ML021080703

Attachments: Continued Slides from April 11, 2002 Meeting, and Slides from April 9, 2002 Meeting (S104718-BX)

ML021080703
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	04/11/2002
From:	White R Pacific Gas & Electric Co
To:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
+sispmjr200505, -RFPFR
Download: ML021080703 (3)

Text

NRC/PG&E Open Meeting, San Francisco CA Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Properties of Subsurface Materials Robert White Geotechnical Engineer PG&E Geosciences Department U April 11, 2002

Purpose m Characterize subsurface materials for ISFSI, CTF and Transport Route for

"*Foundation properties

"*Slope stability assessments

Subsurface Materials Assessed

"*Rock Dolomite

"*

"*Sandstone

"*Friable rock

"*Clay Beds

Subsurface Materials Properties - Rock m Density m Shear Wave Velocities mYoung' s Moduli and Poisson's Ratios m Shear Strength

Rock Properties - Density

• Determined from lab tests of rock core samples of dolomite and sandstone

• 140 pcf +/- 8 pcf for all rock From SAR Section 2.6.4.3.1; Data Report I, Table 1

Rock Properties - Shear Wave Velocities

"* Obtained from suspension logging of borings at ISFSI site

"* Compared with velocities obtained in previous investigations at power block From SAR Section 2.6.5.1.3.2 Figs. 2.6-33, 34, and 35; SAR 2.6.1.10; Data Report C

Shear wae veloy (Ips m 1000 a) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

Explanation Upper- and kower I I bound LTSP shear I wame profile envelope Rbm block baring DDH-D (1977)

(Figure 2.6-34)

ISFSIborings 96BA-3 (1998) 98MA-1.4 (1996)

(Fir 2.6-33) a S

0 Rock shear wave velocities From SAR Figure 2.6-35

Young's Moduli and Poisson's Ratios mFrom suspension velocities for rock mass m Compared with lab tests of rock core samples of dolomite and sandstone From SAR Section 2.6.4.3.1; Data Report I

Results - Rock Properties mYoung's moduli

• 1.3 x 106 to 1.5 x 106 psi, non-friable rock

• 0.20 x 106 to 0.21 x 106 psi, friable rock

• Poisson's ratios

• 0.22 to 0.37, non-friable rock

• 0.23 to 0.31, friable rock From SAR Section 2.6.4.3.1; Data Report I

Rock Strength Parameters depend on:

Type of rock

"*

.Dolomite, sandstone

• Friable rock

"*Scale of rock mass analyzed

• Large scale

+Rock slide mass

• Small scale

+ Rock wedges

Potential large scale slide mass From SAR Figure 2.6-49

Large-scale Slide Mass

"*Strength controlled by rock mass

+ Discontinuities (joints, bedding planes, faults)

• Size of intact blocks

"*Strength of rock mass based on Hoek Brown method From SAR Section 2.6.5.1.2.3

NRC Request for Clarification:

• "Discuss the technical basis (data and analysis) to justifythe rock-mass friction angle ofS50 degrees used to characterize the rock-mass strength of dolomite and sandstone."

Hoek-Brown Input Parameters for Sandstone and Dolomite m Geologic Strength Index (GSI) values as a function of discontinuity condition and spacing m Material index (mi) values as a function of rock type and texture m Unconfined compressive strength (ac) of intact rock samples

Distribution of Hoek-Brown Input Parameter Values mean plus mean minus Dolomite one sigma mean one sigma GSI 65 56 46

m. 17 15 13 (Yci 47 32 18 mean plus mean minus Sandstone one sigma mean one sigma GSI 68 65 62 Mi 19 18 17 Ui 31 22 12 From Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.19

Example Hoek Brown strength envelope 30 tangent

• . 20 S10O T= c +On tans 0 10 20 30 40 Normal stress (f MPa Figure 11.8: Plot of results from simulated full scale triaxial tests on a rock mass defined by a uniaxial compressive strength Oci = 85 MPa, a Hoek -Brown constant m, = 10 and a Geological Strength Index GSI = 45.

Rock Mass Strength envelopes (Hoek-Brown)

I 4.5 .

