 We believe that the CPT services described above were provided and performed according to the project specifications. In performing its services, Braun lntertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact Tyler Reich at 612.418.6116 (treich@braunintertec.com).

Sincerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION

~~ ~dbetj Project Engineer

\\\\\\\\\\\\I II 1111/ l/111

'/!,,,,\\~'(.. L. J£tv,,,,,/.

~~~t:............ ~lk~~

~ ~-

• • • .... IS)~

\\ g PROFESSIONAL

~

§ LICENSED )

~

~~...fo'---::

ENGINEER E

Mark L. Jenkins, PE Senior Engineer Attachments:

\\~\\ 41770

/~'<;("J

~...,x*

.... o ~

~~: ('--~........... ::\\~<:> ~

"".111,1 O,: MIN"'",,,,,..._

Seismic Cone Penetration Testing Location Plan CPT Locations Coordinates and Elevations CPT Logs Seismic Data Graphics lcone Calibration Record Daily work log Well Sealing Records Data files (attached zip file) c:

Alan Wilson, alan.k.wilson@sargentlundy.com Daniel Kocunik, daniel.c.kocunik@sargentlundy.com Chris Kehl, ckehl@braunintertec.com BRAUN INTERTEC

Appendix 2C DENOTES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORING CPT-4

~

CPT-2

~

~

CPT-3

~

CPT-1 50' 0

100' SCALE: 1"= 100' BRAUN INTERTEC The Science You Build On.

11001 Hampshire Avenue S Minneapolis, MN 55438 952.995.2000 braunintertec.com Drawing Information Drawn By:

Date Drawn:

Checked By:

Last Modified:

Project No:

B1806014 Drawing No:

B1806014 JAG 713118 MLJ 811118 Project Information Prairie Island ISFSI Expansion 1717 Wakonade Drive Welch, Minnesota Soil Boring Location Sketch

Points Project : B1806014 User name jgreenwell Date & Time 1:38:06 PM 7/20/2018 Coordinate System United States/Counties/MN Zone Goodhue Project Datum Goodhue Vertical Datum Geoid Model Minnesota GEOID12B Coordinate Units US survey feet Distance Units US survey feet Height Units US survey feet Point listing Name Northing Easting Elevation Feature Code 1003 255326.839 628928.544 693.196 CPT-1 1002 255328.560 628772.791 693.216 CPT-2 1001 255330.048 628672.534 693.339 CPT-3 1000 255331.592 628516.306 693.495 CPT-4 Back to top Page 1 of 1 Points 7/20/2018 file:///F:/temp/B1806014/Reports/Additional/Report.html Appendix 2C Note: CPT-2 was moved north 7 feet from these di t

3URMHFW

3UDLULH,VODQG,6)6,([SDQVLRQ

%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ

+DPSVKLUH$YH6 0LQQHDSROLV01



7RWDOGHSWKIW'DWH

HOFK013URMHFW1XPEHU%

&RQH7\\SH

&RQH2SHUDWRU+ROPER

&37&37

/RFDWLRQ

&3H7,7Y&378GDWDSUHVHQWDWLRQ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQVRIWZDUH5HSRUWFUHDWHGRQ30



3URMHFWILOH&?8VHUV?WUHLFK?'HVNWRS?%?&3(7,7FSW Appendix 2C BRAUN INTERTEC The Science You Build On.

Cone resistance 0-*~-~--~----~

2 -....................,.............

4 8

10 12 16 18 20 -..

22 24 - * - **************S*---+---************************

I f; 30-

• Cl.

~ 32-*****************+*'-, ---e---

36 38-

• 40 -..

42 44 -r******** _t-:.~~, =:=I 46 48 50 52-

• 54 56-' ************;_

.:::t:'.:'~~~1 58-

• 60~,---+~~--~~~-~~

0 100 200 300 400 Tip resistance (tsf) 16 18 20 -

22 24-26 -

g28 36 38 -

Sleeve friction 40 - ** * ******************----+---*S**********************

I 42 46 48 50 52 -..

54 56-1*******~~-...;,,-, :..........

I 58 -

60~,-~~--~~~-~~

0 1

2 3

Fricti on (tsf) 4 Friction ratio o-~-----~---~

2 -..............,.................,,....

4 16 18 20 _....,..........,.................,.................

22 2 4 - * ******************---+---

26 -

g28 f; 30 -

Cl.

~ 3 2 -

l

• • • • • • • • • S*****************S-----+--******S*****************

I 34-

• 36 38-.

S*************~--r--S********

40 -

42 46 48 5 0 -f l ************;

2 4

6 Rf(%)

10 0

2 4

6 8

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 g28 f; 30 Cl.

~ 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 Pore pressure u l

• • • • • • ~

'l

\\

\\

\\ '

\\ \\

\\.

~

.~~.........

C'"

Jt I* :

I I

I I

-5 0

5 10 15 20 25 Pressure (psi)

Norm. Soil Behaviour Type o-~-------------~

2 4

6-1..... ----=.........

8 10 12 14-16 18 20 -

22 24 26 -

g 28

.,c; ;30 -

Cl.

~ 32-34-36 38 -

40 42 44 -

46 48 5 0 52 -

54

• Sand*& silty sand Silty.san cl.&sa 9dy.silt

.Sill¥ san{.&sa?d¥ silt Oay &silty clay Silty sand &sa'r\\dy"silf

• Sa~d*&-silty sand Sand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Silly san 1 & sandy s ii(

Sand. &.silty.sand

• sand S: silty sand San cl & silty sa i\\d

,j

• i Sand & silty sand i

Sand & silty sand 56 - -----t 58 -

60~,'--.--~.~,- - ~,~.-, ~-~~-+-~~,- -~,

0 2

4 6

8 10 1 2 1 4 16 18 SBTn (Robertson, 1990)

3URMHFW

3UDLULH,VODQG,6)6,([SDQVLRQ

%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ

+DPSVKLUH$YH6 0LQQHDSROLV01



7RWDOGHSWKIW'DWH

HOFK013URMHFW1XPEHU%

&RQH7\\SH

&RQH2SHUDWRU+ROPER

&37&37

/RFDWLRQ

&3H7,7Y&378GDWDSUHVHQWDWLRQ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQVRIWZDUH5HSRUWFUHDWHGRQ30



3URMHFWILOH&?8VHUV?WUHLFK?'HVNWRS?%?&3(7,7FSW Appendix 2C BRAUN INTERTEC The Science You Build On.

Cone resistance 0-*~-~-------~

2 -....................,.............

4 8

10 12 16 18 20 -

22 24- ******************+------*************

26-

• g28 f; 30-

• Cl.

~ 32-36 38 -

40 -*********************+*********************'*

42 44-************* '----+----+

46 48 50 52-

• 54 56-* ********** *--~--*********

I 58-

• 60~,-~~~-~~~-~--1 0

100 200 300 400 Tip resistance (tsf) 16 18 20 -

22 24-36 38 -

Sleeve friction 40-************* +---+---,*********

I 42 46 48 50 52 -

54 56 -

58 -

60~,-~~~-~~~-~--1 0

1 2

3 Friction (tsf) 4 Friction ratio o-~-~-~---~-~

2 -..............,.................,,....

4 8

10-11**************;

12 16 18 20 -****************'*****************'*****************

22 2 4 - **********************----

26 -

g28 f; 30 -

Cl.

~ 3 2 -*****************'***************+---+--******'*****************

I 34-

• 36 38-........

• • • • • • • • • • ---i--**********

40- ********* I********* *ll*************+**********I

• I 42 44-**************;*****************;*****************;*****************;*

46 48 50 2

4 6

Rf(%)

10 0

2 4

6 8

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 g28 f; 30 Cl.

~ 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 Pore pressure u

. p-I

-5 I* :

I I

I 0

5 10 15 20 Pressure (psi) 25 Norm. Soil Behaviour Type 0 -~-------------~

2 4

6-r====:p;;

SetiS"~i veif irre*g@i rred

!:ia~cl.F/,,(lty sa ~cl 8

10 12 Sil\\y san 1 & sajcly s ii(

San cl & silty sa n.cl 14 ------

San cl & silty sa t\\cl Sa~cl *&*silty sa~cl **

l 6 18 20 -

22 24 26 -

g28 f; 30 -

Cl.

