dcpp isfsi transport route (geo.dcpp.01.29, rev. 0) · pacific gas and electric company...

69-20132 03/07/01NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION

CF3.ID4 ATTACHMENT 7.2

Index No. 402 Binder No.

TITLE: CALCULATION COVER SHEET

Unit(s): 1 & 2 File No.: 52.27

Responsible Group: Civil Calculation No.: 52.27.100.739

No. of Pages 3 pages + Index (4 pages) + 1 Design Calculation YES [x] NO [1 Attachment (60 pages)

System No. 42C Quality Classification Q (Safety-Related)

Structure, System or Component: Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility

Subject: Determination of Seismic Coefficient Time Histories for Potential Sliding Masses on DCPP ISFSI Transport Route (GEO.DCPP.01.29, Rev. 0)

Electronic calculation YES [ ] NO [ x I

Computer Model Computer ID Program Location Date of Last Change

Registered Engineer Stamp: Complete A or B A. Insert PE Stamp or Seal Below B. Insert stamp directing to the PE stamp or seal

REGISTERED ENGINEERS' STAMPS AND EXPIRATION DATES

ARE SHOWN ON DWG 063618

Expiration Date:

NOTE 1: Update DCI promptly after approval. NOTE 2: Forward electronic calculation file to CCTG for uploading to EDMS.

1

Page I of 3

69-20132 03/07/01

CF3.ID4 of 3

ATTACHMENT 7.2TITLE: CALCULATION COVER SHEET

Rev Status Reason for Revision Prepared LBIE LBIE Check LBIE Checked Supervisor Registered No. By: Screen Method* A oyal Engineer Remarks Initials/ Yes/ Yes/ PSRC PSRC Initials/ Initials/ Signature/

LAN ID/ No/ No/ Mtg. Mtg. LAN ID/ LAN ID/ LAN ID/ ________.___ Date NA NA No. Date Date Date Date 0 F Acceptance of Geosciences Calc. AFT2 [ ] Yes [ ] Yes [ ] A N/A N/A N/A No. GEO.DCPP.01.29, Rev. 0.

/ 1 Calc. supports current edition of [ ] No [ ] No [ ] B 1OCFR72DCPPLicense [x]NA [x]NA [x]C S 4 , S Application to be reviewed by NRC prior to implementation.

Prepared per CF3.ID17 requirements.

[ ]Yes [ ]Yes [ ]A

[ INo [ ]No [ ]B [ INA [ ]NA []C [ ]Yes [ ]Yes [ ]A

[ ]No [ ]No [ ]B [ ]NA [ ]NA [IC

*Check Method: A: Detailed Check, B: Alternate Method (note added pages), C: Critical Point Check

CALC No. 52.27.100.739, RO

2

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 69-392(10/92)

Engineering - Calculation Sheet Engineering

Project: Diablo Canyon Unit ( )1 ( ) 2 (x) 1&2 CALC. NO. 52.27.100.739

11F811 REV. NO. 0

SHEET NO. 3 of 3

SUBJECT Determination of Seismic Coefficient Time Histories for Potential Sliding Masses on DCPP ISFSI Transport Route

MADE BY A. Tafoya $3 DATE 12/13/01 CHECKED BY N/A DATE

Table of Contents:

Item Type

1 Index

Title

Cross-index (For Information Only)

Page Numbers

1-4

2 Attachment A Determination of Seismic Coefficient Time Histories for Potential Sliding Masses on DCPP ISFSI Transport Route

1 -60

3

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 69-392(10/92) Engineering - Calculation Sheet Engineering Project: Diablo Canyon Unit ( )1 ( ) 2 (x) 1&2 CALM. NO. 52.27.100.739

REV. NO. 0

SHEET NO. 1-1 of 4


MADE BY A. TafoyaJ' DATE 12/13/01 CHECKED BY N/A DATE

1- This table cross references between Geosciences calculation numbers and DCPP (Civil Group's) calculation numbers. This section is For Information Only.

Cross-Index (For Information Only)

Item Geoscience CaIc. Title PG&E CaIc. Comments No. No. No.

1 GEO.DCPP.01.01 Development of Young's 52.27.100.711 Modulus and Poisson's Ratios for DCPP ISFSI Based on Field Data

2 GEO.DCPP.01.02 Determination of 52.27.100.712 Probabilistically Reduced Peak Bedrock Accelerations for DCPP ISFSI Transporter Analyses

3 GEO.DCPP.01.03 Development of Allowable 52.27.100.713 Bearing Capacity for DCPP ISFSI Pad and CTF Stability Analyses

4 GEO.DCPP.01.04 Methodology for 52.27.100.714 Determining Sliding Resistance Along Base of DCPP ISFSI Pads

5 GEO.DCPP.01.05 Determination of 52.27.100.715 Pseudostatic Acceleration Coefficient for Use in DCPP ISFSI Cutslope Stability Analyses

6 GEO.DCPP.01.06 Development of Lateral 52 27.100.716 Bearing Capacity for DCPP CTF Stability Analyses

7 GEO.DCPP.01.07 Development of Coefficient 52.27.100.717 of Subgrade Reaction for DCPP ISFSI Pad Stability Checks

8 GEO.DCPP.01.08 Determination of Rock 52.27.100.718 Anchor Design Parameters for DCPP ISFSI Cutslope

9 GEO.DCPP.01.09 Determination of 52.27.100.719 Calculation to be Applicability of Rock Elastic replaced by letter Stress-Strain Values to Calculated Strains UnderI

1

fl Pacific Gas and Electric Company 69-392(10/92)


Project: Diablo Canyon Unit ( )1 ( ) 2 ( x ) 1&2 CALC. NO. 52.27.100.739

11761 REV. NO. 0

SHEET NO. 1-2 of 4


MADE BY A. Tafoya V DATE 12/13/01 CHECKED BY N/A DATE


Item Geoscience Calc. Title PG&E Calc. Comments

No. No. No.

DCPP ISFSI Pad

10 GEO.DCPP.01.10 Determination of SSER 34 52.27.100.720 Long Period Spectral Values

11 GEO.DCPP.01.11 Development of ISFSI 52.27.100.721 Spectra

12 GEO.DCPP.01.12 Development of Fling 52.27.100.722 Model for Diablo Canyon ISFSI

13 GEO.DCPP.01.13 Development of Spectrum 52.27.100.723 Compatible Time Histories

14 GEO.DCPP.01.14 Development of Time 52.27.100.724 Histories with Fling

15 GEO.DCPP.01.15 Development of Young's 52.27.100.725 Modulus and Poisson's Ratio Values for DCPP ISFSI Based on Laboratory Data

16 GEO.DCPP.01.16 Development of Strength 52.27.100.726 Envelopes for Non-jointed Rock at DCPP ISFSI Based on Laboratory Data

17. GEO.DCPP.01.17 Determination of Mean and 52.27.100.727 Standard Deviation of Unconfined Compression Strengths for Hard Rock at DCPP ISFSI Based on Laboratory Tests

18 GEO.DCPP.01.18 Determination of Basic 52.27.100.728 Friction Angle Along Rock Discontinuities at DCPP ISFSI Based on Laboratory Tests

19 GEO.DCPP.01.19 Development of Strength 52.27.100.729 Envelopes for Jointed Rock Mass at DCPP ISFSI Using 1

2

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 69-392(10/92) Engineering - Calculation Sheet Engineering

Project: Diablo Canyon Unit ( )1 ( ) 2 ( x ) 1&2 CALC. NO. 52.27.100.739 REV. NO. 0

SHEET NO. 1-3 of 4 SUBJECT Determination of Seismic Coefficient Time Histories for Potential Sliding Masses on DCPP ISFSI Transport Route

MADE BY A. Tafoya 1 DATE 12/13/01 CHECKED BY N/A DATE


Item Geoscience Calc. Title PG&E Calc. Comments

No. No. No.

Hoek-Brown Equations

20 GEO.DCPP.01.20 Development of Strength 52.27.100.730 Envelopes for Shallow Discontinuities at DCPP ISFSI Using Barton Equations

21 GEO.DCPP.01.21 Analysis of Bedrock 52.27.100.731 Stratigraphy and Geologic Structure at the DCPP ISFSI Site

22 GEO.DCPP.01.22 Kinematic Stability Analysis 52.27.100.732 for Cutslopes at DCPP ISFSI Site

23 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Pseudostatic Wedge 52.27.100.733 Analyses of DCPP ISFSI Cutslopes (SWEDGE Analysis)

24 GEO.DCPP.01.24 Stability and Yield 52.27.100.734 Acceleration Analysis of Cross Section I-I'

25 GEO.DCPP.01.25 Determination of Seismic 52.27.100.735 Coefficient Time Histories for Potential Siding Masses Above Cut Slopes Behind ISFSI Pad

26 GEO.DCPP.01.26 Determination of Potential 52.27.100.736 Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Potential Sliding Masses on DCPP ISFSI Slope

27 GEO.DCPP.01.27 Cold Machine Shop 52.27.100.737 Retaining Wall Stability

28 GEO.DCPP.01.28 Stability and Yield 52.27.100.738 Acceleration Analysis of Potential Sliding Masses Along DCPP ISFSI Transport Route

I

3

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Engineering - Calculation Sheet Project: Diablo Canyon Unit ( )1 ( )2 (x) 1&2 CALC. NO.

69-392(10/92) Engineering

52.27.100.739

11111'1l,10 REV. NO. 0 SHEET NO. 1-4 of 4


MADE BY A. TafoyaP DATE 12/13/01 CHECKED BY N/A DATE


Item Geoscience Calc. Title PG&E Cale. Comments No. No. No.