4.5 , II l I I I ,

0 4 4 range of ran-e of 3.5 interest 3.5--

inte'est 3

1 2.5 *2.5 21 2

ý7 1.5 1- ll

/ ri 11; 4 i i ,11 i+ i I i 1.5 i/ 7 1//

7 I- If ý, z i I I I

ýrxl 0.5 0.5 _

Am-0 -0.5 0 0.5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Normal stress (MPa) Normal stress (MPa)

From SAR Figures 2.6-53 and 2.6-54; Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.19

Properties of Friable Sandstone and Dolomite m Strength not scale dependent since relatively homogeneous (discontinuities have weathered to consistency of rock fabric) m Samples tested in the lab measured total and effective stresses

Friable Rock Total Stress Strength envelope 1.

N II 0*

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 p=1/2 (7l+G 3 ) (psi)

From SAR Figure 2.6-55

Small-Scale Rock Wedge

"*Strength controlled entirely by discontinuities

"*Strength of discontinuities based on Barton Choubey method

Potential rock wedges From SAR Figure 2.6-47

Barton-Choubey Input Parameters for Sandstone and Dolomite

"*Base friction angle (tb) based on lab tests of shear strength of discontinuities

"*Joint compressive strength (JCS).based on lab tests of unconfined compressive strength

"*Joint roughness coefficient (JRC) values based on field measurements of joints in trenches From SAR Section 2.6.5.1.2.3)

Straight line fits: Straight line fits:

4- 18, 33, &48' ý=-21, 31, &44' dolomite bedding strength envelopes FLsandstone bedding strength envelopes 14 14 1.2 stres 1 2 rang of I

inter st e-S01 0Oa OA@

0.6 51 5-. -*_ 06 S04 S....... . * *- ,, -- : S04 02 p-' A 4o,,

02

.,*, , ..

• 0 02 04 06 0 a1 14 02 04 06 09 12 14 Normal stress, g is - MPP Nor mal sire ns, sign - MPa (shaded zone equals stress range of interest)

From Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.20

Clay Bed Properties m Density m Atterberg limits m Over consolidation ratio m Shear strength

Density of Clay mFrom lab tests of clay samples m120 pcf+ 5 pcf From SAR Section 2.6.4.3.1; Data Report G, Table G-1

Atterberg Limits mFrom lab tests of clay samples mRepresentative values of Plasticity Index (PI) are between 20 to 40 From Data Report G, Table G-1

Overconsolidation Ratio (OCR) mEstimated at several points along three clay beds from knowledge of previous ground surface mRepresentative values

• 2to5 From GEO.DCPP.01.31

Clay Strength

"*Strength of clay beds from lab tests on samples from tower road cut

"*Lab results correlated with published PI and OCR relationships

"*Post peak and/or large strain strengths used

NRC request for clarification:

m "Discuss the saturatedundrainedshear strength of the clay-bed soil."

Unconsolidated Undrained Shear Strength Mohr failure envelope (total stress)

T1 V -T =0 T=C:

.

l_.*_---A . I.. Aof- - ao(total o)

(a)

I- - <10% . .4.S=100%

L-r

- ---, a (b)

Fig. 11.40 Mohr failure envelopes for UU tests: (a) 100% saturated clay; (b) partially saturated clay.

From Holtz and Kovacs, 1981

Consolidated Undrained Shear Strength wj - liquid limit + Vane tests wp = plastic limit o Unconfined compression tests From: Lambe and Whitman, 1969

Laboratory Strength Test Data Undrained Direct Shear (Cycled)

Cooper Testing Labs, Inc.

20000 15000 10000 U 5000 an 6n 0

-500"

-10000

-15000 Deformation. (Inches)

Shear Strengths of Clay Bed (ps) (ps) 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200

... ... .. ... ... .. 200 u 200 25 Effective Shear Ir Strength envelope 150 t

pe 150 S20 a

- loo a

2 10

• 50 S5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Normal effective stress on failure plane at failure - of (kSO

...