~ 32 -

34-36 38 -

40 42 44-46 48 50 52 -

54 56 58 -

• 60~,'--.-~~.c--+,~.~,~.--+-~.~,~. ~,~.~, -.~,~. --1, 0

2 4

6 8

1 0 12 14 16 18 SBTn (Robertson, 1990)

3URMHFW

3UDLULH,VODQG,6)6,([SDQVLRQ

%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ

+DPSVKLUH$YH6 0LQQHDSROLV01



7RWDOGHSWKIW'DWH

HOFK013URMHFW1XPEHU%

&RQH7\\SH

&RQH2SHUDWRU+ROPER

&37&37

/RFDWLRQ

&3H7,7Y&378GDWDSUHVHQWDWLRQ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQVRIWZDUH5HSRUWFUHDWHGRQ30



3URMHFWILOH&?8VHUV?WUHLFK?'HVNWRS?%?&3(7,7FSW Appendix 2C BRAUN INTERTEC The Science You Build On.

Cone resistance 0-*~-~--~--~-~

2 -....................,.............

4 8

10 12 16 18 20 -..

22 24-f; 30-

• Cl.

~ 32-34-

• 36 38-

• 40-l**************F ~--.._;~.

42 44-r***

1*****************

~==::::::=:=1 46 48 50 52-

• 54 56-1 ********** *--~--*********

I 58-

• 60~,-~~~-~~~-~~

0 100 200 300 400 Tip resistance (tsf) 16 18 20 -..

22 Sleeve friction 24- *******************+*****

C:,

36 38 -..

40 -..

42 44-..

46 48 50 52 -

54 56 -

58 -

60~,-~~~-~~~-~~

0 1

2 3

Friction (tsf) 4 Friction ratio o-~-~-~-~-~-~

2 - **************************************

4 8

10~~************;

12 --l"""""'+ **********+---+--;.......... I 16 18 20 -.. ~******'*****************'******************

22 2 4 - *......... *******--;---

36 38-

• 40- <**

+********* +*****************l***********I

• I 42 2

4 6

Rf(%)

10 Pore pressure u o~-~-~-~~-~-~

2 4

6 8

~

14

• • • • • • • • • • • • • ~F"-,-:::,

.... cc

... =

16

'""\\._

18 I

"'J> '********'

i--j-----

20

• • • ~

• ,****************l*************+--t---

1 22

• • • • • • • • • *** a~****

I********* *l**********I************

24 2 6 g28 I

f 30

\\

~32

~ \\ ~-------

34 1

1 36

\\

~*

-:_-_-~----~-~----... ~.*\\~

• • • • • • • ~

... -~

42 44

"-\\

...,J 46 48 50 52

• -~-~-*********************************I***************

54 -~1--+---,****************~----

56 I ****************************************------

58 60~,~-,~~,~--,,....--;~-~--<

-5 0

5 10 15 20 Pressure (psi) 25 Norm. Soil Behaviour Type o-~~------------~

2 4

6-1--

..a.,.;.._::

8 10 12 14 -

16 18 20 -

22 24 26 -

g 28 f; 30 -

Cl.

~ 32-34-36 38 -

40 42 44-46 48 50 52 -

54 56 58 -

Ort,mic1oil B il\\y san. 1 & sa ?clf s ii\\

Oa_y &silty clay Silty san ~ *& sa ~cly s iii' Silty san cl & sa ncly s iii'.

Oay Sand & silty sa ncl Sand & silty sa ticl Sil\\ysan 1 ~ sa ~cly s ii\\

!=*~.ncl,'/ s.ilttea.ncl Silty san i &.sandy silt

.Sand & silty sa ncl

_Sil)Y..~n cl,'/,a ncly,i!t Sand & silty sa ncl

.Silty.San cl..&sa ocly,Sill

• i Silly san cl & sa ncly silt 60~,'--.-~~~,~~,~-+-~~~~-+-~~,~~,

0 2

4 6

8 10 12 14 16 18 SBTn (Robertson, 1990)

3URMHFW

3UDLULH,VODQG,6)6,([SDQVLRQ

%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ

+DPSVKLUH$YH6 0LQQHDSROLV01



7RWDOGHSWKIW'DWH

HOFK013URMHFW1XPEHU%

&RQH7\\SH

&RQH2SHUDWRU+ROPER

&37&37

/RFDWLRQ

&3H7,7Y&378GDWDSUHVHQWDWLRQ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQVRIWZDUH5HSRUWFUHDWHGRQ30



3URMHFWILOH&?8VHUV?WUHLFK?'HVNWRS?%?&3(7,7FSW Appendix 2C BRAUN INTERTEC The Science You Build On.

Cone resistance 0-*~-~--~--~-~

2 -....................,.............

4 16 18 20 -..

22 24-

• 26-

• g28 f; 30-

• Cl.

~ 32-36 38 -

40 -*********************+*********************'*

42 44-1************ * ----+---<*,'*

46 48 50 52-

• 54 56-* ********** *--~--*********

I 58-

• 60~,~~~~-~~~-~~

0 100 200 300 400 Tip resistance (tsf) 16 18 20 -..

22 24-..

46 48 50 52 -

54 56 -

58 -

Sleeve friction 60~,-~~~-~~~-~~

0 1

2 3

Friction (tsf) 4 Friction ratio o-~-~-~-~-~-~

2 -..............,.................,,....

4 16 18 20 -..

22 24-

• f; 30 -

• Cl.

~ 32 -

• 'L*******,-****************e-----+--******a****************

• I 34-

• 36 2

4 6

Rf(%)

10 0

2 4

6 8

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 g28 f; 30 Cl.

~ 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 Pore pressure u

. *!'. i..........,

1.****

I

• • • • • • • • • • • • • \\...***

l

\\

\\

\\

l

\\

\\.

IJ 1

i "

"" /

I

-5 I* :

I I

I 0

5 10 15 20 Pressure (psi) 25 Norm. Soil Behaviour Type 0 -

2 4

~ "

6 -

• Sens-~ive firre g~irred "

8 S,liy sand & sa ricly di(

10 Oaf&silty clay 12 Silty san cl & sa ~cly s ii\\

14-16 i

Sand & si lty sa t\\cl 18 20 -

Silty san 1. & sa ncly sjl\\

22 Sand & silty sa ncl 24 Silty ~an cl & sa ncly s ii\\

26 -

.Sand & si lty sand g 28 Oay &silty clay

.,c; 30 -

Silty san cl & sa ncly s ii\\

Cl.

II) 32 -

0 34-36 38 -

Sand* &*silty sand*

40 42 44-46

.Silty s.an cl & sa ncly s ii~

48 50 52 -

54 56 58 -

60 I

I I

I I

I 0

2 4

6 8

10 12 14 16 18 SBTn (Robertson, 1990)

%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ

+DPSVKLUH$YHQXH6 0LQQHDSROLV01

%RUHKROH,'&37

3URMHFW%3UDLULH,VODQG,6)6,([SDQVLRQ 63$6Y6LJQDO3URFHVVLQJDQG$QDO\\VLV6RIWZDUH 3URMHFWILOH&?8VHUV?WUHLFK?'HVNWRS?%?63$6VSD



Appendix 2C BRAUN INTERTEC The Science You Build On.

0 20 40 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00

@: 28.00

5 30.00

0.

~ 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00 60.00 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Average P signals full graph (L signals) 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00 60.00 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 Tirre ( rrs)

%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ

+DPSVKLUH$YHQXH6 0LQQHDSROLV01

%RUHKROH,'&37

3URMHFW%3UDLULH,VODQG,6)6,([SDQVLRQ 63$6Y6LJQDO3URFHVVLQJDQG$QDO\\VLV6RIWZDUH 3URMHFWILOH&?8VHUV?WUHLFK?'HVNWRS?%?63$6VSD



Appendix 2C BRAUN INTERTEC The Science You Build On.

0 20 40 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 2200 24.00 26.00 g 28.00

5 30.00

0.