29 GEO.DCPP.01.29 Determination of Seismic 52.27.100.739 Coefficient Time Histories for Potential Sliding Masses on DCPP ISFSI Transport Route

30 GEO.DCPP.01.30 Determination of Potential 52.27.100.740 Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Potential Sliding Masses Along DCPP ISFSI Transport Route

31 GEO.DCPP.01.31 Development of Strength 52.27.100.741 Envelopes for Clay Beds at DCPP ISFSI

32 GEO.DCPP.01.32 Verification of Computer 52.27.100.742 Program SPCTLR.EXE

33 GEO.DCPP.01.33 Verification of Program 52.27.100.743 UTEXAS3

34 GEO.DCPP.01.34 Verification of Computer 52.27.100.744 Code - QUAD4M

35 GEO.DCPP.01.35 Verification of Computer 52.27.100.745 Code DEFORMP

36 GEO.DCPP.01.36 Reserved 52.27.100.746

37 GEO.DCPP.01.37 Development of Freefield 52.27.100.747 Ground Motion Storage Cask Spectra and Time Histories for the Used Fuel Storage Project

4

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. I of 60 FILE No. 078 11z27 '01 17:02 ID:PG&E GEOSCIENCES DEPT 415 973 5778

'OM : Cluff - San Francisco FILE No. 077 11Z27 '01 16:51 ID:PG&E GEOSCIENCES DEPT

PG&E Qeoscienees Department Departmental Calculation Procedure,

NOU.27.2001 6:22PM P 2 PHONE NO. : 415 564 6697

415 973 5778 PAGE 3

Number: GF.O,00I ki Revision: H- it-to(k

Title: Design Calculation Cover Sheet

PACMPIC JGA AjqND EL2CTIUtC CONDANy GEOSCEENCES DEPARTMENT CALCULATION DOCUME'NT

cair- Number GEO.DCPP.01.29 Revision 0 Date 11/2f/2oo0 Calc Pages: • 5 Verification Method: See q,.tm-mz. -&

Verification Pages: See Summeary: -_ 1, I -t,1.0

&I a,111bo liTITLE:_ Determinatio. o'FSjiarnji CoofAitnTh, HJjt.urlcs lotb Porete. Eiding Masses on DCPP ISPSa Transport Route

PREPARED BY:

VERIFIED BY:

APPROVED BY:

I

DATE I I/q/~

Prdimnecd Name Onation aOrganization

Q n DATE n

DATr2 z/ ?

~rinz~anieOrganization

SS. CLUPF N- -'. -%°.. . . , ./

- . CERTIFP ",. .P ENGINEER .-7 =."

0, GECLO...

I

PAGE 2

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. Z of 60

PG&E Geosciences Department Departmental Calculation Procedure


PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY GEOSCIENCES DEPARTMENT CALCULATION DOCUMENT

Calc Number GEO.DCPP.01.29 Revision 0 Date 11/24/2001 Calc Pages: 5 25 Verification Method: See Summary: A, Verification Pages: See Summary _ I ,'

TITLE: Determination of Seismic Coefficient Time Histories for Potential Sliding Masses on DCPP ISFSI Transport Route

PREPARED BY: DATE 1 1 /Z /

ZHriL ta WName Printed Name

O"rgania -To R IX Organization

VERIFIED BY:

APPROVED BY:

OrganizationPrinted N4ame

Printed Name

DATE

Organization

Number: Revision:

GEO.001 1+

DATE

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. 'S of 60

CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.29 REVISION 0

Calculation Title: Determination of Seismic Coefficient Time Histories for Potential

Sliding Masses on DCPP ISFSI Transport Route

Calculation No.: GEO.DCPP.01.29

Revision No.: 0

Calculation Author: Zhi-Liang Wang

Calculation Date: 11/21/01

PURPOSE

The purpose of this calculation package is to provide the seismic responses and seismic coefficient time histories for potential sliding masses along DCPP ISFSI transport route.

Representative locations along the transport route were identified in calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.21, Revision 1 (see Attachment 1). The calculations reported in this package were performed in accordance with the requirements of Geomatrix Consultants,

Inc. Work Plan, Revision 2 (dated December 8, 2000), entitled "Laboratory Testing of Soil

and Rock Samples, Slope Stability Analyses, and Excavation Design for Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Site." The analyses include twodimensional finite element analyses of two representative sections along the transport

route. The results of these analyses will be used in calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.30,

Revision 0, to estimate earthquake-induced permanent displacements and seismic stability of potential sliding masses along the transport route. Results of estimated ground motions

also will be used to evaluate the stability of the transporter to vibratory ground motions.

ASSUMPTION

Not applicable.

INPUT

1. Plan and three cross sections along the transport route (Sections D-D', E-E', and L-L'):

Transmittal from PG&E Geosciences, dated November 12, 2001 (Attachment 1)

2. Five sets of rock motions originating on the Hosgri fault: Transmittal from PG&E

Geosciences dated September 28, 2001, as confirmed in Attachment 3.

1:\Project\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.01.29\GEO.DCPP.01.29.docPage 1 of 58

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. ± of 60


3. Azimuths of three cross-sections along transporter route: Transmittal from PG&E

Geosciences, dated November 12, 2001 (Attachment 1).

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

& Associates dated August 23, 2001, as confirmed in Attachment 7.

5. Direction of positive fault parallel component on Hosgri fault (Attachment 6).

6. Rotated motions from Sets 5 and 6, from calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.30,

Revision 0.

7. Reduced peak bedrock acceleration of 0.15g (Transmittal of additional inputs for

DCPP ISFSI Transport Route Analysis): Transmittal from PG&E Geosciences dated

November 19, 2001 (Attachment 8)

Selection of Sections for Dynamic Finite Element Analyses

Three cross sections along the transport route (Sections D-D', E-E', and L-L') were

provided by PG&E Geosciences (see Attachment 1). These are the powerblock section

(section L-L'), the warehouse section (section D-D'), and the parking lot section (section

E-E'). The powerblock section L-L' represents the typical slope profile above power block

unites I and 2. This section also has a thick colluvium deposit on the slope, and was

selected for the dynamic analyses to estimate the seismic amplification effects along the

colluvium slope. The parking lot section E-E', between elevation 180 feet and 220 feet, is

generally similar to the profile in the vicinity of the transport route at section D-D' (the

warehouse section). Section E-E' also has a thicker colluvium deposit than that at section

D-D', and was selected for the dynamic analyses. It is estimated that seismic amplification

effects at section E-E' could be higher than those at section D-D'.

Dynamic Properties for Finite Element Analyses

Properties required for the dynamic finite element analyses include the unit weight, shear

modulus at low shear strain, G., and relationships describing the modulus reduction and

damping ratio increase, with increasing shear strains.

Unit weights

Unit weights of rock mass were based on field investigations for the ISFSI site as reported

in Attachment 6. The unit weights for the colluvium fan underlying the slope above Unit 2

(section L-L'), and the marine terrace deposit underlying the colluvium at sections D-D'

I:\Project\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.01.29\GEO.DCPP.01.29.doc Page 2 of 58

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. 5 of 60


and E-E', were reported in an assessment of slope stability near Diablo Canyon power

plant (PG&E, 1997). These unit weights are presented in Table 1 (from PG&E, 1997).

Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Modulus at Low Strain

Shear modulus values at low strain (Gmax) can either be measured in the laboratory using

resonant column tests or obtained from field shear wave velocity measurements. When

available, estimates of Gm.a based on field shear-wave velocity measurements are

preferable to laboratory test data. The shear modulus at low strain is related to the shear

wave velocity by the following relationship:

G.. x= -L( V, )2

g

where: G,•x = shear modulus at low strain

y = unit weight of material

g = acceleration due to gravity

V, = shear wave velocity

Results of shear wave velocity measurements performed at the power block area were

presented in the Long Term Seismic Program report (PG&E, 1989). Additional shear-wave

velocity measurements were made in the slope behind the ISFSI pad during the current

investigation. The results of these field measurements are presented in calculation package

GEO.DCPP.01.21, Revision 1. A copy of the vanation of average shear wave velocity with

depth in two borings on the slope above the ISFSI pad is shown in Attachment 6. Based on

the results of these investigations, a shear-wave velocity distribution with depth was

selected for use in the dynamic analyses, and is shown in Table 2 (reproduced from

PG&E's 1997 study) and on the finite element representations for sections L-L' and E-E"

in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Shear wave velocities for the Pleistocene colluvium and

the marine terrace deposit were estimated based on values reported in PG&E's 1997 study,

and are presented in Table 2.

Modulus Reduction and Damping Relationships with Strain

In the iterative equivalent-linear procedure used in QUAD4M, relationships of the

variation of modulus reduction factor and damping ratio with shear strain are used to select

IAProject\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.01.29\GEO.DCPP.01.29.doc Page 3 of 58

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. (, of 60


strain-compatible shear moduli and damping ratios for each element. The variation of shear

modulus reduction factor and damping ratio with shear strain for rock in the vicinity of the

power block area was estimated on the basis of cyclic triaxial and resonant column tests

performed on rock cores in 1978. The data are presented on Figures 3 and 4, from

Attachment 6, for the modulus reduction factor and damping ratio, respectively. The

modulus reduction curve shown on Figure 3 (identified as rock curve from the manual of

the program SHAKE) was selected for the current analysis, and roughly corresponds to the

middle of the range obtained from tests on the DCPP rock cores shown on Figure 4

(reported in the LTSP 1989 report). For the variation of damping ratio with shear strain,

the curve defining the lower bound of the shaded zone for the DCPP rock, was selected for

use in the current analysis. Modulus and damping curves for the Pleistocene colluvium and

marine terrace deposits were based on relationships for similar soils published in the

literature and reported in PG&E's 1997 study. These relationships are also listed in Table

2.