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

From SAR Figure 2.6-50 and 51; Calculation GEO.DCPP.0 1.31

Summary of Rock Properties m Density: 140 pcf +/- 8 pcf for all rock

"* Shear Wave Velocities: > 4000 fps

"* Young's Moduli: related to shear wave velocities m Poisson's ratio: related to shear wave velocities

• Shear Strength:

• =- 50 degrees for slide masses S*-18 to 31 degrees for rock wedges

Summary of Clay Bed Properties m Density: 120 pcf + 5 pcf average o Atterberg Limits: PI of 20 to 40 m Over Consolidation Ratio: OCR of 2 to 5 m Shear Strength:

. Effective shear strength: = 22 degrees

• Undrained shear strength:

.4 15 degrees and c - 500 psf, or

• 29 degrees

NRC/PG&E Open Meeting, San Francisco, CA Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Slope Stability Analysis Joseph Sun Geotechnical Engineer PG&E Geosciences Department April 11, 2002

Presentation of Slope Stability

"*Hillslope above ISFSI Pads Joseph Sun

"*Transport route and CTF Robert White

"*Cutslopes Jeff Bachhuber

Approach m Select cross section for analyses m Develop material properties mPerform slope stability analyses mPerform dynamic response analyses mEstimate potential seismic induced displacements of rock masses on clay beds

Approach

"*Select cross section for analyses

"*Develop material properties

"*Perform slope stability analyses

"*Perform dynamic response analyses

• Address NRC request for clarification on vertical ground motions

"*Estimate potential seismic induced displacements of rock masses on clay beds

/

/ C'

/

/

/

R I

I II, I

WI 1

S ON

Analysis Cross Section I-I1 From SAR Figure 2.6-18

Potential Large-scale Rock Mass Model -Upper Slope 11 South North 800 - .-- . ...-.

.----.. . . . . .. .. .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . .. ... . . . ....

MODEL I 700 /

600 . r@

1971 pre,- tower ax~ess road borrow ,..

excavation tower!

,*. 4A road SISFSI Pads A-L

""CTF 0 .. ..

01 "

W -O1*TF: -AOO0 -0 A 01-A From SAR Figure 2.6-47

Potential Large-scale Rock Mass Model -Intermediate Slope I South II 800 700 600 500 a)

C 400 0

0) 300 200 100 From SAR Figure 2.6-48

Potential Large-scale Rock Mass Model -Intermediate Slope II Noah South 800_ _

MODEL 2 700 600 -- *... .

1971 pro-borrow excavab~on topography lowe accesms ro 2D 500

• C TF ISFS1 Pads I- * * * -*

- - T-1 14--I 4 .

4-- - ___1 1000 .

From SAR Figure 2.6-48

Potential Large-scale Rock Mass Model -Lower Slope 1 11 North South 800 700 600 500 4-.

ci C

0 400 4

a) iJJ 300 200 100 From SAR Figure 2.6-49

Static Slope Stability

"* 2-D analysis using Spencer's method of slices

"* Input:

"*Geometry

"*Material properties: unit weights, strengths

"* Output:

"*Static factors of safety (F.S.)

"*Yield acceleration (ky)

From SAR Section 2.5.1.2 and Calc Package GEO.DCPP.01.24

Slope Stability Theory Resisting moment o Pseudo-static Slope Stability IF.S. = ------------ =1 q,- b Driving moment S

a ý4 w

Fig. 2. Conventional method for computing effect of earthquake on stability of a slope (after Terzaghi, 1950)

Assumptions mClaybeds are saturated mTension cracks exist in the upper 20 ft mRock to rock contacts along the thin clay beds are neglected m Lateral margins of potential slide masses are assumed to have no strength From SAR Section 2.6.5.1.2.2

UTEXAS3 - Slope Stability m Uses a 2-stage stability computation to evaluate the stability of slopes under seismic loading conditions (Duncan, Wright, and Wong, 1990) 1Ist stage: computes the state of stress along the shear surface under long term loading conditions

• 2nd stage: calculates undrained shear strength based on long term state of stress and performs slope stability analysis under seismic loading conditions

Cross Section I-I" (shallow model)

I From SAR Figure 2.6-47

0

-e 0m~

I© Q

N) 00

Cross Section I-I" (deep model)

.1, t

From SAR Figure 2.6-49

Results of Static Slope Stability Slide Mass Static F.S. Yield Acc. (ky) la 2.55 0.28 (Ib 1.62 0.20

• 2a 2.55 0.31 2b 2.16 0.24 2c 2.18 0.19 4 3a 2.86 0.44 3b 2.70 0.39 3c 2.26 0.25 4 3c-1 2.38 0.28 3c-2 2.28 v 0.23 From SAR Table 2.6-3

Methodology of Seismic Analysis mYield accelerations (ky) determined from slope stability analysis mResponse of slide masses under seismic loading evaluated using 2-D finite element method m Displacements of slide masses calculated using Newmark sliding block approach