~ 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00 60.00 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Average S signals full graph (L & R signals}

220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00 60.00 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 Tirre ( rrs)

7KLVVRIWZDUHLVOLFHQVHGWR%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ

'HWDLOHGUHVXOWSORWVRYHUGHSWK 63$6Y6LJQDO3URFHVVLQJDQG$QDO\\VLV6RIWZDUH 3URMHFWILOH&?8VHUV?WUHLFK?'HVNWRS?%?63$6VSD



Appendix 2C Borehole ID: CPT-01 Estimated shear wave velocity 0.00-.------------------,

2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 g 28.00 t 30.oo

~ 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00 1324.35 655.34 6607 609.80 60.oo--~~-~-~~-~-~-~~-~

0 200 400 600 800 1,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,000 Vs (ft/s)

Estimated unit weight 0.00....------------------,

2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 g 28.00 t 30.oo

~ 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00 131.25 60.00-+---~---~--~---~--~

90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 Unit weight (pcf) 140.0(

Estimated Gmax 0.00....------------------,

2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 g 28.00 t 30.oo

~ 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00 737.98 756.05 620.39 60.00-+--~-~-~-~--~-~-~-~

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 Grrax (tsf)

%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ

+DPSVKLUH$YHQXH6 0LQQHDSROLV01

%RUHKROH,'&37

3URMHFW%3UDLULH,VODQG,6)6,([SDQVLRQ 63$6Y6LJQDO3URFHVVLQJDQG$QDO\\VLV6RIWZDUH 3URMHFWILOH&?8VHUV?WUHLFK?'HVNWRS?%?63$6VSD



Appendix 2C g

.c

a.

~

BRAUN INTERTEC The Science You Build On.

0 20 40 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.00 10.50 11.00 11.50 12.00 12.50 13.00 13.50 14.00 14.50 15.00 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Average P signals full graph (Lsignals) 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.00 10.50 11.00 11.50 12.00 12.50 13.00 13.50 14.00 14.50 15.00 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 Tirre (rrs)

%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ

+DPSVKLUH$YHQXH6 0LQQHDSROLV01

%RUHKROH,'&37

3URMHFW%3UDLULH,VODQG,6)6,([SDQVLRQ 63$6Y6LJQDO3URFHVVLQJDQG$QDO\\VLV6RIWZDUH 3URMHFWILOH&?8VHUV?WUHLFK?'HVNWRS?%?63$6VSD



Appendix 2C g

.c

0.

~

BRAUN INTERTEC The Science You Build On.

0 20 40 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 60 80 8.00 845.29 ft/s (2.55 ms) 9.00 10.00 11.00 734.78 ft/s (4.55 ms) 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 100 120 140 160 180 200 Average S signals full graph (L &. R signals}

220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 Tirre ( rrs)

7KLVVRIWZDUHLVOLFHQVHGWR%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ

'HWDLOHGUHVXOWSORWVRYHUGHSWK 63$6Y6LJQDO3URFHVVLQJDQG$QDO\\VLV6RIWZDUH 3URMHFWILOH&?8VHUV?WUHLFK?'HVNWRS?%?63$6VSD



Appendix 2C Borehole ID: CPT-02 Estimated shear wave velocity Estimated unit weight Estimated Gmax 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 g 7.00 g 7.00 g 7.00

£

£

£

a.

a.

a.

~ 8.00

~ 8.00 20.6'1

~ 8.00

.08 9.00 9.00 9.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 11.00 7308 11.00 11.00 970.28 12.00 12.00 12.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 0

200 400 600 800 1,0001,2001,4001,600!,8002,000 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.0C 0

500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 Vs (ft/s)

Unit weight (pcf)

Grrax (tsf)

%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ

+DPSVKLUH$YHQXH6 0LQQHDSROLV01

%RUHKROH,'&37

3URMHFW%3UDLULH,VODQG,6)6,([SDQVLRQ 63$6Y6LJQDO3URFHVVLQJDQG$QDO\\VLV6RIWZDUH 3URMHFWILOH&?8VHUV?WUHLFK?'HVNWRS?%?63$6VSD



Appendix 2C BRAUN INTERTEC The Science You Build On.

Average P signals full graph (Lsignals) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 o.oo-+---'-----*---*---*---*-... *-----*----*---*---*---*----*--.. '--+'---*---*---*--... *--+'-----*---*---*-... *--.. *--... *---*---*--*----*--+o.oo 2.00 4.00

>-2.00

>-4.00 6.00

>-6.00

---

../-----------------~----------------------------~--------------------------1 8.00

~s.oo 10.00

~10.00 12.00 1-------~-----~---------------------------------------------------------------1~12.oo 14.00

>-14.00 16.00

>-16.00 18.00

>-18.00 1---------....,,.._...,.,.,.... _ _..,~----.,~--------------------------------------------------------1 20.00 1-20.00 2.2. 00 -i--------

g 24.00 r-..~,.__._r._,.._.,.__~------....----------------------------------------------------------r'"22.00

~24.00

.c ! 26.00 28.00

>-26.00

'"28.00

'"30.00 1----....-...---"'-~"~v.r....

"I.,.., --

30.00 32.oo--1~-~----....,,,-v-...~..,-~~--....,.._-~-~~----~~-~---------~-----------------------~-------1-32.00 34.00

~34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 i-----~---v--.~

~36.00

>-38.00

>-40.00 42.00-,...--~---

-v_-..,-v-....__....,.._,....._,_.....,.__,.,.,,.._..._._..,...._-'--...,_,__ ___________________ ~~- ------~---.......,~--~-.......,-...--~~--------r-42.00 44.00

~44.00 46.00

'"46.00 48.00

~48.00 50.00-+---,---,---,---,---

,--,---,--~,---,---,--,---,---,--~,---,---,--,---,--~,---,---,---,--,---,---,---,---

,--,---,---+-50.00 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 Tirre ( rrs)

%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ

+DPSVKLUH$YHQXH6 0LQQHDSROLV01

%RUHKROH,'&37

3URMHFW%3UDLULH,VODQG,6)6,([SDQVLRQ 63$6Y6LJQDO3URFHVVLQJDQG$QDO\\VLV6RIWZDUH 3URMHFWILOH&?8VHUV?WUHLFK?'HVNWRS?%?63$6VSD



Appendix 2C BRAUN INTERTEC The Science You Build On.

Average S signals full graph (L & R signals) 0 20 40 60

~

~ rn

~ ~ ~ D ill

~ B

~ D m

~ B a

~ ~ ~ -

B

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 g 24.00

.c

}

26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 0

I I

~

I I

20 40 I

I I

I I

I v~=

122~-70 ft/s J1.8o_~"s) 582.~7 ft/s ~5}5 ~s)

\\

649.;5 ft/s (4.80 m~ -

V 576:2 ft/s (5. 55 m~)

\\ --

684~26 ft/s (~.95 m~

\\ 81; ; 9 ft/~~05 ms~

74~~ 2 ft/s ~4.45~ 1~

\\ so;; ft/s (3.70 m~) -~

\\ 86;.86 ft/s (4.05 rn~

\\ 714.83 ft/s (4.75 ms)

\\ 84;.96 ft/s (4.00 ms) i 1080.59 ft/s (2.50 ms)

~

Vo)

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I-I-

I-0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 Tirre (rrs)

7KLVVRIWZDUHLVOLFHQVHGWR%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ

'HWDLOHGUHVXOWSORWVRYHUGHSWK 63$6Y6LJQDO3URFHVVLQJDQG$QDO\\VLV6RIWZDUH 3URMHFWILOH&?8VHUV?WUHLFK?'HVNWRS?%?63$6VSD



Appendix 2C Borehole ID: CPT-03 Estimated shear wave velocity Estimated unit weight Estimated Gmax 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 8.00 296.70 8.00 130.96 8.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 g

24.00 g24.00 g

24.00

.c

.c

.c t,,

~ 26.00 t,,

~ 26.00 t,,

~ 26.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 38.00 38.00 38.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 44.00 44.00 44.00 165.45 46.00 46.00 46.00 48.00 48.00 48.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 0

200 400 600 800 1,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,000 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.0C 0

500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 Vs (ft/s)

Unit weight (pcf)

Grrax (tsf)

%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ

+DPSVKLUH$YHQXH6 0LQQHDSROLV01

%RUHKROH,'&37

3URMHFW%3UDLULH,VODQG,6)6,([SDQVLRQ 63$6Y6LJQDO3URFHVVLQJDQG$QDO\\VLV6RIWZDUH 3URMHFWILOH&?8VHUV?WUHLFK?'HVNWRS?%?63$6VSD



Appendix 2C BRAUN INTERTEC The Science You Build On.

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 2.2.00 0

20 40 I

I g

.24.00

.c ! 26.00

.28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 0

I I

20 40 60 80 I

I AA A

I I

60 80 Average P signals full graph (L signals) 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I-I 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 Tirre ( m;)

%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ

+DPSVKLUH$YHQXH6 0LQQHDSROLV01

%RUHKROH,'&37

3URMHFW%3UDLULH,VODQG,6)6,([SDQVLRQ 63$6Y6LJQDO3URFHVVLQJDQG$QDO\\VLV6RIWZDUH 3URMHFWILOH&?8VHUV?WUHLFK?'HVNWRS?%?63$6VSD



Appendix 2C BRAUN INTERTEC The Science You Build On.