METHODOLOGY

Earthquake-induced seismic coefficient time histories (and their peak values k~x) for

potential sliding masses within the selected profiles were computed using the two

dimensional dynamic finite element analysis program QUAD4M (Hudson and others,

1994). This is a time-step analysis that incorporates a Rayleigh damping approach, and

allows the use of different damping ratios in different elements. The program QUAD4M

was verified in calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.34, Revision 1.

The program uses equivalent linear strain-dependent modulus and damping properties and

an iterative procedure to estimate the non-linear strain-dependent soil and rock properties.

Selection of Input Motions

Geosciences department of PG&E developed five sets of possible earthquake rock motions

for the ISFSI site (Attachment 2 as confirmed in Attachment 3) to be used as input to the

analyses. These motions are estimated to originate on the Hosgri fault about 4.5 km west of

the plant site. Both fault normal and fault parallel components were determined for each of

the five sets of motions. The fault parallel component incorporated the fling effect and its


Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. q_ of 60


positive direction was specified in the southeasterly fault direction (see Attachment 5, as

confirmed in Attachment 6). The fault normal component has a direction normal to the

fault, and its polarity can be either positive or negative depending on the assumed location

of the initiation of the rupture. Based on Attachments 1 and 4 (as confirmed in Attachment

7), the direction of movement along cross section L-L" (which as shown in Figure 5 has an

azimuth of 67 degrees) is 91 degrees (counter-clock wise) from the direction of the strike

of the Hosgri fault. The fault normal component can be at + 90 degrees from fault parallel

direction, that is 91+90 = 181 (or 91-90 = 1) degrees from the direction of section L-L'.

From these relations, the ground motion component along section L-L' can be determined

from the specified components along the fault normal and fault parallel directions. Similar

computations are made for section E-E' that has an azimuth of 35 degrees, and thus is 123

degrees (counter clock wise) from the direction of the positive fault parallel component of

the Hosgri fault. The computed motions along the directions of sections L-L' and E-E" will

be referred to as the rotated components.

The rotated component along each of the specified section is the sum of the projections of

the fault normal and fault parallel components along the direction of the section (Figure 5).

The formulation is as follows:

Rot' = F, cos(0) + FN sin(o)

and

Rot- = Fp cos(0) - FNsin(0)

in which the Fp and FN are fault parallel and fault normal components of the acceleration

time-histories, Rot' is the component along the section when considering the positive fault

normal component, and Rot is the component along the section when considering the

negative fault normal component. 0 is the angle between up-slope direction of the section

analyzed and the fault parallel direction (to the southeast). The five sets of earthquake

motions on the Hosgri fault are now rotated to earthquake motions along the up-slope

direction of cross sections L-L' and E-E'. For a given angle between the analyzed section

and the fault direction, there are 10 rotated earthquake motions, because for each set, the

positive and negative directions of the fault normal component are considered separately.


Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. '_ of 60


The response of the slopes were computed using, as input, control motions specified at the

horizontal ground surface in the free field away from the toe of the slope. The originally

developed five sets of earthquake motions all fit the ISFSI design spectrum. These motions

were first rotated to the directions of the two cross sections analyzed as described above.

Then, approximate earthquake-induced displacements were initially computed for each set

using a rigid sliding block model based on the Newmark approach (see calculation package

GEO.DCPP.01.30, Revision 0). The set of rotated motions that produced the highest

deformation in the rigid sliding block analysis was selected as input motions for the two

dimensional dynamic response analyses. For an assumed yield acceleration of 0.5g (based

on the results from calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.28, Revision 0), rotated motions

from sets 5 and 6 (both with a negative fault normal component) provided the greatest

deformation. Thus, two ground motion sets (5 and 6) were selected as the input motions

and used for the dynamic analyses. The results of the dynamic response analysis as

described in this calculation and the subsequent deformation analyses (described in

calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.30, Revision 0) indicated that the input motion for set

5 produced the largest deformations of the two sets. Accordingly, the detailed results for

ground motion set 5 are only presented in this calculation. However, because the direction

of section L-L' is 91 degrees from the direction of the fault, the rotated component along

this section is almost identical to the fault normal component (with a reversed polarity).

The rotated acceleration time histories (from set 5) along the directions of sections E-E'

and L-L' are presented in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. The positive values indicate

motions in the up-slope direction of the section. The acceleration response spectra of the

two motions are presented on Figures 8 and 9, for sections L-L' and E-E', respectively. In

these two figures, the response spectra of the original fault normal and fault parallel

components of set 5 are also shown for comparison. The rotated motions along the

sections show some variations from the originally developed fault normal and fault parallel

components.

Because the base of the finite element mesh is at a depth of 300 feet, and because the

QUAD4M program only allows the input motion to be applied at the base, the base motion

I:Project\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.01.29\GEO.DCPP.01.29.doc Page 6 of 58

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. I of 60

CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.29

REVISION 0

was first computed by deconvolving the surface ground motion. The control motions

specified at the ground surface (in the free field beyond the toe of the slope) were

deconvolved using a one-dimensional wave propagation analysis, SHAKE (Schnabel,

Lysmer, and Seed, 1972, Geomatrix version, 1995, see SOFTWARE section), to obtain

input motions at the level of the base of the two-dimensional finite-element model.

Calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.34 shows that, when using the base motion developed

from SHAKE, the program QUAD4M can produce reasonably similar surface ground

motions in the free field. This calculation package verified that the deconvolved motions

could be specified as input (outcropping) motions at the base of the two-dimensional

model. The rock below this depth was modeled as an elastic half-space that has the same

shear wave velocity as the rock just above it.

Finite Element Model and Boundary Conditions

Finite element representations of the slope profiles along sections L-L' and E-E' are shown

in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. The minimum thickness of the mesh layer (8 feet) was

selected to allow propagation of shear waves having frequencies up to 25 Hz. The bedrock

underlying the slope was modeled to a depth of about 300 feet below the horizontal free

field near the toe of the slope. The base of the finite element mesh is treated as an elastic

half space. For the nodes at the two lateral boundaries, the dynamic displacement is only

allowed in the horizontal direction when the horizontal input motion is applied at the base.

A better choice is to use transmitting boundaries on both sides to avoid wave reflections

from the vertical boundary. However, the program QUAD4M does not have this option. In

order to avoid unrealistic reflections from the lateral boundaries, the lateral boundaries

were extended horizontally to a significant distance on both sides of the transport route.

The finite element mesh was extended in the horizontal free field, a distance of about 600

to 700 feet from the toe of the slope. In the up-slope direction, the profiles were modeled

for a distance of about 1000 to 1100 feet beyond the edge of the transport route (Reservoir

Road). Beyond that point, the ground surface was leveled-off and extended horizontally an

additional 550 feet (for section L-L') and 800 feet (for section E-E') where the lateral

boundary was placed. Because the response is needed for potential sliding masses in the

vicinity of the transport route, the laterally extended portion of the mesh does not


Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. to_ of 60


accurately match the topography beyond a 1000 feet from the edge of Reservoir Road. The

extended boundary was used only to improve the numerical accuracy of the response in the

immediate vicinity of the transport route, and not to model the response of the entire

hillside.

SOFTWARE

Computer program QUAD4M was verified in calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.34.

Computer program SHAKE (Schnabel, Lysmer, and Seed, 1972, Geomatrix version, 1995)

was used to compute base motions in this calculation package. Two modified versions of

SHAKE, i.e., SHAKE91 (by I.M. Idriss and Joseph I. Sun, 1992), and SHAKE96S (by

Tseng and Hamasaki, 1996) were also used to calculate the base motion from input motion

set 5 for verification purpose. The results from the above three slightly modified versions

of the program SHAKE were almost identical. The results of these verification runs are

included in the enclosed compact disc.

ANALYSES RESULTS

Dynamic analyses were performed at sections E-E' and L-L' for three purposes: (a) to

estimate earthquake-induced average accelerations within the profiles for evaluating the

stability of typical slopes along the transport route at the full level of ISFSI design ground

motions; (b) to estimate rock-to-soil amplification of ground motions at reduced levels of

ground motion; and (c) to estimate the profile response at reduced levels of ground

motions for evaluating the stability of the road fill wedges including the transport load. The

reduced levels of ground motions were specified as ISFSI input rock motions scaled to a

peak ground acceleration of 0.15g, based on the results of calculation package

GEO.DCPP.01.02 (see Attachment 8).

Response at ISFSI Design Ground Motion Levels

The results of the dynamic analyses provide a distribution of the earthquake-induced

accelerations at all nodal points of the modeled slope profile. The analyses also provide


Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. it of 60


estimates of the time history of the average induced acceleration within a specified

potential sliding mass. Using the rotated input motion developed from set 5, peak

accelerations within the slope (in the vicinity of the transport route) were computed. The

contours of peak accelerations in the soil deposit are presented in Figures 10 and 11 for

sections L-L' and E-E', respectively. As expected, the input motion was significantly

amplified in the colluvium deposit within the slope, with computed peak surface

accelerations of about 1.7g and 2.Og for sections L-L' and E-E', respectively.

Acceleration time histories were also calculated for a number of locations within the

specified potential sliding masses as shown in Figures 12 and 13, for the two sections

analyzed. These sliding masses have the least computed yield accelerations as estimated

from calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.28, Revision 0. Acceleration time histories were

averaged for each potential sliding mass (using the acceleration time histories computed at

locations inside the mass) at sections L-L' and E-E" and are presented in Figure 14. The

computed peak accelerations are of the order of 1.1 g to 1.2 g. This shows an amplification

of peak acceleration of about 32 percent compared to the input bedrock motions. The time

histories shown in these figures will be used to estimate earthquake-induced deformations

within these potential sliding masses as described in calculation package

GEO.DCPP.01.30, Revision 0.