QUAD4M - 2D Dynamic Response Analysis mInput:

"*Unit weights

"*Shear wave velocities and damping values

"*Non-linear material properties 0 Output:

• Acceleration time histories of slide masses

-1.00 . I I I I I I I I I , z I I IIT

-0.8 - Block 3C Ilsrto of-0.6 - Ground Motion Set 1

-04Ky= 0.25 g o0.-0.2 Illustration Newmark of 4 S0.00 0.8Bock3C "5 0.2 - p Sliding Block S 0.6 0.8o 1.00 0. . .. 5 10 15

... 20 25 30 Displacement Time(seconds)

Calculation 1.0 4Q 100 /

o 50 a) 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (seconds) 60 50/- Displacement= 48.9 cm S40 a)

E 30 k~ta)

-g Q. 20 6 10

1 0 w _ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (seconds)

NRC Request for Clarification

... the slope safety evaluationpresented in the SAR, which was developed using the horizontal ground motion components without the vertical should be clarified ... 1" component,

Effects of Vertical Ground Motions on Sliding Analysis

"* Inclination of slide planes (bedding planes)

"*Vertical motions more important for steeply dipping slide planes (greater than 30-40')

"*ISFSI clay beds typically dip less than 15'

"* Steepness of slope

"*Vertical motions more important for steeper slopes

"*ISFSI hillslope is about 3:1 (H:V) and the effect of steepness of slope is incorporated in the 2-D slope stability and dynamic response analyses

Effects of Vertical Ground Motions on Sliding Analysis m Material strength properties

"*More important for sandy material

"*Less important for clayey material

"*ISFSI slide plane material is clay beds

Ground Motion Considerations for Sliding Block Analysis

"* Direction of slide mass movements:

"* Occurs along claybeds

"* Claybeds are horizontal to sub-horizontal

"* Postulated slide mass movements are influenced by horizontal motions

"* Slide plane inclination:

"*Limited effect on computed displacement (less than 10%)

if the inclination is less than 20' based on Makdisi (1976) for sandy materials

"* For material similar to the ISFSI claybeds, the influence would be less

"*ISFSI claybeds typically dip less than 15'

Ground Motion Considerations for Sliding Block Analysis (cont'd)

"* Undrained shear strength of claybeds:

"* Controlled by long term overburden pressure

" Relatively insensitive to seismic loadings

"* Peak arrival time:

" Arrival time of horizontal peak is typically 1 to 3 seconds behind arrival of vertical peak based on near field recordings

"* During strong horizontal shaking, the energy (as measured by Aries Intensity) on the vertical component is typically 10% to 30% of the energy on the horizontal component

Ground Motion Considerations for Sliding Block Analysis (cont'd)

"* Standard of practice for seismic design of dams:

• Evaluation of permanent displacement of embankment dams under seismic loading is based on horizontal component of the design motion (USBR, 1989)

"* Recent studies:

• Study at Cal Tech indicated that vertical ground motions have limited impact on block movements based on numerical analysis and physical modeling Yan, et al. (1996)

Preliminary Site-Specific Study mEvaluate effect of vertical motions on computed yield acceleration mEvaluate effect of vertical motions on slide mass responses mIncorporating vertical ground motions resulted in displacements varying less than 10% from calculations based on horizontal component alone

Effects of Vertical Seismic Coefficient (kv) on Yield Acc (ky)

-kv up kv kh ky

-0.8 0.23 f -0.6 0.22

-0.4 0.20

-0.2 0.19 Zone of

+0.0 0.19 applicability

+0.2 0.18

+0.4 0.17 v +0.6 0.17

+kv down +0.8 0.16 Based on hand calculation of slide mass lB

Response of Block 1B Response Direction EQ 0.0uInpu 0.5

.0 0 10 20 30 40 5 C0.

2 1.0*

0.0 "o -0.5

< -1.0 , (,I Average horizontal acceleration inwedg e1B usingH+Vinput 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 1.0 0.0 4I 0 -0.5

<10ie A r-a--q- -on_ acceleragion in Wt adge 1B ul ing directiodg of claybed (14 deg.)