Average S signals full graph (L & R signals}

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 g 24.00

.c ! 26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 0

I I

I I

20 40 I

I I

I I

I I

~ -V"- 'V'-

.A.

• 6

-ft/c -f T1n m~ -

'~

632.:4 ft/s (::30 ".'._s) 806.58 ft/~ (~ 05 ms) 789.26 ft/s ;.30 ms)

\\ 73;.; ft/s (4.20 ms) 67;.20 ft/s (4.90 ms) -

-- ~ -

633.82 ft/s (5.20 ms)

.~

739.95 ft/s ;6:,:~)

~-

824.07 ft/s (4.00 ms) 73;~02 ft/s: 4~65 ~~)

~ 84;,';;ft/s ~.90 m:,

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 Tirre (rrs)

7KLVVRIWZDUHLVOLFHQVHGWR%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ

'HWDLOHGUHVXOWSORWVRYHUGHSWK 63$6Y6LJQDO3URFHVVLQJDQG$QDO\\VLV6RIWZDUH 3URMHFWILOH&?8VHUV?WUHLFK?'HVNWRS?%?63$6VSD



Appendix 2C Borehole ID: CPT-04 Estimated shear wave velocity Estimated unit weight Estimated Gmax 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 14.00 806.58 14.00 116.80 14.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 89.26 18.00 18.00 18.00 20.00 736.27 20.00 20.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 g: 24.00 672.20 g: 24.00 g: 24.00

.s=

.s=

.s=

i 26.00 633.82 i 26.00 i 26.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 30.00 9.95 30.00 30.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 34.00 824.07 34.00 34.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 38.00 38.00 38.00 40.00 845.68 40.00 40.00 1259.01 42.00 42.00 42.00 44.00 44.00 44.00 46.00 46.00 46.00 48.00 48.00 48.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 0

200 400 600 800 1,0001,200 l,4001,6001,8002,000 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.0C 0

500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 Vs (ft/s)

Unit weight (pcf)

Grrax (tsf)

Appendix 2C TEST CERTIFICATE Icone (all versions)

Supplier:

A.P. v.d. Berg Machinefabriek, Heerenveen The Netherlands Production-order:

'7 °" 'Li q q Client:

~~ v ()_ },Qr

'bl'"\\ C\\_~

Cone-type:

"I - c.... F-X.. if P ~

C -

\\ s:

Cone-number:

1*707 17 To test/ To check item Required Checked II value value Check Quad-ring groove behind friction sleeve with check ring; Sleeve Sample testing: 1 of every 5 Icones is tested.

fixed Isolation-resistance.

>0.5 GQ 1)1~ GQ Straightness: !cone 5, 10 and 15 cm 2 S < 2.2. mm.

S<= 2,2 mm At !cone base: S < 0,2 mm cJ7 mm "Classic calibration" NOT present!

I O.K.

Check of calibration-file: "Classic calibration" removed.

Check alarm-settings Icone. Alarm values are set. (Kill Shutdown).

O.K.

0.V\\__

Software version - check at opening screen. (from 18 Jan 2018 v. 2.3) version: 2.3 0.l)\\_

calibration date of Icone; check cone data [Fl].. [Fl].

Yes C.\\A -

Initial zero-Value lip after calibration - within 1.0 % of nominal load.

O.K.

C).v<.,_

Initial zero-Value Local Friction after calibration - within 1.0% of O.K.

nominal load.

0. Li\\_

Initial zero-Value Pore Pressure after calibration - within 1.0% of O.K.

nominal load.

C.1/4_

Initial zero-Value Inclination X.

-1°< X <+1° u.3 0

Initial zero-Value Inclination Y.

-l 0 <Y<+l 0

Q.C) 0 Measurements lip resistance OK?

Tested range: 0-7-; tnP q Influence lip load on Local Friction and Pore Pressure:

LF < 10 kPa 1 \\.\\ th Max. tip load: 5 cm2: 100 MPa; 10 cm2: 100 MPa; 15 cm2: 75 MPa.

PP<1/2% nom O/l..~Pq Measurements local friction OK?

Tested range: b-tmPq Local friction at max. load.

Tested value: 1,c;~pq Measurements Pore Pressure OK?

Tested range: 0-1.,oo o'K.Pa Measure Pore Pressure to 150%.

Tested value: ~cc 0 ~fQ Measurements Inclination OK?

Tested range:

0 C:i Q4 -~-'l.1/2 Cone recognition on disconnecting and connecting Icone again?

Yes G

,L,<_

Remarks:

Calibrated by: C ~ l--\\.. 0-u.. we..

• Date: I '-; - 0 ~~ I Finalcheck: ~

\\:)c--::,)~

Appendix 2C Calibration Certificate 1.1 General Cone number:

Cone type:

170717 I-CFXYP20-15 a.p. van den berg

==

Description:==

Part number:

Tip 75 MPa Sleeve 1.00 MPa Inclinometer 20° Pore 2MPa 0100297A Certificate number:

170717-2 Client:

Braun lntertec 1.2 Calibration equipment Autolog 3000 Autolog 3000 Autolog 3000 Autolog 3000 Reference Loadcell 200kN 00287P3L Reference Loadcell 20kN 016200 Reference Sensor 40 Bar 43184 70 Reference ACS-080-2-SC00-HE 08/11 470480 Reference ACS-080-2-SC00-HE 08/11 470480 1.3 Standard EN ISO 22476-1 2012 Class 2 1.4 Result The sensor complies to the above standard Calibrated by:

Date:

Signature:

QA Manager:

Date:

Signature:

C.J. Ouwejan 14/06/2018 N.R.E. de Jong 14/06/2018 170717-2 calibrated August 2016 (Peekel: SN# 2628002)

August 2016 (Peekel: SN# 2628002)

August 2016 (Peekel: SN# 2628002)

March 2016 (HBM: HBM: FT087 2016-03)

August 2016 (HBM: 56490 2016-08)

August 2016 (Trescal: 1607-12904)

February 2015 (Trescal: 1502-10558)

February 2015 (Trescal: 1502-10558) page 1/4

Appendix 2C I

Calibratjon Certificate a.p. van den berg

[kPa]

[kPa]

[kPa]

Cone Resistance (qc) 401n-,...--------- ------

30 20 1

~

---~ - - -~

1 oin...1-------.::::

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Local Friction (fs)

-~---------*-------*~-~-----~-~-~-=-=-=-=-~--~-~-~-~-~--------1

-1

-1 i.-i---------------------....:::::-----

o.b1 0.02 o.o3 o.o4 o.os o.os 0.09 0.1 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 5

4 3

2

-1 V

V 0-0-

V V

V

-2,V

-3 10- *v I

Pore Water Pressure (u2)

---=---

-- ------ - *---*~

~

I a

~

I l

i j

j j

l T

I o.b1 o.b2 o.b3 o.b4 o.os o.tis o.b1 o.ba o.bs 0~1 0.110.120.130.140.150.160.170.180.19 0.

[MPa]

- - - - - - Deviation

--- EN ISO 22476-1 2012 Class 2 170717-2 2

page 2/4

Appendix 2C Calibration Certificate a.p. van den berg Zero Value Cone 0--:, If [MPa]

Max. Deviation from Zero Value Cone 3.75

[MPa]

Sleeve c.c 0 / [MPa]

Sleeve 0.05

[MPa]

Pore(u2) t., I

[kPa]

Pore(u2) 100.0 [kPa]

Ref Cone Cone-Ref Ref Sleeve Sleeve-Ref

[MPa]

[MPa]

[kPa]

[MPa]

[MPa]

[kPa]

0.010 0.013 3

0.000 0.000 0

0.352 0.361 9

0.021 0.021 0

1.027 1.038 11 0.034 0.035 1

2.897 2.924 27 0.084 0.084 0

4.962 5.012 50 0.134 0.135 1

7.524 7.569 45 0.178 0.179 1

13.456 13.534 78 0.278 0.281 3

20.991 21.068 77 0.360 0.361 1

26.108 26.206 98 0.478 0.480 2

41.441 41.540 99 0.636 0.637 1

57.638 57.722 84 0.790 0.791 1

76.290 76.291 1

1.013 1.014 1

Ref Pore(u2)

Pore(u2)-Ref

[MPa]

[MPa]

[kPa]

0.000 0.000 0

0.104 0.105 1

0.196 0.197 1

0.299 0.300 1

0.432 0.434 2

0.637 0.639 2

0.784 0.787 3

0.972 0.976 4

1.233 1.236 3

1.381 1.384 3

1.659 1.660 1

2.032 2.032 0

170717-2 page 3/4

Appendix 2C Data Sheet EN ISO 22476-1 2012 Class 2 A:

B:

C:

D:

E:

Cone Resistance Accuracy Norn.Cone Resistance Max.Cone Resistance Effective Area Local Friction Accuracy Norn.Local Friction Max.Local Friction Effective Area Pore Water Pressure Accuracy Norn.Pore Water Pressure Max.Pore Water Pressure Inclination X Accuracy Norn.Inclination X Max.Inclination X Inclination Y Accuracy Norn.Inclination Y Max.Inclination Y 170717-2 a.p. van den berg 100.0 kPa or 5.0%

75 MPa 150 MPa 15 crn2 15.0 kPa or 15.0%

1.00 MPa 1.5 MPa 225 crn2 25.0 kPa or 3.0%

2 MPa 3 MPa 1.0° 20° 25° 1.0° 20° 25° page 4/4

Appendix 2C BRAUN INTERTEC Project Number Project Name Project Manager Vehicle

!°rill Rig

~opport Trnck Low Boy Drilling Method R

p HSA Mud Rotary Well Installation Rock Coring Grouting Number Act. Miles Size

~

Yes No Communication Est. Miles Est. Ftg.