Response at Reduced Ground Motion Levels

Dynamic analyses similar to those described above were performed, but in this case the

ISFSI design rock motions were scaled to a peak acceleration of 0.15g. The computed peak

accelerations along the surface of the slope are presented in Figures 15 and 16 for sections

L-L' and E-E' respectively. The input motions were amplified mainly in the colluvium

zones along the slopes of both sections. The greatest computed surface accelerations are of

the order of 0.26g and 0.31g at sections L-L' and E-E', respectively. For comparison, the

computed peak surface accelerations for the response using the full design input motions

are also shown in Figures 15 and 16.

IAProject\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.01.29\GEO.DCPP.01.29.doc Page 9 of 58

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. 3i of 60


Amplification factors for peak accelerations along the slope surface (normalized to the

peak input bedrock acceleration in the free-field) were computed for the two slope surfaces

and are presented in Figures 17 and 18 for section L-L' and E-E', respectively. For section

L-L', the maximum amplification factor is less than 2. For section E-E', the maximum

amplification factor is less than 2.2. For comparison, amplification factors were also

computed for the response using the full design input motions and are shown by solid lines

in Figures 17 and 18. The maximum amplification factors for the full ground motions are

of the same order of magnitude as those computed using reduced input motion with peak

acceleration of 0.15g.

Because the computed peak accelerations for the reduced input motions are lower than the

estimated yield accelerations for the potential sliding surfaces (computed in calculation

package GEO.DCPP.01.28, Revision 0), the expected earthquake-induced displacements

will be negligible. Accordingly, there was no need to compute the corresponding

acceleration time histories for potential sliding masses for this level of input motion.

REFERENCES

1. Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. Work Plan, Laboratory Testing of Soil and Rock

Samples, Slope Stability Analyses, and Excavation Design for Diablo Canyon

Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Site, Revision 2, dated

December 8, 2000.

2. Geosciences Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.O1.21, revision 1, Analysis of

Bedrock Stratigraphy and Geologic Structure at the DCPP ISFSI Site.

3. Geosciences Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.28, revision 0, Stability and Yield

Acceleration Analysis of Potential Sliding Masses Along DCPP ISFSI Transport

Route.

4. Geosciences Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.30, revision 0, Determination of

Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Potential Slides Masses Along DCPP ISFSI

Transport Route (Newmark Analysis).

5. Geosciences Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.34, revision 1, Verification of

QUAD4M computer code.

6. Hamasaki, D., and Tseng, W.S., 1996, SHAKE96S, CEC.


Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. Q of 60


7. Hudson, M., Idriss, I.M. and Beikae, M, 1994, QUAD4M (program and User's manual) Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil & Environmental

Engineering, University of California, Davis, California.

8. Idriss, I.M., and Sun, Joseph I., 1992, User's manual for SHAKE91, program

modified based on the original SHAKE program published in December 1972 by Schnabel, Lysmer, and Seed, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, California.

November 1992.

9. PG&E, 1989, Diablo Canyon Long Term Seismic Program, Response to NRC

Question 19 dated December 19. 10. PG&E, 1997, Assessment of slope stability near the Diablo Canyon Power Plant,

Response to NRC request of January 31, 1997. 11. Schnabel, P.B., Lysmer. J. and Seed, H.B., SHAKE, A computer program for

earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites, EERC Report No. 72-12,

University of California, Berkeley, December.

ATTACHMENTS

1. 11/12/01, PG&E Geosciences, Robert K. White, Re: Forwarding of approved plan

and cross-sections D-D', E-E', and L-L' for DCPP ISFSI transport route stability

analyses

2. 09/28/2001, PG&E Geosciences, Robert K. White, Re: Confirmation of transmittal

of inputs for DCPP ISFSI slope stability analyses.

3. 10/31/01, PG&E Geosciences, Robert K. White, Re: Confirmation of preliminary

inputs to calculations for DCPP ISFSI site.

4. 08/23/2001, William Lettis & Associates. Inc.. Jeff Bachhuber, Re: Revised

Estimates for Hosgri Fault Azimuth. DCPP ISFSI Project.

5. 10/18/2001, PG&E Geosciences, Joseph Sun, Re: Positive direction of the fault

parallel component time history on the Hosgn fault.

6. 10/25/2001, PG&E Geosciences, Robert White, Re: Input parameters for

calculations,

7. 11/1/2001, PG&E Geosciences, Robert White, Re: Confirmation of additional

inputs to calculations for DCPP ISFSI site.


Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. 14A of 60


8. 11/19/01, PG&E Geosciences, Robert K. White, Re: Transmittal of additional

inputs for DCPP ISFSI transport route analysis.

ENCLOSURE

CD, entitled, "Data Files for Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.29"

TABLE 1

SOIL PARAMETERS FOR STABILITY ANALYSIS SLOPE SECTIONS A-A' AND C-C'

DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT SITE (From PG&E, 1997)

Density Shear Strength Geologic In-Place Parameters

Unit Description (pcf) Topsoil Organic CLAY, silty (CH) 115 S0 = 1200 psf

(section B-B' only) Qc Young colluvium, soft to stiff 115 S, = 1500 psf

CLAY, silty and sandy (CH-CL) Qpf Pleistocene colluvial fan deposits, 115 Su = 3000 psf

CLAY to SILT, gravelly and sandy Qptm Pleistocene marine terrace deposits, 130 c = 0;

poorly graded SAND to =400 GRAVEL

Tofb Miocene Obispo Formation, sandy 140 C = 4000 psf; siltstone and silty sandstone, local = 350

chert, blocky, Bedrock

I:\roject\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.0 1.29\GEO.DCPP.0 1.29.doc Page 12 of 58


I

I:\Project\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.01.29\GEO.DCPP.01.29.doc

CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.0 1.29 REVISION 0

TABLE 2

MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR DYNAMIC FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS, CUT SLOPE EAST OF UNIT 2, PROFILE A-A',

DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT (From PG&E, 1997)

Layer Unit Shear Poisson's Modulus and Damping Material and Weight Wave Ratio Relationships

Thikness' (pcf) Velocity (h) _ (fps)

Qc - Recent Surface 115 600 0.35 Clay (PI= 15), Colluvium Layer Vucetic & Dobry, 19912

Qpf - Pleistocene below Qc 115 1200 0.35 Clay (PI=15), Colluvium Vucetic & Dobry,1991

Qtm - Marine between Qpf 130 1500 0.45 Sand (Upper Bound Modulus and Terrace Deposit and Tofb Lower Bound Damping),

Seed & Idriss,19703

Tofb - Obispo below Qpf and 140 2000 0.4 Rock, LTSP SSI analysis, Formation Qtm, h=15 feet PG&E, 1988 Bedrock

Obispo Formation h=20 feet 140 3300 0.4 Same Bedrock

Obispo Formation h= 125 feet 145 4000 0.37 Same Bedrock

Obispo Formation h=100 feet 150 4800 0.35 Same Bedrock I _I

Obispo Formation h=200 feet 150 5900 0.22 Same Bedrock

Elastic Half Space below 150 5900 -linear

Elevation. - 300 feet

Thickness below horizontal ground surface in free field 2Vucetic, M., and Dobry, R., 1991, Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response: Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, v. 117, Paper No. 25418 3 Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M., 1970, Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses: Report No. EERC 70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley. Tinal report of the long term seismic program submitted by PG&E to the NRC. On July, 1988.

Page 13 of 58

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. _•o of 60

CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.29 REVISON 0

100 200 300 400 500 600 760 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 Horizontal Distance, feet

Figure 1. Finite Element Representation of'Cross Section L-L

Page 14 of 58

0 .4-

0 2A

WL1



0

tLL

0 200 400600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000

Horizontal Distance, feet

Figure 2. Finite Element Representation of Cross Section E-E'.

Page 15 of 58

.k"lU3tLU UL1 I

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. t% of 60 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.29

REVISION 0 Page 31

10"10.4 2.0

Shear Strain (%)

1 0.z 10"1

1.8

1.6

CD

-C

cl

E 0 z

1.4

1.2

1.0

0-8

0.60.4

0.2

0

Variation of shear modulus with shear strain for the site rock based on 1978

a Pacific Gas and Electric Company

laboratory test data.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Long Term Seismic Program

Page 16 of 58

1

Question 19

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. tj of 60 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.0 1.29

REVISION 0 Page 32

Shear SIrain (N/) 10-210.3

25

20

0

Is CD .C:

rE (a

10

0

a 1 ritio o p t4, t

Variation of damping ratio with shear strain for the site rock based on 1977 laboratory test data.

L F-Yoe AatD4tw4 6)

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Long Term Seismic Programa Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Page 17 of 58

10" 1

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. 2.o of 60 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.29

REVISION 0

N

Section E-E'

Az= 3380 Az= 350

0• Section L-L' to/ Az= 670

Motion, A

Figure 5. Orientations of Sections E-E', and L-L', relative to the Hosgri Fault.

Page 18 of 58

1.0

r- 0.5 0

IT 0.0

0-0.5 Component along section L-L', used for analyses

-1.0 I 0 10 20 30 40

1.0

S0.5 0 0 -0.0

0-0.5 Fault parallel component with fling effect -1.0

> L 10 20 30 40 P 1 .0 >

0.5 >

0.0

a) 0.5

Fault normal component C

UQ -1.0 0 10 20 30 40 Time (second) •

00

Figure 6. Acceleration time histories of fault normal, fault parallel, and rotated L-L' componenets of Set 5.

'"M ,Ra

(

1.0

"- 0.5 0

T 0. 0

0)

U-0.