-1.0 " I 50

Vertical 100.00 Ground Motion 10.00 Effects on (U(

.00 Computed CL Displacements 0.10 0.01 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ky

Conclusions on the Effects of Vertical Ground Motions

"* Effect on clay bed shear strength

• Minimal to none

"* Effect of inclination of potential slide plane

• Minimal

"* Effect on computed horizontal response of slide masses

• Minimal

"* Overall effect on computed displacements

• +10%

Potential Seismic Induced Displacements on Clay Beds

999 - node points to compute acceleration time histories 800i I 700 600

.. 3.1lft 0)500 400 cc S1.2 ft 1.4f 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Horizontal Distance, feet

Mitigation Measures for Slide Masses m Set back

• 25 ft wide bench between cutslopes

.40 ft clearance between edge of ISFSI pads and toe of cutslope m Debris fences

Conclusions

• The stability of the hillslope above the ISFSI pads was analyzed and the slopes have ample factors of safety under static conditions.

m The hillslope above the ISFSI site may experience small displacements when exposed to the design-basis earthquakes.

Conclusions (cont'd) mThe maximum seismic induced displacements could potentially be about 3 feet on the upper slope to about 1 to 2 feet on the lower slope.

m Mitigation measures will be implemented to minimize effects of the small displacements and protect the ISFSI facilities to perform their intended design functions.

NRC/PG&E Open Meeting, San Francisco CA Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Transport Route Stability and Displacement Analyses Robert White Geotechnical Engineer PG&E Geosciences Department April 11, 2002

Transport Route Slope Stability and Displacement Analyses Steps

1. Locate critical slide mass with minimum factor of safety. Determine yield acceleration for critical slide mass.

2. Determine seismic coefficient time history for critical slide mass.

3. Determine potential earthquake-induced displacement of critical slide mass.

From SAR 2.6.5.4.2; GEO.DCPP.01.28, 29, AND 30

Stability and Yield Acceleration Analysis of Critical Slide Masses m Three representative sections along the transport route were selected m Affect of transporter load also evaluated

Analytical Sections Cr,

©0

Finite Element Sections

"* Finite element meshes for Sections L-L' and E-E' were prepared.

"* A finite element mesh for Section D-D' was not prepared, as it is similar in configuration to Section E-E'.

Seismic Coefficient Time Histories of Slide Masses m Finite element meshes for Sections L-L' and E-E' were prepared.

m A finite element mesh for Section D-D' was not prepared, as it is similar in configuration to Section E-E'.

Seismic Response Analyses Slide Masses

% I II' I I I I I I I I I I I I 70uuI 600 50O Section L-L' 400-300 Vs= 1200 fps, unit weight 115 pd, 200 Cu 100-0I 100

-200-

-300-*

-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 6 160 260 360 460 560 660 760 860 960 1000 Horizontal Distance, feet

[From Figure 1, GEO.DCPP.01.29]

Seismic Coefficient Time Histories of Critical Slide Masses m ILP ground motions were rotated to the direction of Sections L-L' and E-E' and input into the finite element program.

m The seismic coefficient time histories for the critical slide masses were obtained by averaging multiple nodal point time histories within the respective masses.

Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Critical Slide Masses m The Newmark sliding block analysis procedure was used to estimate the potential displacements of the critical slide masses using the seismic coefficient time histories to estimate the potential slide mass movements.

m Potential displacements of the critical slide masses

• in the three sections analyzed range from 0.5 to 1.3 feet.

Transport Route Displacement Analyses 100.00 10.00 01.3 S1.00 0.10 0.01 1.0 0.0 0.2 o.-).46k o." 0.8 From Figure 6, GEO.DCPP.01.30

Conclusions mThree representative sections along the transport route were evaluated for static and seismic loading conditions m The sections are stable under transporter loads mDisplacements of 1.3 feet or less were calculated for slide masses subjected to the ILP ground motion

NRC/PG&E Open Meeting, San Francisco, CA Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Stability Analysis of Cutslopes Jeff Bachhuber Engineering Geologist William Lettis & Associates April 11, 2002

Purposes m Evaluate static and dynamic stability of proposed ISFSI pad cutslopes against possible smaller-scale rock block (wedge) failures mDevelop conceptual cutslope rock anchor support

,ftw s S. S* PS~v V.W,-,

............--- ......... L E1,149,000 Limitof7To PograPhic S. .. ... " --

5-

/

so's

-27 i

-' .1 k ý57.

4 A..

""-'E Backcut - " .

n profile.