Est. Hrs.

Task Preparation Travel Stake Utility Drilling Surveying Standby Drilling Production Report Dri11Rpt03 rev 10/12 CC Hrs.

DA Hrs.

AP Hrs.

Est. Hrs.

Drilling informaton complete?

(to *b11 completed by Crew Chief)* *

(to be completed by* Project Manager) '

Consumables: Materials and Supplles (itam 10681 For C~ Pl~s-Prolect Item ll/pe Qty Item Typo

• Qty.

Item Description Qty,* 1

! Rate,- **. Extension **

Well Screens Redi Mix Riser Pipe Portland Cement Couplings Blacktop Patch Caps/Plugs Thin Wall Tubes Protective Casing Au erTeeth Locks Bentonite Bumper Posts Quick Grout Manholes Steam Clean Filter Sand Per Diem (to be completed by Project Manager)

For Lump Sum Project -

Depar1men1 Amount Reviewed by t-----------t------------tProject Manager 1-------------------t Drill Coordinator Unit Pricing by PA Drilling Complete?

~

Yes c:=::>No (Initial) 1087 Mob/DeMob/day 1004 Per Hr. Charges 1005 Travel Time 1007 Per Ft. Charges 1062 per hr. all-terrain 1067 Tractor/Lowboy 1070 Abandonment/ft 1018 Overtime 1080 Steam Clean 1012 Well Installation 1011 Well mtrls PVC 1039 Well mtrls iron 1088 Well screen 1028 Protect. Posts 1058 Protective casing 1022 Thin wall 1068 Materials/other Attach and modify Cost Estimate sheet from PAS if needed Completed form sent to Drilling Coordinator for review.

Appendix 2C WELL OR BORING LOCATION MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING SEALING RECORD Minnesota Well and Boring Sealing No.

Minnesota Unique Well No.

or W-series No.

H 354440

~tyName 1 1 Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 1031

-,-x-~~. *

(Leave blankilno1known)

GPSLd'CATION -

decimal degrees (to foCr decimal places)

I I

I f

I Depth at Time of Sealing <"'

L,,,,...,,..,,_ __

lt.

Original Oopth. __ ~_.

... *, /,_. _ ___

It.

Lntituae _____

--,-___ Longitude ______ ___

H----------.;;;:;}~~<=--------+---------------------------1

/

I\\CllllFEft(S)

STATIC WATER LEVEL Numerical Street Address or Fire Number and City of Well or Borin~89 iii Single Aquifer D Mulllaqulfer

\\7

/ 'WEUJBORING O Measured Date Measured

~ated I 7 I.. Y * \\.i ~V""".. -

....\\._,

I '\\..-

~~ater-Supply Well D Moml Well I If I' Show exact location of well or boring Sketell map of well or boring B

H 1 0 0 h

___;.:';! a

~

./.elow In secUon grid wilh *x.*

jocallon, showing p~rty j!l;~ n:v~o:re:_:~o:e_ ~~~I ~e~r=====.J_::----;,:'.!:::;:,~~-!::::'.'.ft_

~l\\,l"'l~::'.'.'.e10:._~D::'..~ab~o~ve~la~nd~su~rf~a~ce'.:_ _ ___ _j N

ines, roads. and buff :r*

I CilSING TVPE(S)

~+* *+* *-+* -+* ':) 5}.SL- 0... tt,~

0 Steel O Plastic O Tile O Olh-01 __...._"'"°""~~J.,,------- - -------------1 H-**f--;--*+* -+*

~~ L6'""1 f,-W_ E_L_L_H-EA_D_ C_O_M_P_L_E_TI_O_N _______.* ___________________ ~

w --~-- _ ;. __ _!_... ;.. ET Outside: D Pilless Adapter/Unit i

I

\\I I

D At Grade D Buried Inside:

D Basement Offset D Well House Well Pit 1/2 Mile

• • ~---

~--~-

i 1

f----1Mile---j PR~PERTY OWNER'S N~COMPANY NAMh l.. 'n.(\\J - /,,.. ~~- ~ V-i.....,,...

Properly" o~er's mailing address ii diHerent than well local1on address indicaled above

\\117 ~~~:::-,.a.,

Dr

~\\

c..t--., ~-J <S'So~~

OWel1 Pit D Other _

_ N'&:::_~~-------

D Buried 0 Olher ___________

CASING(S)

Diameter Depth Sal in oversize hole?

Annular space initially grouted?

-,..J/l.-in. from _

_ __ to ____ ft D Yes

• No OYes

• No D Unknown

___ in, from ____ to ____ ft.

D Yes

• No D Yes 0 No 0 Unknown

--- in. from ---

lo ---- ft 0 Yes

• No OYes 0 No D Unknown Wt:bOWNER'S NAME/COMPANY NAME SCREEN/OPEN HOLE

--.c::.

Ir---.-

k=.,i>,.,;;l..,__..-..,.,--..,,.e>;;;;.=!'---.:L-_.,J.-...,.e.~---,--,--,-.,..,.---1 Screen from,- ~A to _____ ft, Open Hole from ______ to __

_ ___ ft.

VV'Gll owners ma1 1ng address if dirferent than property owner's ad~ndicated above

~ ~

OBSTRUCTIONS D Rods/Drop Pipe 0 Check Valve(s)

D Debris

• Fill D No Obstruction Type of Obstructions (Describe),_

c=_S'""'-'P.....

'---------------------------l GEOLOGICAL MATERIAL COLOR H~~~~:~~~R FROM TO Obstructions removed?

D Yes D No Describe 1--lf-no_t_k-no_w_n_,-in-d-ic_m_e_e_s_tim_a_t-ed~f-o-rm_a_li_o_n_lo-g-fr~o~m-n_e_a-rb_y_w_e_ll-or~b-o-ri-ng-.-'--

---IPUMP

,-t::,-.,:::--0--= '--_,.

• • -----,,---~--,,---~--.---=--,---t D Not Present D Present, Removed Prior to Sealing 0 Olhe*-------------- t r

r~I "ti~ "\\....

l A

1 7

\\-L-U~--""""f--'i!"'-"~--+----t- ---f-',,..,_tt-'"-l~'J1~yp~a===~

... ~-~============---------------l C(:::fl"l-'l,;'0'-..,._.J..,-lo~/~l,...C-,...__.-t--t-----t-----t.._.

17---Ml-i::;,iiiii>i_M

_:ETHOD USED TO SEAL ANNULAR SPACE BETWEEN 2 CASINGS, OR CASING AND BORE HOLE

<:.: *_.- O~ '-.;,,._ - I.l 1..:.. ~nular Space Exists D Annular Space Grouted with Tremie Pipe D Casing Perforation/Removal c;;:~*'...,,!!o..:'~l..j..4b~

~o!lo--=l>f------f------f-\\--1~~4 1

~ ~:f.-tCaslng Diameter r

1 _______ in from. _______ to _______ ft.

D Perforated D Removed 1

_______ in. from. _______ to _______ ft, D Perforated D Removed Type of Perforator, _______________________________

--1 t----- - -----+------+-- -----t---+-----1 VARIANCE Was a variance granted from lhe MOH for this well? D Yes ~

TN# _____

t-----------+------+------+---+--

---1 REMARKS, SOURCE OF DATA, DIFFICULTIES IN SEALING

~

-- O \\

o3 Ol--l-1 I

~

l ~(°'){_r,, I <.J

("y\\,. *~* ~

I IMPORTANT-FILE WITH PROPERTY I H 3

.:.~ -4 4 4 O PAPERS-WELL OWNER COPY

_)

HE-01434-15 ID# 53159 GROUTING MATERIAL(S)

(One bag ot cement = 94 lbs., one bag of bentonlte = 50 lbs.)