1.0

1.0

- 0.5 0

E 0.0

Q) 0-0.5

10

-1.0

C 0

1 .0

a)

"U-0.5

1.0

[0I I I

Fault parallel component with fling effect

10 20 30 40

10 20 30 Time (second)

4

4

0

Figure 7. Acceleration time histories of fault normal, fault parallel, and rotated E-E' componenets of Set 5.

(

0 10 20 30

10

C>,

Co

0

0

z

C'jO

"r,4

C)

02

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. L3 of 60 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.29

REVISION 0

Section L-L': 91 degrees from FP direction ---.-.--- Fault normal (FN) component ----------- Fault parallel (FP) component (with fling effect)

0.1 Period (sec)

Figure 8. Acceleration response spectra of input motion set 5 for cross section L-L'.

Page 21 of 58

4.0

3.5

3.0

0)

CZ

0

C.)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 0.01

I

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. __of 60 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.29

REVISION 0

Section E-E': 123 degrees from FP direction ----------- Fault normal (FN) component

Fault parallel (FP) component (with fling effect)

0N

4 4 Il

/ N - - -- - -,

Ill" \

0.01 0.1Period (sec)

1

Figure 9. Acceleration response spectra of input motion set 5 for cross section E-E'.

Page 22 of 58

3.5

3.0

D 2.5 0 t-

6 2.0

Cz 0) C. 1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

4.¢

'ROW

Dashed line: potential sliding surface

100 1 I1 300 350 400 450 500 550 600

Horizontal Distance, feetz 0

Figure 10. Contours of peak accelerations in coluvium zone, cross section L-L'

300

280

260

240

220

CU *.o 200

180

160

140

120-

>

-.4

.-4

C)

>

k"

>

,-N -- N

250

200- ~Dashed line: potential sliding surface -4•

S00

.2 M0

TOO 751005-9O 90 100 00 10 15 20 15

0

Hrot 15

Fiur 10 otuso ekaceeain nclvu zncosscinEE 0 Oh5

240

S220

2200

180- HE 070

160

140

1 2 0 - --------------300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 Horizontal Distance, feet

Figure 12. Potential Sliding Mass and Node Points of Computed Acceleration Time Histories for Cross Section L-L'. Z CtD O 1 S00,

(

I I I I I I240

220-

200

S180

, 160

S140

120-

100-

650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250


Figure 13. Potential Sliding Mass and Node Points of Computed Acceleration Time Histories for Cross Section E-E'.

0U'

>

C',

; 0"

C) 0

56

"lww

1.0

0 .5 0

s... 0.0

8 -0.5

Average acce ration in sliding mass of section L-L' -1 .0 > 0 10 20 30 40 t-r4 1 .0 >

S 0 .5 o • 0> "Eý 0.0 0

o -0.5 <

Average acceleration in sliding mass of section E-E' 0 a\ -1.0 0 10 20 30 40

Time (second) 4 •

Figure 14. Average acceleration time histories of potential sliding masses using input motion set 5

(

w

C

Full input motion -- ----------- Reduced motion (scaled down to 0.15 g)

Surface elevation of section L-L'

-- - - - ---------- - - - -------- -- - - - -) 600

400

200

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 Horizontal Distance, feet

C:

Z

C)O

z.

o' "

Figure 15. Variations of computed peak accelerations along slope surface of section L-L'.

2

1.5

1

0.5

0 CO

Q) M

W

a_

0

00

0 tIA C*

-500

(

I I I

2

Full input motion - ----------- Reduced input motion (scaled down to 0. 15 g)

S1.5 Surface elevation of section E-E' 0

CO

.- o--

IL 0 .5 - I I- -

- I "-- ---------------

800

I-600

I2 400 z

200

00

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Horizontal Distance, feet

Figure 16. Variations of computed peak accelerations along slope surface of section E-E'.

(

(

Full input motion -- ----------- Reduced input motion (scaled down to 0.15

Surface elevation of section L-L'

,II

0 500 1000 1500 2000 Horizontal Distance, feet

600'

400

200

0

0 z

Figure 17. Variations of computed amplification factors of peak accelerations along slope surface of section L-L'.

2 -

L0 CZ)

U

CL

0

E

1.5

0.5

tAU.

g)

-500

C)

C)

C) or 0

C)

w

2 Full input motion --- - Reduced input motion (scaled down to 0.15 g)

Surface elevation of section E-E' 1.5

0

U

S0 .5

0

800

600 0

~0.5 6- 00

t • I 200

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Z Horizontal Distance, feet

Figure 18. Variations of computed amplification factors of peak accelerations along slope surface of section E-E'.

(

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. 3t of 60 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.0 1.29

REVISION 0

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 32 of 58

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. 3ý_ of 60

CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.0 1.29 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geosciences REVISION 0 245 Market Street, Room 418B

Mail Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 415/973-2792 Fax 415/973-5778

•• DR. FAIZ MAKDISI GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS 2101 WEBSTER STREET OAKLAND, CA 94612

November 12, 2001 Re: Forwarding of Approved Plan and Cross Sections D-D', E-E', and L-L' for

DCPP ISFSI Transport Route Stability Analyses

DR. MAKDISI:

Please find enclosed the following approved plan and cross sections from Geosciences Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.21, rev. 1:

Figure 21-3, Geologic Map of the ISFSI Site and Transport Route Vicinity Figure 21-17a, Cross Section D-D' through Patton Cove Landslide Figure 21-18a, Cross Section E-E' Figure 21-25, Cross Section L-L'

for your use in DCPP ISFSI transport route stability analyses. These figures supersede those transmitted to you in draft form by Rich Koehler of William Lettis Associates on October 25, 2001.

Also for your use, we have determined the azimuth of each section from Figure 21-3, as follows:

Section D-D': 38 degrees Section E-E': 34 degrees Section L-L': 67 degrees

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

ROBERT K. WHITE

Enclosures

page 1 of I ltr2fm6.doc:rkw:11/12/0l

Page 33 of 58

Security-Related Information – Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390.

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. L of 60


ATTACHMENT 2

Page 38 of 58

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. ý_I of 60 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.0 1.29

•as and Electric Comranv Geosciences REVISION 0245 Market Street, Room 418B Mail Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 415/973-2792 Fax 415/973-5778

page 1 of 2 trans2fm 1.doc:rkw:9/28/01

Page 39 of 58

Pacific ( S..... Iv ---- d

I Dr. Faiz Makdisi

Geomatrix Consultants 2101 Webster Street Oakland, CA 94612

September 28, 2001

Re: Confirmation of transmittal of inputs for DCPP ISFSI slope stability analyses

DR. MAKDISI:

This is to confirm transmittal of inputs related to slope stability analyses you are scheduled to perform for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) under the Geomatrix Work Plan entitled "Laboratory Testing of Soil and Rock Samples, Slope Stability Analyses, and Excavation Design for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Site."

Inputs transmitted include:

Drawing entitled "Figure 21-19, Cross Section I-I'," dated 9/27/01, labeled "Draft," and transmitted to you via overnight mail under cover letter from Jeff Bachhuber of WLA and dated 9/27/01.

Time histories in Excel file entitled "timehistories_3comp revl .xls," dated 8/17/2001, file size 3,624 KB, which I transmitted to you via email on 8/17/2001.

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

Please note that both these inputs are preliminary until the calculations they are part of have been fully approved. At that time, I will inform you in writing of their status. These confirmation and transmittal letters are the vehicles for referencing input sources in youir calculations.

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. 6L!-of 60


Confirmation of transmittal of inputs for DCPP ISFSI slope stability analyses

Although the Work Plan does not so state, as you are aware all calculations are

required to.be performed as per Geosciences Calculation Procedure GEO.001, entitled "Development and Independent Verification of Calculations for Nuclear

Facilities," revision 3. All of your staff assigned to this project have been previously

trained under this procedure.

I am also attaching a copy of the Work Plan. Please make additional copies for members of your staff assigned to this project, review the Work Plan with them, and have them sign Attachment 1. Please then make copies of the signed attachment and forward to me.

If you have any questions, feel free to call.

Thanks.

ROBERT K. WHITE

Attachment

cc: Chris Hartz

page 2 of 2

Page 40 of 58



ATTACHMENT 3

Page 41 of 58

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. A_•of 60

Pacific Gas and Electric Company CALQdS.6TAaT PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.29 245 Market Street, Room 418BREVISION 0 Mail Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 415/973-2792 Fax 415/973-5778

DR. FAIZ MAKDISI GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS S2101 WEBSTER STREET OAKLAND, CA 94612

October 31, 2001

Re: Confirmation of preliminary inputs to calculations for DCPP ISFSI site

DR. MAKDISI:

A number of inputs to calculations for the DCPP ISFSI slope stability analyses have been provided to you in a preliminary fashion. This letter provides confirmation of those inputs in a formal transmittal. A description of the preliminary inputs and their formal confirmation follow.

Letter to Faiz Makdisi from Rob White dated June 24, 2001. Subject: Recommended rock strength design parameters for DCPP ISFSI site slope stability analyses.

This letter recommended using f = 50 degrees for the preliminary rock strength envelope in your stability analyses, and indicated that this value would be confirmed once calculations had been finalized and approved. Calculations GEO.DCPP.01.16, rev. 0, and GEO.DCPP.01.19, rev. 0, are approved and this recommended value is confirmed.

Letter to Faiz Makdisi from Rob White dated September 28, 2001. Subject:

Confirmation of transmittal of inputs for DCPP ISFSI slope stability analyses.

This letter provided confirmation of transmittal of cross section I-I' and time histories, and indicated that these preliminary inputs would be confirmed once calculations had been approved. Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.21, rev. 0, is approved and section I-I' as described in the September 28 letter is confirmed. A copy of the figure from the approved calculation is attached. Calculations GEO.DCPP.01.13, rev. 1, and GEO.DCPP.0 1.14, rev. 1, are both approved and time histories as described in the September 28 letter are confirmed. A CD of the time histories from the approved calculations is attached.

page 1 of 2 Itr2Fm3.doc:rkw:10/31/01 I*. .. .