//

I , T-, / / 4. 6G 50 100 150 200

-L_-_i -- _L- - I -J (SAR Figure2.6-3.2) /'

II I

North South 800 MODEL 2 700 600 1971 pre-borrow excavation topography tower access S500 ISFSI 4 CTF Pads 0 Reservoir

• 400 a,

300 200 Tofb Doinltori 1'

100

BACK CUTSLOPE 7' restricted 400 area fence 25' wdde bench a el.329.75' 350 S' security ISFSI PAD fence ervc raw water wrm Cask setback from toe of cut 250 (SAR, PG&E, 2001) 200 0 50 too 150 200 250 300 350

E 1,149,000 K -'A

/

/

/

+

/ /

S - .T-16 P"

gr 4'T-*/

i...OA..---. -:

/~ i5 .. -?-t-o o 100 150 200

"-- .. - - Contour interval = 5 feet

' ' ' '/ "T 1 B '* ". ,/ ,/ "

• . / J , .- ."*/ i.t

, t./.:.,

.c -",. .* - 'j ,

"N \, *

,- ,. , . - .. ... ,.' ,,,- .  ; " - ... ,1" ."'

DS- ",1T- - "b (in road cut),-/ / ," /

1/4 +/-100ft. 700 1/8 to1/4 +/- 50 ft. 0 100lFeet < 1/8 +/- 25 ft. V=H Change 600 in dip " . direction- - 500 1971 pre-borrow topography zoo CTF ISFSL. ..- T-1.1-F.D- '--'400 a1) UI-, TCTF 01-H 0 U 16 300 a) w jN -U- ..... .. Tofb-i . . . . 200 - -. - - r Dolmilte 'F - 100 v (From SAR, Figure 2.6-18) 0 I Clay Beds 11 North South > 1/4 ++/-100 ft. 700 100 Feet 1/8to1/4 -,+/--501ft. Scale < 1/8 +/-+25 ft. V-H 600 Temporary perched water 500 on clay beds after storms 0.A S400 C FIS F S ... 01-F..

• _ * * ' _! "._: .* ._- * - 1.* ' *_*

... . , ...* ,.. CTFT-1D -A 1 . Reservoir Road , 11 T1- .0 01-CTF-A / 01-A __ S 300 200t Totb-2 Sandetone 100 Main water table (From SAR, Figure 2.6-18) 0 Large-scale Mass Movements m Geologic interpretations of extent of clay beds is conservative, but not extreme m Potential slide planes are chosen to follow the full extent of more extensive clay beds and step between clay beds, this assumes minimum rupture of rock mRock to rock contact along potential slide plane along clay beds not factored into model, this would increase the clay strength from that used Clay Beds Not Continuous Clay Beds North South > 1/4 +/-100ft. 700 0 100Feet 1/8 to1/4 +/-50 ft. Scale <1/8 +25 ft. V-H 600 500 1971 pre-borrow topography - ",A 00 T T8400 .----- "F -T 0 01-CTF-A 01-A- =01 - -1 -II Tadb --- Tofb-2 01 - _D o lom ite * . . San dotonb----- --- "*r_.___ V.* 100 . 9-(From SAR, Figure 2.6-18) 0 Clay Bed Extent Based on Thickness I Clay Beds II North South >1/4 --- +/-1001ft. 700 1 /0 f-1. ]A - trf% £f 0 100 Feet 1/8 tol/ LU +/-u +/- .t. Scale[ <1/8 ++/-25 ft. V=H 600 a-01 1971 pre-borrow 500 .-- -- OOBA topography - T-14A IS FS1l. "01-F01-H "--400 a) I_..- " I SHSI -*,, al-F 0 N 300 a) w Tofb-1 ---.. . . 200 I-Dolomite K Tofb-: R2 -- '" - q, Sandstor no-..*I v 100 (From SAR, Figure 2.6-18) 0 Thin areas where rock contact occurs across clay bed bed Thick areas of clay Potential slide plane smoothes Shears offset clay bed undulations of clay bed by breaking through rock Potential Slide Plane Breaks through Rock along Clay Bed Evidence of No Landslides at ISFSI mNo evidence on pre-1971 air photos m No evidence in studies for and excavation of borrow site m No evidence of any fissures or fissure fills in trenches for ISFSI Assumed Displacement of Large Scale Slide Mass

• Fractures in the slope larger than 3 to 4 inches would have left a record on the slope

• No vegetation lineaments (similar to the zones of intense growth in filled trenches)