Grouting Material~~~ from_k_ to 5~ ft. ____ yacds_

ba,gs

__________ from ____ to ____ IL ____ yards ____ bags from ____ to ___ fl. ____ ya,c:ts ____ bags OTHER WELLS AND BORINGS Other unsealed and unused well or boring on property?

D Yes ::g( No How many?

LICENSED OR REGISTERED CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION /

This well or boring was sealed in accordance with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725, The information contained in this report is lrue to the best of my knowledge.

,)

I 3>:;;.~

License or Regls1ra~

Cer1ified Rep'c!J>'ti*e Sl/'[nalb7tf Geltlfied'Rep No.

"Date

~~\\

,,. h.:---..

Name of Person Sealing Well or Boring 8116R

Appendix 2C

@:!: ~!

~~

ii

=l!i d~

• ~

l!J!lli I

.;;-* ~

I

\\ ~ t-r

~

I i,,,

j I

,/

I I

'I

~-*

la! **~

t~

i!

j*" ;~

~

I I

/

i i

~I '

i 1

I

~ I i I lj f !

I

~

~

~

~

w

"' i ullll*1*0CKldlJq11,1v1-<1e..1*0.J(llo

,.tlfl,,1, *fff,l(/i

~ "

• • J OIOZ-Ot-,0 **iOQ IIO!IJ~*u WII ua,,1~*-

H

• r( *] HIS -.IIIP-"'I UCIJICUSO""I" 11111~ul1111 1$1/'I' '81'.1-ID*IOU)-:Ml'.JIIIAj ilUSltJlUldOIUll(OJ

620 630 640 650 660 670 680 690 700 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Elevation,ft N60 (blows/ft)

SPTN60 ProfileatNewPadLocation CPT1 CPT2 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 Appendix 2C n, 1~

rr-~ '

I lTTTT" I

ITTTTl-,

l ---.----.--1 7 I I I I

I l I lT ~=- - --~==

L__

L__~

I f

! =

=f=~I I =+=+=~ I 1--H--H-+- I 1_

r I -~+.~ L__

+ +.L.....L.+-t-----+- -

T '..

1 I

L

-+-.L.....L.+-t---

I L +

L__ +

~ I L

____,_____,____~~

I L-+L__+~ I I ~

F I k ~ ~"'>-+

~ I I

L....L....1---i----t-

~ + ~ +

I I

_L -H--+

.L.....L.+-t---~

F" "'r-1 1 -~-H-+-+--+---1---1-~= =~

1t1

~

"'ct _l_

I ~-rt-H-...1.......L..-rf-

~ +

r=EP~~

_si +-H--

I H--H-- I I -+/-' -

L__+~~

I

+--1 I -+-+--

I

-f _1.n:J I -+-

H-H-~~

I ~H-

_J I ~~ ~

I

~

I I

~

I

.... I

~

1" ~~~- ~=

I -

-H.

I _

,,,,, + + --i-----l--1--1-L--W

=rt+=H - "1 *

+~-L--+

+ ~~,-

~-, t-+f I

_L l

-+-+ *1 T- *+ r lLJ::~

~ ~

+ I t.-H--

l '-,

~-

I I

-H--

-c]

(

I -~,----4--4...1.......L..-f ~f

-H--+

i +:1:+ : +-+- I i +=+

-+-

I + +* __ I I -+-H--7 I -+ m+

-H---1 I -+-

I +-+--i I -+- *

+

I -+-+--1 I I, I I, 1 I, I I, I 1

--1 I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

630 632 634 636 638 640 642 644 646 648 650 652 654 656 658 660 662 664 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 0

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Elevation,ft LiquefactionFactorofSafety CPT1 CPT2 CPT3 CPT4 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 Appendix 2C

j(...

<I.

"""'... -I

,. i..; -*

~(I ---

~

j

~

l..... E::

r--

wi~ ~

j_ -

II

.... 1*

-, I...

I*- C"...

• II""

.1111 1)1(

• 1"'11 J -

)I I* -

<II~

~

<I.

1.1111

K ii(

~

i -

)I(

Appendix 2C VJ..OSJNNU't ' l~:)13M J.SVl lNOO OOVNO>fVM llll

.1HV'ld !>NU.V'tllNlO ll'tJ1:)f\\N 0frNlSI lnrmd NOUVnlVAJ w:)INH~l103D H:>13~S NOi! V:>01 ONIU08 1IOS I!;

z 0

i: -g I

" h p at

(>

~

~.

0 a

~

\\

?_

?_

W_

?

V V

_N1##(00(%&#2

.)(-$1-`#

(%%5'5/ (0-,$

%5)3#O

_N1##(00(%&#2

.)(-$1-`#

(%%5'5/ (0-,$

%5)3#O

_N1##(00(%&#2

.)(-$1-`#

(%%5'5/ (0-,$

%5)3#O

_$,)#%,3 #)B

_N1##(00(%&#2

.)(-$1-`#

(%%5'5/ (0-,$

T

\\

!\\

8<

87M 8<

87 87

=( $2#>%(3(0#20,?@##0ABC%#/

D$#).B; 8EFGH8I JK L@

-$#M.)(-$#2LA),4$L',-10L/

,,1# ;

NI//53-5' O 7PP QFH6QI KDK8I JK 4-0&8EFGL@

-$#M0

'#2-5'M.)(- $#2L0)(%#,@

6)(3#/LA),4 $L', -10L/,,1#;

NI//53-5' O 7PPQFH6QI KDK8I JK L@

-$#M0

,%,()1#M.)( -$#2L 0)(%#

,@6)(3#/LA),4 $L', -100,!W@

1. 1. 00 4(0#)A#()-$.L3#)B/,,1#0,/,,1# ;

NI//53-5' O 7PP QFH6QI KDK8I JK L@

-$#M0

,'# 2-5' M.)(-$#2L A),4 $L4(0#)A#()-$.L/,,1 #;

NI//53-5' O

?!;U

?U?;U

?UT;U

??\\;U

?;W

!;W T;W

!V;W KI GD+

8XI FD+

KQEFFDQ+

G#101,)J, 0#1 SF

" )( 5$E

$0#)0#%X, ):, )( 0-,$

8GM\\ :

(. #,@T V YTZ=8IL I 50,&(' ' #)

"; [('

' #)' #-#)

' ()(*+(,-.)

N8##K#1%)-:0-3#G#)'-$,/,

.B1&##0@

,) #>:/($( 0-,$,@(AA)

1. 3-(0-,$1O FPXI GEPJ+J

+!\\\\?VT;U ?D+?!]\\!V; ] ?8##

(00(%&#21*#0%&;

N8,-/MI8G<K !T,)K!TULQ,%*M^8IXDD<

WM M!]WO K#1%)-:0-,$,@<(0#)-(/1

/0 14

<D G=P K+

"P QEJ6 +

"7R









 




 

  "

#$%$
&





 

















!

"





#
$



7! WW a

<X a

8B'A,/

D/#3;

@##0

?;U K#:0&

@##0 W;W Appendix 2C BRAUN'M INTERTEC I

(:**. ~*-

I.

1<

<i I

[ *.

I<

I,..

I<

I I

Ii >

I i I,..

I I<*.*

I,..

I I

1..-.

I I

I

'Sl.-

]_

\\W_

!?

!?

V

?

\\

%5)3#O

_N1##(00(%&#2

.)(-$1-`#

(%%5'5/ (0-,$

%5)3#O

_N1##(00(%&#2

.)(-$1-`#

(%%5'5/ (0-,$

%5)3#O

_N1##(00(%&#2

.)(-$1-`#

(%%5'5/ (0-,$

%5)3#O

!?