Page 42 of 58

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. *__ of 60


Faiz Makdisi Confirmation of prehirfinary inputs to calculations tor,.( RR,4SI•SI site

Email to Faiz Makdisi from Joseph Sun dated October 24, 2001. Subject:

Ground motion parameters for back calculations.

This email provided input for a back calculation to assess conservatism in clay bed

properties in the slope'. Inputs included maximum displacement per event of 4 inches

and a factor of 1.6 with which to multiply ground motions for use in the back

calculation analysis. This letter confirms those input values, with the following

limitation: these values haveot been developed under an approved calculation,

therefore should not be used to directly determine clay bed properties for use in forward

analyses, but may be used for comparative purposes only, to assess the level of

conservatism in those clay bed properties determined in approved calculations

Letter to Faiz Makdisi from Jeff Bachhuber dated October 10,2001. Subject:

Transmittal of Revised Rock Mass Failure Models - DCPP ISFSI Project.

This letter provided you with figures indicating potential rock mass failure models as

superimposed on section I-I'. This letter confirms PG&E approval to use these models

in your analyses. These figures are labeled drafts and are currently being finalized in a

revision to Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.21. Once this revision and the included figures

have been approved, I will inform you in writing of their status.

ROBERT K. WHITE

Attachments

Page 43 of 58

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. *_-_of 60


ATTACHMENT 4

Page 44 of 58

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. t' of 60

CALCULATION PACKAGE QEO.DCPP.01.29 REVISION 0

7William Lettis & Associates, Inc. .. •L....1777 Botelho Drive, Suite 262, Walnut Creek, Clifornia 94596

Voice: (925) 256-617fl FAX: (925) 256-6076

MEMORANDUM

TO: Dr. Faiz Makdisi - Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. FROM: Jeff L. Bachhuber - William Lettis & Associates, Inc. DATE: August 23, 2001

RE: Revised Estimates 'for Hosgri Fault Azimuth, DCPP ISFSI Project

FAJTZ.:

This memorandum provides a revised strike azimnuth of 338" for the Hosgri fault for evaluation of ground motion directional components for slope stability analyses at the PG&E DCPP ISFSI site. The revised azimuth presented in this memorandum supercedes the previous estimated azimuths (328' to 3350) presented in our memorandum dated August 8, 2001, and is based on a re-evaluation of fault maps in the PG&E LTSP (1988), and ISFSI project Calculation Package GEO.01.21.

The revised estimated average strike for the Hosgri fault nearest the ISFSI site (bctwccn Morro Bay and San Luis Bay) is 338'. Figure 21-23 of Calculation Package GEO.01.21, which previously showed an azimuth of 340' for the Hosgri fault, will bc revised to correspond to this re-interpreted average strike. Discrete faults and local reaches of the fault zone exhibit variations in strike azimuth between about 328' and 338', but the average overall strike of 338' is believed to be the best approximation for the ground motion modeling.

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

Jeff Bachhuber

Cc: Rob White/Bill Page - PG&E Geosciences

I

Page 45 of 58

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. Z of 60


ATTACHMENT 5

Page 46 of 58

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. 4_ of 60


pacific Gaas & Electric Company

Geosciences Department

P.O. Box 77000, Mail C-.. Sari Francisco, CA 94177

Fax: (4,15) 973-5778

TELEFAX COVER SHEET

REMARKS: f- Per request 2] For re

A-? ~ C~& 4

4zi&L <4

Number of pages including

cover sheet: 5

view Reply ASAP C] Please comment

Page 47 of 58

To:

Company' (6nenrr, .tr/ix

Phone: 03 *66

Fax: r5-/e) CT -(4-"f

cc:

From:

Company: PG&E

Phone: J415) 973-5478

Fax: _4415) 973-5778

(- 7 1 4 -1 L•

Cý031p(aý-ýW ý.,Acc

:17a

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg.-so of 60


REVISION 0

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY GEOSCIFNCES DEPART.ENT CALCULATION DOCUMENT

Calc Number • CFF,, " / Revision

Date 0c-(Q- /!E/ 2- '.Cakc Pages;: 2 4,Verification Method: A VerificaTion Pages: /7 A•S • +d

PREPARED BYY: DATE Org r z -i

Printed Name Organization

VERU=ED BY:

APPROVED BY: 16 a P-rin-ced*4ame

7/i}:': LLO "D ', L. • _L: , \LUF

-i.. ,- . , - .

( lrke-. :o z,-4- -'-.

DATE 60 01ew- .t

Organization

D,,rE /'/ /1

DATE

Orgamzatu~on

"LLOYD '-.- •, S. CLUFF 2

No. EG567 -0=

CERTIFIED ENGINEER1ING

.GEOLOGIST .., .-: .... •

.......... P-age48of58 - - -

r

Ace P-jr: 1--Ig ý/o -.L

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. 5j of 60


Calc Number: GEO.DCPP.01.14 Rev Number: 1

Sheet Number; 4 of 26 Date: 10/12/01

6. BODY OF CALCULATIONS

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

Table 6- 1. Time of Fling

Set Reference Time History Approximate Arrival Time Polarity* Arrival time of of fling (tj) S-waves (see)'

I Lucerne 8.0 7.1 -1 2a Yarimca 9.0 8.5 -1 3 LGFC 4.0 1 3.4 -1 5 El Centro (1940) P-5L ý 0.01 6 Saratoga 4.5 37 -. * The polarity is applied to the fault parallel time history from calculations GEO.DCPP.01.13 (rev 1) to cause constructive interference between the S-wave and the fling (eq. 5-2).

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

Since DCP is on the east side of the Hosgri fault and the fault has right-lateral slip, the permanent tectonic deformation at the site will be to the southeast. In the time histories the fling has a positive polarity. Since the tectonic deformation will be: to the southeast, the positive direction of the fault parallel time history is defined to the* southeast.

Step 2: Flinp Time History Using the values of A, o, and Tfiig given in input 4-1, and the values oft1 given in Table 6-1, the fling time history is determined using eq. (5-1). The computed fling time histories for the 5 sets are shown in Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Page 49 of 58

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. 5__of 60


ATTACHMENT 6

Page 50 of 58

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. 5_Uof 60


Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geosciences REVISION 0

245 Market Street, Room 418B -Mail Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94174 15/973-2792 Fax 415/973-5778

• DR. FAIZ MAKDISI GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS 2101 WEBSTER STREET OAKLAND, CA 94612

October 25, 2001

Re: Input parameters for calculations

DR. MAKDISI:

As required by Geosciences Calculation Procedure GEO.001, entitled "Development and Independent Verification of Calculations for Nuclear Facilities," rev. 4, I am providing you with the following input items for your use in preparing calculations.

1. The shear wave velocity profiles obtained in borings BA98-1 and BA98-3 in 1998 are presented in Figure 21-42, attached, of Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.21, entitled "Analysis of Bedrock Stratigraphy and Geologic Structure at the DCPP ISFSI Site," rev. 0, and can be so referenced. These profiles were previously presented in Figure 10 of the WLA report entitled "Geologic and Geophysical Investigation, Dry Cask Storage Facility, Borrow and Water Tank Sites," dated January 5, 1999.

2. The average unit weight of rock obtained from the hillside has been determined to be 140 pounds per cubic foot, as documented in a data report entitled "Rock Engineering Laboratory Testing - GeoTest Unlimited.'

3. Regarding the time histories provided to you on 8/17/01, since the tectonic deformation will be to the southeast, the positive direction of the fault parallel time history is defined as to the southeast, as described in Geosciences Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.14, entitled "Development of Time Histories with Fling," rev. 1, page 4.

4. The source of the shear modulus and damping curves are Figures Q19-22 and Q19-23, attached, from PG&E, 1989, Response to NRC Question 19 dated December 13, 1988, and can be so referenced.

Regarding format of calculations, please observe the following:

lrr2fmnl.doc:rkw: 10/25/01

Page 51 of 58

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. W of 60

Faiz Makdisi CALCULATION P Aifta6@rD6R•cQ6at ions REVISION 0

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

If you have any questions regarding the above, please call me.

ROBERT K. WHITE

Attachments

Page 52 of 58

Borings 98BA-1 and 98BA-4

I-

0-- Vs , • ,, .. , - ,JuUu J UU U 4UUU 0 r--370

- ... .. R1-R2Vs GBA 98-04 370 * i , 0-• S-RIVs8BA98-04

--- SRIVp8BA 98-04 20 . . - " _ _ _ _ _ " j - -- RI -R2V s B A 98-01

" i i' J ! i • I+ R-R2VpBA98-01 35

S" S-Ri Vs BA 98-01 - S-R1 I Vp BA 98-01 -'--RI-R21Vp BA 98-04 40

330-IR2pAQO

60 I", " a grade at 310- + ' .............. -..Ti •310 S... : : ... ;' :"......."' .... !............... ...

80 -............. 290 - • ...... :.......... ................. .....

.. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. .'.. . . .. .... :.. :....... S. .... .... ...... .. ... .... ... .... ....

1 ... ... ..... 270

160 _"____250

............ .... 240.

130.- . ,- - 120 _2.506...• ... 'l....

S.. . .• ,,'.•'"" ... .: .......- ....' ' ' .23 ....... ": ' •. ......... ,..., .............. r .......... .. .............. i...: 1

... .. ' ... .:.,• ......... " 200 .... i -i" • l i ! " ~~~~.... :. .. ..i ............... ": .. :J .!

i ........... .................