• No open fractures or soil-filled fractures in trenches on slope

"* Hillslope is 430,000 years old "* Subjected to many large earthquakes

• Assumed 4 inches would occur in one slide event

Ab1 ~ 5 'K/ CD -~ - CL / - /~LL It~~I al Ka LL .V, //N-' a -0 N co - - wo 900 Slope 430,000 years ago 1971 slope 5 70- Q Marine wave-cut Q4 platform older than 430,000 Marine wave-cut platform years (430,000 years old) Hill Slope is 430,000 Years Old, but degraded a Few Tens of Feet North Clay beds at base of South 0100 700 Feet modeled large-scale V=H movements extrapolated 600 to pre-1971 slope 500 1971 pre-borrow topography I~~~SFS1 ."o-_* S400 1D -- . -- , ----- .. --- 400 CTF .. * -T-1 "" Reservoir Road F H t- "OOBA-3 ad 0-4***.*--*L.- 1 "*-** t*** C 0 01-CTF-A, 01-A - S300 Lii 200 Totb-It, . - T*fb.-2 Sandston- ' 100 (From SAR, Figure 2.6-18) 0 Results of Sensitivity Study Clay Bed Strengths 200 -- a-pMedianJdDeep N, Model -800 psf/215 deg Model stress range tres - 3000 psf / 22 deg U) 150 Shallow-800 psf / 36 deg co Model stress range psf/4deg " 1O0-range.2500 psf /23 deg U j:100 _--800 psf / 26 deg -0 psf /37 deg c 50 Strength ) 5used study 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Normal Stress (psi) Confidence in Predicted Foundation Conditions at CTF, ISFSI Pads and Cutslopes m High confidence in rock types predicted

• Sandstone

• Dolomite

• Friable Sandstone

" Friable Dolomite " Clay beds Interpretations with Less Certainty m Locations and percentage of rock types not known with certainty mFriable diabase may be encountered and is expected to have the same properties as friable sandstone mAttitude of clay beds uncertain, more clay beds may be exposed mPrecise location of faults uncertain, other shear zones are expected Conclusion m High degree of confidence that there will be no significant surprises m Features will be mapped during construction m Planned mitigation measures will be applied as appropriate WV c. April 9, 2002 Diablo Canyon ISFSI Site Tour 1a c ,2002 1 March, 2 0 I ,4 4 , " , I, , -; f -3 Diablo Canyon Dry Cask Tour Agenda April 9., 2002 8:00- 8:25 Maintenance Shop Building Training, Badging, Dosimetry 8:30-8:35 Canyon Room (Breakfast provided) Intro by Jearl Strickland, USFP Manager Canyon Room 8:35- 9:30 Part 50 and Part 72 Presentations 9:30 - 9:40 Break 9:40 - 10:40 Canyon Room Geotechnical Presentation 2 March, 2002 Diablo Canyon Dry Cask Tour Agenda April 9, 2002 10:45 - 12:15 Board bus in front of Training Building Geosciences Tour 12:15- 1:00 Training Building, Room 123 Lunch 1:05 -4:00 Board bus in front of Training Building Field/ISFSI Site Inspection (Outside Protected Area) 4:00 - 5:00 Training Building, Room 123 Closure Activities, Q&A 3 March, 2002 Process for Loading Used Fuel into Dry Storage 4 March, 2002 Transfer Cask Placement in Fuel Handling Bldg V S*!'* *F*F' i F-`IL EI 5 March, 2002 NO Transfer Cask Upending in Fuel Handling Bldg 6 March, 2002 Cask TransportFrame Stabilizer 1IMI Tension Links 7 March, 2002 FUEL HANDLING BUILDING CRANE AUXILIARY LIFT FHB CUANE MAINHOIST TOP BLOCK PIN 121 JOYCE SCREW JACK PI L: "I ' PIN. J--7 8 March, 2002 I A*~I Transfer Cask Removal From the Cask TransportFrame N- I',l ý[",,L IN K