W 67 M 6<

87M 8<

87 7PPQFH6QI KDK8I JK L@

-$#M0

,'# 2-5' M.)(-$#2L A),4 $L4(0#)A#()-$.L/,,1 #;

NI//53-5' O

!"#$"%&'(

7P PQFH6 QIK DK6QIbDF 4 -0&8EFG($28I JK L

@-$#M0

,%,5)1#M.)(-$#2LA),4$L4(0#)A#()-$.L2#$1#;

NI//53-5' O 7P PQFH6 QIK DK8IJ K4 -0&8EFG( $26 QIbDF L

@-$#M0

,'# 2-5' M.)(-$#2LA),4$L4 (0#)A#()-$.L'#2-5' 2#$1#0,2#$1#;

NI//53-5' O 7PP QFH6QI KDK8I JK 4-0&6QI bDFL@

-$#M0

'#2-5'M.)(- $#2LA),4 $L4(0#)A#()-$.L'#2-5'2 #$1#

0,2#$1#;

NI//53-5' O

?\\W;U

?T\\;U

?TW;U V;W TV;W T;W KI GD+

8XI FD+

KQEFFDQ+

G#101,)J, 0#1 SF

" )( 5$E

$0#)0#%X, ):, )( 0-,$

8GM\\ :

(. #!,@T V YTZ=8IL I 50,&(' ' #)

"; [('

' #)' #-#)

' ()(*+(,-.)

N8##K#1%)-:0-3#G#)'-$,/,

.B1&##0@

,) #>:/($( 0-,$,@(AA)

1. 3-(0-,$1O FPXI GEPJ+J

+!\\\\?VT;U ?D+?!]\\!V; ] ?8##

(00(%&#21*#0%&;

N8,-/MI8G<K !T,)K!TULQ,%*M^8IXDD<

WM M!]WO K#1%)-:0-,$,@<(0#)-(/1

/01 456789:;

<D G=P K+

"P QEJ6 +

"7R









 




 

  "

#$%$
&





 

















!

"





#
$



7! WW a

<X a

8B'A,/

D/#3;

@##0

?\\?;U K#:0&

@##0 V!;W Appendix 2C BRAUN'M INTERTEC

[ <.*.*

I,..

I>*.

I >

I p

o(

Do p-(

o(

Do

~/

0 Do

(

1 ****

1:.-.*:.

1 ***

[:.*::.

I I

[ *.

\\

I

[ *.

I<

I,..

I>*.

I /

I I

I<>

I I.*.

I<

I

[ *.

/

I I

T V!

TW 87M 7PP QFH6QI KDK8I JK 4-0&6QI bDFL@

-$#M0

'#2-5'M.)(- $#2LA),4 $L4(0#)A#()-$.L'#2-5'2 #$1#

0,2#$1#;

NI//53-5' O

!"#$"%&'(

\\]V;U

]\\;W KI GD+

8XI FD+

KQEFFDQ+

G#101,)J, 0#1 SF

" )( 5$E

$0#)0#%X, ):, )( 0-,$

8GM\\ :

(. #V,@T V YTZ=8IL I 50,&(' ' #)

"; [('

' #)' #-#)

' ()(*+(,-.)

N8##K#1%)-:0-3#G#)'-$,/,

.B1&##0@

,) #>:/($( 0-,$,@(AA)

1. 3-(0-,$1O FPXI GEPJ+J

+!\\\\?VT;U ?D+?!]\\!V; ] ?8##

(00(%&#21*#0%&;

N8,-/MI8G<K !T,)K!TULQ,%*M^8IXDD<

WM M!]WO K#1%)-:0-,$,@<(0#)-(/1

/01 456789:;

<D G=P K+

"P QEJ6 +

"7R









 




 

  "

#$%$
&





 

















!

"





#
$



7! WW a

<X a

8B'A,/

D/#3;

@##0

?!T;U K#:0&

@##0

?T;W Appendix 2C BRAUN'M INTERTEC

\\\\

8<

7PP QFH6QI KDK8I JK 4-0&8EFGL@

-$#M0

'#2-5'M.)(- $#2L0)(%#,@

6)(3#/LA),4 $L4(0#)A#()-$.L 3#)B2#$1#;

NI//53-5' O

!"#$"%&'(

DJ KPR"PQEJ6; S (0#),A1#)3#2(0!W@

1. 1. 04&-/#2)-/

/-$.;

<52),0()B2)-//-

$.:),%#25)#151#2A#/,4 !W@

1. 1. 0;

",)-$.0&#$.),50#2 ;

\\U;U W ;W KI GD+

8XI FD+

KQEFFDQ+

G#101,)J, 0#1 SF

" )( 5$E

$0#)0#%X, ):, )( 0-,$

8GM\\ :

(. #T,@T V YTZ=8IL I 50,&(' ' #)

"; [('

' #)' #-#)

' ()(*+(,-.)

N8##K#1%)-:0-3#G#)'-$,/,

.B1&##0@

,) #>:/($( 0-,$,@(AA)

1. 3-(0-,$1O FPXI GEPJ+J

+!\\\\?VT;U ?D+?!]\\!V; ] ?8##

(00(%&#21*#0%&;

N8,-/MI8G<K !T,)K!TULQ,%*M^8IXDD<

WM M!]WO K#1%)-:0-,$,@<(0#)-(/1

/01 456789:;

<D G=P K+

"P QEJ6 +

"7R









 




 

  "

#$%$
&





 

















!

"





#
$



7! WW a

<X a

8B'A,/

D/#3;

@##0

\\]!;U K#:0&

@##0

]?;W Appendix 2C BRAUN'M INTERTEC

[ *....

1****

I I

The discussion of the two original ISFSI pads in Section 4.2.1 is independent of cask design.

Likewise, the discussion of the ISFSI expansion pad in this section is independent of cask design. The location of the cask drop accident analyses of the TN-40HT cask applicable to all three pads is in Section A8.2.8.

ISFSI Expansion The primary function of the ISFSI expansion concrete pad is to provide a uniform level surface for storing the casks. The minimum pad elevation criterion has been set at 693 ft.-0 in. msl to preclude immersion of the cask seals during the probable maximum flood. The actual pad minimum elevation is 694 ft.-1 in. The southeast pad is slightly wider (4 ft. total) than the original pads. The gravel areas around the pads are compacted to allow for movement and positioning of the transport vehicle and tow vehicle. The subgrade preparation regimen (e.g., design of the mudmat foundation, use of compacted structural fill) for the southeast pad is the same as for the original pads.

The design of the southeast ISFSI pad used the guidance in NUREG-1536, Revision 1, Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems at a General License Facility (Reference 24), for the design load requirements of the concrete pad. Note that an additional load combination is also considered to check overturning and sliding for the flooding condition so that the design load combinations for the new ISFSI pad are also consistent with the design requirements for the original ISFSI pads, discussed in Section 4.2.1. In addition, the computer program SAFE (Reference 25), was used to perform the finite element analysis for the static analysis used to evaluate the design of the southeast ISFSI pad. The analysis was performed to verify that the strength of the pad was adequate to prevent unacceptable cracking or differential settlement and that the casks would not tip under design loads.

The original ISFSI pads were designed for a minimum concrete compressive strength of 3,000 psi at 28 days in accordance with ACI 349-85, and the 1990 supplement. The cask drop analysis for the TN-40HT cask design is based on a maximum compressive strength of 4,000 psi. The southeast ISFSI expansion pad design is based on the requirements in ACI 349-13, consistent with the guidance in NRC NUREG-1536, Revision 1. Note that later editions of ACI 349 (beyond ACI 349-85) required a higher minimum compressive strength

(> 4,000 psi) to meet freeze-thaw and durability requirements. Therefore, for the design of the southeast ISFSI pad, an exception is taken to the code provision requiring 4,500 psi minimum compressive strength to meet durability requirements so that the specified compression strength of the southeast ISFSI pad is 3,000 to 4,000 psi. Thus, the pad will represent a target of similar or lesser stiffness than the original ISFSI pads so that the existing cask drop analysis remains valid for the southeast ISFSI pad.

The 4,500 psi minimum concrete strength in ACI 349-13 is not a structural requirement, but a material requirement for long-term concrete durability. The durability suggestions for Exposure Class F2 freeze-thaw protection in ACI 201.2R-16, Guide to Durable Concrete (Reference 29),

are applied to ensure the durability of the new ISFSI pad while still meeting the cask drop analysis requirements.

Sliding and overturning of casks is not reevaluated for the southeast pad, except for seismic loads, because hydrological loads (i.e., design basis flooding) and accident loads (i.e., the design basis munitions barge explosion) are enveloped by the tornado wind load. The tornado wind load and missile impact analysis in this addendum remains applicable (i.e., the coefficient Revised ISAR Insert S-5 For Page A4.2-2

of friction for the southeast pad is the same as for the original pads). The effect of seismic loads associated with the design basis safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) was reevaluated because the dynamic analysis is performed using a different method which results in the development of new seismic loads (see Section A4.2.1.2).