2 2 0 ......... ...... .. ..... ............. Average velocity pro:file* Vs' .--

150iy p ofi 'p •"-;" :" ; ' ": : I .ve.rage: . e ... ... "....... ..... i. : I . : , • ; ':... : ..................... I ... i! ... ";.......... •..... : .. ... i ' •...:..... 240

13

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Velocity (feet/second)

10000 12000 14000

0 500 1000 1500 Vs Vp

2000 500 300 350 40 0 Padgrade at310' 320

20 R0-R2Vs l ~ i - , .. ......... . 40 ... : : - -U--R1-2Vp _• : : ! ;: 4 : : 1 . R V 280

60 "260 S".. ii ::!" . , i.. .. .... ....-.... •. -,.... ..... ... 8 0

.. ..... ....... ... .. ... ... ... ,2 4.0.. . 80 • .. ,..

. ....... .

1002 0

• .ii." . .i . . .. !............. S.... .. " i/ / i. ii........

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

"I:'

180 ..... 180

- i • . . - - .... ...... .. ..... .. ...L..i. ...... ,....... " -i .. ........ 200 --t - - -{ - .. :' : : '...... .....

0120

220 Average velocity prtof ile Vs Average velocity profile Vpj10

.......... -"1.. 0

0 2000 .4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Boring 9813A3

Velocity (meters/seco 2000 2500

Calculation 52.27.100.Z39, Rev. 0, Attachlment A, 11g. _,sof f, ()fldP)C ft" , 3 V~

rind) 3000 3500 4000

Q,

0

CD w,

Note: Average velocity profiles interpreted from data.

RI . R2 = Receiver-to-receiver velocity (3.3-foot spacing) S-R1 = Source-to-receiver velocity (10.3-foot spacing)

Velocity (feet/second) Modified from GeoVision (1998), DCPP ISFSI

SAR Section 2.6 Topical Report Appendix C

DIABLO CANYON ISFSI

FIGURE 21-42 ISFSI SITE SUSPENSION LOGS AND

INTERPRETED AVERAGE SEISMIC VELOCITIES .Egc 163 of 21 October 15. 2001

Velocity (meters/second) 0 500 1000 1500nn onnn snn

(

.innn \*1 4n II Anrin

r-

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. S_. of 60 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.29

REVISION 0

ATTACHMENT 7

Page 54 of 58

Lalculation z2.2/.1 U.'/39, Rev. U, Attachment A, Pg. (_ of 60 I JU CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.29 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geoscicnccs REVISION 0

245 Market Street. Room 4181B Mail Code N4C P.0. Box 770000 San Francisco. CA 94177 415/973-2792 Fax 415/973-5778

SDR. FAIZ MAKDISI GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS 2101 WEBSTER STREET OAKLAND, CA 94612

November 19, 2001

Re: Transmittal of additional inputs for DCPP ISFSI Transport Route Analysis

DR. MAKDISI:

As part of the scope of your analysis of the stability of the transport route for the DCPp ISFSI, you are assessing stability of the route at various sections using both unreduced ground motions previously transmitted to you (reference my October 31 2001 letter to you) and reduced ground motions based on incorporating results of a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and the estimated exposure interval of the transporter on the route. A probabiistically reduced peak bedrock ground acceleration of 0.15g has been derived in calculation GEO.DCPP.01.02, and this value has been approved for further analyses. Accordingly, please scale the peak acceleration of the unreduced ground motions to this level for your transport route analyses.

In addition, you are assessing the stability of transport route road fill wedges at reduced ground motion levels and with the transporter load previously transmitted to you (reference my November 5 2001 letter to you). The exact subsurface configuration of any fill wedges along the access road is currently unknown, and is shown in only a general way on sections provided to you (reference my November 12 2001 letter to you) based on general descriptions provided in the road construction specification. However, given that the density of any compacted fill derived from the native material is likely to be at or above the density of underlying native material, fill strength is likely to be comparable to the native material, and the exact configuration of the fill is therefore not of consequence. Please proceed with near-surface stability analyses with this assumption.


ROBERT K. WHITE

page 1 of I Itfm3Odoc:rkw:11/i9 /01

Page 58 of58

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. s1 of 60 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.29

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geosciences REVISION 0 245 Market Street, Room 418B Mail Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 415/973-2792 Fax 415/973-5778

DR. FAIZ MAKDISI GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS 2101 WEBSTER STREET OAKLAND, CA 94612

November 1, 2001

Re: Confirmation of additional inputs to calculations for DCPP ISFSI site

DR. MAKDISI:

Additional inputs to calculations for the DCPP ISFSI slope stability analyses have been provided to you by Jeff Bachhuber of William Lettis Associates. This letter provides confirmation of our acceptance of those inputs in a formal transmittal. A description of those additional inputs and their formal acceptance follow.

Letter to Faiz Makdisi from Jeff Bachhuber dated August 3, 2001. Subject: Ground Motion Directional Components.

This letter recommended using an azimuth of 302 degrees plus or minus 10 degrees for the orientation of the most likely failure surfaces, coinciding with Section I-I'. We concur with this recommendation based on the discussion on page 53 of the approved Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.21, rev. 0, and verification of the orientation of Section I-I' on Calculation Figure 21-4, attached.

Letter to Faiz Makdisi from Jeff Bachhuber dated August 23, 2001. Subject: Revised Estimates for Hosgri Fault Azimuth, DCPP ISFSI Project.

This letter recommended using an azimuth of 338 degrees for the orientation of the average strike of the Hosgri fault. We concur with this recommendation, based on verification of the orientation as presented in the LTSP plates and as shown on Figure 21-36, attached, of Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.21, rev. 0.

ROBERT K. WHITE

Attachments

page 1 of 1 1tr2fm4.doc:rkw: 1/1/01

Page 55 of 58

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. ?1 of 60 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.29

REVISION 0

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 57 of 58

Calculation 52.27.100.739, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. !._ of 60 WJ u u:! CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.29 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geoscicnccs REVISION 0

245 Market Street, Room 418B Muil Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Prancisco. CA 94177 415/973-2792 Fax 415/973-5778

SDR. FAIZ MAKDISI GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS 2101 WEBSTER STREET OAKLAND, CA 94612

November 19, 2001


DR- MAKDISI:

As part of the scope, of your analysis of the stability of the transport route for the DCPp ISFSI, you are assessing stability of the route at various sections using both unreduced ground motions previously transmitted to you (reference my October 31 2001 letter to you) and reduced ground motions based on incorporating results of a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and the estimated exposure interval of the transporter on the route. A probabilistically reduced peak bedrock ground acceleration of 0.1 5g has been derived in calculation GEO.DCPP.01.02, and this value has been approved for further analyses. Accordingly, please scale the peak acceleration of the unreduced ground motions to this level for your transport route analyses.



ROBERT K. WHITE

page I of 1 Ix2fmO-1do-:rkw:il1/9/oi

Page 58 of 58

69-20132 03/07/01NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION

CF3.ID4 ATTACHMENT 7.2

Index No. 402 Binder No.

TITLE: CALCULATION COVER SHEET

Unit(s): 1 & 2 File No.: 52.27

Responsible Group: Civil Calculation No.: 52.27.100.740

No. of Pages 3 pages + Index (4 pages) + 1 Design Calculation YES [x] NO [] Attachment (48 pages)

System No. 42C Quality Classification Q (Safety-Related)

Structure, System or Component: Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility

Subject: Determination of Potential Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Potential Sliding Masses Along DCPP ISFSI Transport Route (GEO.DCPP.01.30, Rev. 0)

Electronic calculation YES [ I NO I x

Computer Model Computer ID Program Location Date of Last Change

Registered Engineer Stamp: Complete A or B A. Insert PE Stamp or Seal Below B. Insert stamp directing to the PE stamp or seal

REGISTERED ENGINEERS' STAMPS AND EXPIRATION DATES

ARE SHOWN ON DWG 063618

Expiration Date:

NOTE 1: Update DCI promptly after approval. NOTE 2: Forward electronic calculation file to CCTG for uploading to EDMS.

1

Page 1 of 3

69-20T32 03/07/01

CF3.ID4 Page 2 of 3

ATTACHMENT 7.2TITLE: CALCULATION COVER SHEET

Rev Status Reason for Revision Prepared LBIE LBIE Check LBIE Checked Supervisor Registered No. B Screen Method* A oyal Engineer

Remarks Initials/ Yes/ Yes/ PSRC PSRC Initials/ Initials/ Signature/ LAN ID/ No/ No/ Mtg. Mtg. LAN ID/ LAN ID/ LAN ID/ ___.___._ _ •Date NA NA No. Date Date Date Date

0 F Acceptance of Geosciences Calc. AFT2 [ ] Yes [ ] Yes [ ] A N/A N/A N/A No. GEO.DCPP.01.30, Rev. 0. l[ Calc. supports current edition of [N.- y , 10CFR72 DCPP License [x]NA [x]NA [x]C Izb ? ,"'t• Application to be reviewed by NRC prior to implementation.

Prepared per CF3.1D17 requirements.