• 9 w March, 2002

-Wwý Transfer Cask Placement in the Cask Washdown Area LI U! I I-- FP T -7. E TP* Note: Main hook not shown, but is engaged Note: Seismic Restraint is not current version in this slide 10 March, 2002 Attachment of Impact Limiter 11 March, 2002 WALL P (6PAE\ AE*E \Washdown Cask L"'"Area Seismic Restraint ONL*REAR 5LiNSS %*VNF-P l'ART' CONTROLLEO LOW -Ri liON MATERIAL Impact Limiter - 12 March, 2002 MPC and Annulus Filling Note: Seismic restraintis not current version in this slide 13 March, 2002 Transfer Cask Removal from Frame Note: Main hook is engaged, but not shown Note: Seismic Restrain is not current version in this slide 14 March, 2002 TRANSFER CASK READY FOR HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT TO SFP 15 March, 2002

• SPENT FUEL POOL STRUCTURAL FRAME DETAIL DETAIL (TYP. 4 CORNERS) 16 March, 2002

Transfer Cask Placement in Pool after Engaging in SFP Frame 17 March, 2002 Spent Fuel Loading into MPC 18 March, 2002 MPC Lid Installation SNPC LID ,,RES TRAINT Notes: Main hook is engaged, but not shown Final lid restrain will differ 19 March, 2002 MPC Lid Installation Note: Main hook is engaged, but not shown 20 March, 2002 TRANSFER CASK UIFT READY FOR HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT TO CWA 21 March, 2002 11a" Placement of Transfer Cask in Cask Wash Down Area Note: Main hook is engaged, but not shown Note: Seismic Restraint is not current version in this slide 22 March, 2002 MPC Lid Welding 23 March. --2002 w- IEL, %ml -1 MPC Lift Cleat Installation L 1r- T :I L E ',- - 24 March, 2002 Transfer Cask Readied for Horizontalmovement Note: Main hook is engaged, but not shown Note: Seismic Restrain is not current version in this slide 25 March, 2002 Transfer Cask Removal from Frame Note: Main hook is engaged, but not shown Note: Seismic Restraint is not current version in this slide 26 March, 2002 Transfer Cask Placed on TransportFrame Note: Main hook is engaged, but not shown correctly 27 March, 2002 Transfer Cask Downending Using Impact Limiter 2002 I!& 28 March, 2002 28 March, lktl&l; Transfer Cask movement to Transporter 29 March, 2002 TransporterRigging LIFT INL] :R'ACiKE TS, H 0lIP IZFP N 30 March,12002

T c1r) Hi-Storm Overpack Lowered into Cask Transfer Facility 32 March, 2002 I Hi-Storm Overpack with Mating Device "NET -HD R'vL:\T 33 March, 2002 Transfer Cask Upended (Transporternot Shown) F]:L L ,'--

Ir.! P F'*

• F ] ' T , *K :

34 March, 200271 Transfer Cask movement to CTF 35 March, 2002 Placement of Transfer Cask over Storage Cask MarcLhU L2F 36 March, 2002 AT CTF WIO TRA NSPORTER SHOWN LIFTIN tPL ATT jts J,-!,t÷ T t- t -r -* u rJ Icit e c04 r-e st r-oa in t ý , c,t. 1* 4r, 37 March, 2002 Transfer of MPC into Storage Cask 38 March, 2002 Transfer Cask Removal from CTF CASK T ,r1,FER " FACILITY , NEIT SHOWN) 39 March, 2002 Storage Cask Lid Placement 40 March, 2002 Overpack Raised out of CTF

• ,(*~ ; * ,, K-i*..

I 41 March, 2002 Overpack Transportedto Storage Facility 42 March, 2002 I Overpack Placement on Storage Pad 43 March, 2002 J Overpack Loading Operations Activity Part 50 Part 72

1. Move empty cask and MPC into Impact on N/A FHB and prepare for loading structure

2. Empty transfer cask and MPC being Heavy load N/A placed in SFP drop

3. Load fuel assemblies into MPC Spent fuel Fuel TSs movement in pool

4. Remove transfer cask from SFP Heavy load Thermal drop on req's structure

5. Decontamination Existing N/A processes

6. Welding, leak testing and prepare for Releases and Fuel movement SSIP conditions/

closure req's

7. Transfer cask movement in FHB Heavy load N/A drop on structure

8. Transfer cask movement outside Effect on Transporter 44 FHB plant SSCs stability

Part50 and 72 Scope

• Part 50

- Crane modifications - Heavy load drop structural analyses - Cask seismic restraints - Affect on facility during transport

• Part 72(Holtec CoC 1014)

- Cask structural limits (drops, missiles, etc) - Criticality analysis during cask handling - Thermal analysis during cask handling 45 March, 2002