24. NUREG-1536, Revision 1, Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems at a General License Facility, July 2010.

25. SAFE, Version 12.3.1, Computers & Structures, Inc. (Sargent & Lundy, LLC (S&L) Program No. 03.7.241-12.3.1).

26. SHAKE2000, Version 9.95 (S&L Program No. 03.7.402-9.95)

27. SASSI2010, Version 1.0 (S&L Program No. 03.7.316-1.0-250USER-M01)

28. Response Spectrum Generator (RSG), Version 2.0 (S&L Program No. 03.7.414-2.0)

29. American Concrete Institute, ACI 201.2R-16, Guide to Durable Concrete Revised ISAR Insert S-8 For Page A4.7-2

Impact of Southeast ISFSI Pad Expansion As discussed in Section A3.3.2.2.4.1, the view factor in the detailed TN-40HT cask model is based on a cask alignment of two rows of infinite length, which is conservative for the original configuration of two ISFSI pads. As shown in Figure A3.3-20 and documented in the associated analysis, the view factors from the emitting cask to the receiving casks beyond cask 5 are not considered in the calculation due to their negligible effect.

The distance from the emitting cask to cask 5 is approximately, (18 ft.2 + (4 x 18 ft.)2)0.5 74 ft.

The distance between the closest cask on the original northwest ISFSI pad and the southeast ISFSI pad is approximately,

((9 ft. + 40 ft. + 9 ft.)2 + (11 ft. + 38 ft. + 9 ft.)2)0.5 82 ft.

Thus, the southeast ISFSI pad does not affect the original northwest ISFSI pad.

The calculated view factors used in the detailed TN-40HT cask model are not changed as a result of the southeast ISFSI pad. However, similar to how to the storage array model was used to estimate the increase in the cask outer shell temperature due to the concrete pad and the service road, the effect on the average cask surface temperature due to the addition of a southeastern ISFSI pad is evaluated for the original northeastern pad. The impact of the southeast ISFSI pad, fully loaded with TN-40HT casks, on the original northeast ISFSI pad, fully loaded with TN-40HT casks, for the radiant heat transfer between the casks, ground, and environment is evaluated with the use of a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model. The CFD model is developed usingthe surface-to-surface radiation modeling capabilities of the STAR-CCM+ (Reference 49) software.

This The STAR-CCM+ model evaluated the radiation heat transfer between the casks, ground, and environment but did not model air flow around the cask (i.e., convection is modeled as a boundary condition), similar to how the ANSYS model evaluates radiant heat transfer. Although heat conduction through the casks and ground is also included in the models, only the temperature distributions on the outer surfaces of the casks are to be regarded as valid results since the internal details of the casks and conduction heat transfer through solid casks were modeled in a simplified manner. Sensitivity runs were performed to ensure that the temperature distributions inside the casks and the ground did not impact the results of the analysis. For both casks and ground, the thermal conductivity is considered using three parametric runs with values ranging from 0.5 W/m-K to 5.0 W/m-K in order to envelop typical expected values. The model is discretized in approximately 300,000 cells. A benchmark was performed against the results of the existing storage array model using a STAR-CCM+CFD model case with one set of two rows of casks, and it was determined that the STAR-CCM+CFD model yields cask exterior temperature results that were essentially the same as the ANSYS storage array model. Another case with two sets of two rows of casks with pads spaced 38 ft. apart was used to determine the maximum and average cask exterior temperatures, as shown in Table A3.3-10A. This model is shown in Figure A3.3-21A.

Additional conservatism to address the modeling uncertainty was then incorporated into the results of the STAR-CCM+CFD analysis so that the cask surface temperature is conservatively considered to increase by 5 °F.

Revised ISAR Insert T-1 For Page A3.3-28

As previously discussed in this section, the storage array model results in Table A3.3-10 demonstrated an increase in the average cask surface temperature of 18 °F that corresponded to an increase in the average cask inner shell temperature of 1 °F or less, as compared to the detailed TN-40HT cask model. These results are scaled to estimate an increase in the internal cask temperatures, due to the addition of the southeast ISFSI pad, as shown below.



This would indicate the effect of the southeast ISFSI pad on average cask interior temperature is also less than 1 °F (i.e., 0.28 °F). In order to conservatively evaluate the impact of the southeast ISFSI pad. The overall increase in cask inner average temperatures of 1.28 °F (i.e., 1 °F from the existing storage array model and an additional 0.28 °F for the effect of the southeast ISFSI pad) is conservatively rounded to 2 °F and used to confirm the remaining margin for design limits is sufficient.

As before, since the basket temperatures calculated in the TN-40HT detailed model remain relatively unaffected, these temperatures can continue to be used for calculation of the thermal stress, thermal expansion, and cask cavity pressure for the structural evaluation.

Further thermal analysis and review of allowable limits associated with cask exterior and interior temperatures (including the effects on internal pressure and thermal expansion) was performed and demonstrated that there is sufficient margin to account for an increase in the cask exterior temperatures of 5°F and increase in the interior temperatures of 2 °F.

PRAIRIE ISLAND INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Revision: 15 TABLE A3.3-7 MAXIMUM COMPONENT TEMPERATURES FOR BURIED CASK Component Temperature (qF)

Time (hr)

Limit (qF)

Fuel Cladding 1058 93 1058 Fuel Compartment 1024 93 Basket Rails 889 93 Cask Inner Shell

• 774 93 Shield Shell

• 769 93 Radial Resin

• 300 1.85 300 Cask Outer Shell

• 779 93 Top Shield Plate **

319 93 Cask Lid **

316 93 Top Resin 300 85.75 300 Protective Cover **

316 93 Lid Seal **

317 93 536 Vent & Port Seal **

316 93 536

• This value is the volumetric average temperature at the hottest cross section plus 18 qF to bound the view factor effects on the initial temperatures. See Section A3.3.2.2.4 for discussion.

• • Based on conservative results for 95.75 hours8.680556e-4 days <br />0.0208 hours <br />1.240079e-4 weeks <br />2.85375e-5 months <br /> after the cask is buried.

An additional 2 °F was added to the initial temperature to account for the effect of the southeast ISFSI pad expansion on cask interior temperatures. See Section A3.3.2.2.4.1.1 for discussion.

An additional 5 °F was added to the initial temperature to account for the effect of the southeast ISFSI pad expansion on cask exterior temperatures. See Section A3.3.2.2.4.1.1 for discussion.

This value is the volumetric average temperature at the hottest cross section.

92.49 92.51 92.56 92.6 92.61 92.1 81.82 1.23 91.92 91.92 92.7 92.15 92.1 (FUEL ASSEMBLY WITHOUT BPRAS)

_____.~

/

--~

I I

/

---~

I I

PRAIRIE ISLAND INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Revision: 17 Page 9.8-1 9.8 AGING MANAGEMENT 9.8.1 Aging Management Review An aging management review (AMR) of the ISFSI systems, structures, and components (SSC) was conducted as part of the ISFSI License Renewal process. The AMR addresses aging effects/mechanisms that could adversely affect the ability of the SSCs to perform their safety functions during the period of extended operation. The results of the AMR determined that there were aging effects that require aging management activities for the casks, concrete pads, and earthen berm. Although the AMR did not identify any aging effects for the spent fuel assemblies that could lead to a loss of intended function, a High Burnup Fuel Monitoring Program as described in Section A9.8.4 will be used to confirm that the intended function(s) of high burnup fuel stored in TN-40HT casks are maintained during the period of extended operation. The potential aging effects for the casks, concrete pads, and earthen berm are identified in the ISFSI Inspection and Monitoring Activities Program and the Time-Limited Aging Analyses.

9.8.2 ISFSI Inspection and Monitoring Activities Program The purpose of the ISFSI Inspection and Monitoring Activities Program is to ensure that the structure's or component's intended functions(s) is not degraded for the in-service dry fuel storage casks, reinforced concrete storage pads or earthen berm.

The ISFSI Inspection and Monitoring Activities Program will perform periodic inspection activities that monitor the condition of ISFSI structures and subcomponents that are classified as Safety Related (or Important To Safety for the TN-40HT casks) or whose failure could prevent fulfillment of a function that is important to safety, or its failure as a support structure or component could prevent fulfillment of a function that is important to safety. Added in-scope SSCs are included in the ISFSI Inspection and Monitoring Activities Program beginning at 20 years of service.

The aging effects managed by this program are included in Table 9.8-1. The aging effects/mechanisms applicable to each structure and component are dependent upon the associated material/environment combinations, design, and installation. Those structures and components that have been grouped together for aging management review (e.g., Carbon Steel in Atmosphere/Weather) have been evaluated and based upon the materials of construction, design, installation, and environments, will have the same aging effects.