I Yes i ]Yes I IA I No [INo [ ]B

[ ]NA [ INA [ ]C

[ ]Yes [ ]Yes [ ]A

[]No []No []B

[ ]NA [ ]NA [ ]C *Check Method: A: Detailed Check, B: Alternate Method (note added pages), C: Critical Point Check

CALC No. 52.27.100.740, RO

2 (2

t-,acitic cias and Ilectric Ulompany 69-392(10/92)


Project: Diablo Canyon Unit ( )1 ( )2 (x) 1&2 CALC. NO. 52.27.100.740 REV. NO. 0

SHEET NO. 3 of 3

SUBJECT Determination of Potential Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Potential Sliding Masses Along DCPP ISFSI Transport Route MADE BY A. Tafova kd DATE 12/13/01 CHECKED BY N/A DATE

Table of Contents:

Item Type

1 Index

Title


Page Numbers

1-4

2 Attachment A Determination of Potential EarthquakeInduced Displacements of Potential Sliding Masses Along DCPP ISFSI Transport Route

1-48

3

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 69-392(10192) Engineering - Calculation Sheet Engineering Project: Diablo Canyon Unit ( )1 ( ) 2 (x) 1&2 CALC. NO. 52.27.100.740

REV. NO. 0 SHEET NO. 1-1 of 4

SUBJECT Determination of Potential Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Potential Sliding Masses Along DCPP ISFSI Transport RouteMADE BY A. Tafoya V DATE 12/13/01 CHECKED BY N/A DATE

1- This table cross references between Geosciences calculation numbers and DCPP (Civil Group's) calculation numbers. This section is For Information Only.

Cross-Index

(For Information Only)

Item Geoscience CaIc. Title PG&E Calc. Comments No. No. No.

1 GEO.DCPP.01I.01 Development of Young's 52.27.100.711 Modulus and Poisson's Ratios for DCPP ISFSI Based on Field Data

2 GEO.DCPP.01.02 Determination of 52.27.100.712 Probabilistically Reduced Peak Bedrock Accelerations for DCPP ISFSI Transporter Analyses

3 GEO.DCPP.01.03 Development of Allowable 52.27.100.713 Bearing Capacity for DCPP ISFSI Pad and CTF Stability Analyses

4 GEO.DCPP.01.04 Methodology for 52.27.100.714 Determining Sliding Resistance Along Base of DCPP ISFS1 Pads

5 GEO.DCPP.01.05 Determination of 52.27.100.715 Pseudostatic Acceleration Coefficient for Use in DCPP ISFSI Cutslope Stability Analyses

6 GEO.DCPP.01.06 Development of Lateral 52.27.100.716 Bearing Capacity for DCPP CTF Stability Analyses

7 GEO.DCPP.01.07 Development of Coefficient 52.27.100.717 of Subgrade Reaction for DCPP ISFSI Pad Stability Checks

8 GEO.DCPP.01.08 Determination of Rock 52.27.100.718 Anchor Design Parameters for DCPP ISFSI Cutslope

9 GEO.DCPP.01.09 Determination of 52.27.100.719 Calculation to be Applicability of Rock Elastic replaced by letter

I Stress-Strain Values to

1

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Engineering - Calculation Sheet Project: Diablo Canyon Unit ( )1 ) 2 (x ) 1&2 CALC. NO.

69-392(10/92) Engineering

52.27.100.740

I 1410101 REV. NO. 0

SHEET NO. 1-2 of 4

SUBJECT Determination of Potential Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Potential Sliding Masses Along DCPP ISFSI Transport Route

MADE BY A. TafoyaV6 DATE 12/13/01 CHECKED BY N/A DATE

Cross-Index


Item Geoscience Calc. Title PG&E Caic. Comments No. No. No.

Stress-Strain Values to Calculated Strains Under DCPP ISFSI Pad

10 GEO.DCPP.01.10 Determination of SSER 34 52.27.100.720 Long Period Spectral Values

11 GEO.DCPP.01.11 Development of ISFSI 52.27.100.721 Spectra

12 GEO.DCPP.01.12 Development of Fling 52.27.100.722 Model for Diablo Canyon ISFSI

13 GEO.DCPP.01.13 Development of Spectrum 52.27.100.723 Compatible Time Histories

14 GEO.DCPP.01.14 Development of Time 52.27.100.724 Histories with Fling

15 GEO.DCPP.01.15 Development of Young's 52.27.100.725 Modulus and Poisson's Ratio Values for DCPP ISFSI Based on Laboratory Data

16 GEO.DCPP.01.16 Development of Strength 52.27.100.726 Envelopes for Non-jointed Rock at DCPP ISFSI Based on Laboratory Data

17 GEO.DCPP.01.17 Determination of Mean and 52.27.100.727 Standard Deviation of Unconfined Compression Strengths for Hard Rock at DCPP ISFSI Based on Laboratory Tests

18 GEO.DCPP.01.18 Determination of Basic 52.27.100.728 Friction Angle Along Rock Discontinuities at DCPP ISFSI Based on Laboratory Tests

2

! Pacific Gas and Electric Company 69-392(10/92)

Engineering - Calculation Sheet Engineering Project: Diablo Canyon Unit ( )1 ( ) 2 (x) 1&2 CAMC. NO. 52.27-100.740

REV. NO. 0

SHEET NO. 1-3 of 4 SUBJECT Determination of Potential Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Potential Sliding Masses Along DCPP ISFSI Transport Rni it•

MADE BY A. Tafoya 11 DATE 12/13/01 CHECKED BY NIA DATE

Cross-Index


Item Geoscience Calc. Title PG&E Calc. Comments No. No. No.

19 GEO.DCPP.01.19 Development of Strength 52.27.100.729 Envelopes for Jointed Rock Mass at DCPP ISFSI Using Hoek-Brown Equations

20 GEO.DCPP.01.20 Development of Strength 52.27.100.730 Envelopes for Shallow Discontinuities at DCPP ISFSI Using Barton Equations

21 GEO.DCPP.01.21 Analysis of Bedrock 52.27.100.731 Stratigraphy and Geologic Structure at the DCPP ISFSI Site

22 GEO.DCPP.01.22 Kinematic Stability Analysis 52.27.100.732 for Cutslopes at DCPP ISFSI Site

23 GEO.DCPP.01.23 Pseudostatic Wedge 52.27.100.733 Analyses of DCPP ISFSI Cutslopes (SWEDGE Analysis)

24 GEO.DCPP.01.24 Stability and Yield 52.27.100.734 Acceleration Analysis of Cross Section I-I'

25 . GEO.DCPP.01.25 Determination of Seismic 52.27.100.735 Coefficient Time Histories for Potential Siding Masses Above Cut Slopes Behind ISFSI Pad

26 GEO.DCPP.01.26 Determination of Potential 52.27.100.736 Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Potential Sliding Masses on DCPP ISFSI Slope

27 GEO.DCPP.01.27 Cold Machine Shop 52.27.100.737 Retaining Wall Stability

28 GEO.DCPP.01.28 Stability and Yield 52.27.100.738 Acceleration Analysis of I

3

rtaacmc Uas ano t-jectrc uoompany 69-392(10/92) Engineering - Calculation Sheet Engineering Project: Diablo Canyon Unit ( )1 ( ) 2 ( x ) 1&2 CALC. NO. 52.27.100.740

REV. NO. 0 SHEET NO. 1-4 of 4

SUBJECT Determination of Potential Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Potential Sliding Masses Along DCPP ISFSI Transport RouteMADE BY A. Tafoya 4I DATE 12/13/01 CHECKED BY N/A DATE

Cross-Index


Item Geoscience Caic. Title PG&E CaIc. Comments No. No. No.

Acceleration Analysis of Potential Sliding Masses Along DCPP ISFSI Transport Route

29 GEO.DCPP.01.29 Determination of Seismic 52.27.100.739 Coefficient Time Histories for Potential Sliding Masses on DCPP ISFSI Transport Route

30 GEO. DCPP.01.30 Determination of Potential 52.27.100.740 Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Potential Sliding Masses Along DCPP ISFSI Transport Route

31 GEO.DCPP.01.31 Development of Strength 52.27.100.741 Envelopes for Clay Beds at DCPP ISFSI

32 GEO.DCPP.01.32 Verification of Computer 52.27.100.742 Program SPCTLR.EXE

33 GEO.DCPP.01.33 Verification of Program 52.27.100.743 UTEXAS3

34 GEO.DCPP.01.34 Verification of Computer 52.27.100.744 Code - QUAD4M

35 GEO.DCPP.01.35 Verification of Computer 52 27.100.745 Code DEFORMP

36 GEO.DCPP.01.36 Reserved 52.27.100.746

37 GEO.DCPP.01.37 Development of Freefield 52 27.100.747 Ground Motion Storage Cask Spectra and Time Histories for the Used Fuel Storage Project

4

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. __ of 48 FILE No. 079 11z27 '01 17:08 ID:PG&E GEOSCIENCES DEPT 415 973 5778

JM : Cluff.- San Francisco :ILE No. 077 11,27 '01 16:52 ID:PG&E GEOSCIENCES DEPT

SPG&E GeosCiences Departnent Departmental Calcailation Procedure

NOU. 27.2001 6: 2sPr PHONE NO. : 415 564 6697

415 973 5778 p

Number: CiEO.0- I Revision: 1-


PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Cale Number GEO.DCPP.01.30 GEOSCIENCES DEPARTMENT Revision 0 CA LCLULATION DOCUMENT Date 11/21/2001 Calc Pages: Verificagtion Method: See Summary - N, Verification Pages; See Surm mury: - ,14

'fITE: Determination of Potential EarthqUake-hIduced Displaceents of Potential Sliding Masses along DCPP rSFSi Transport Route

PREPARED BY

VERTFIED BY:

APPROVED BY:

DATE V /e,

ZV- LiA~ Printed Name &A:T RU Organization

-• -'•".•-•DATE______.______

Printed Najne Organization

DATEniz tion

Mrntecl Karne Organization

. &<: S. C"OL -G r . ,.

. .. 3'.

.n ............ :

I

AGE 1 P 4

AGE 4

A-1

p

,r. °

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. -.z of 48

PG&E Number: Geosciences Department Revision: Departmental Calculation Procedure


PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY GEOSCIENCES DEPARTMENT CALCULATION DOCUMENT

Calc Number GEO.DCPP.01.30 Revision 0 Date 11/21/2001 Calc Pages: Verification Method: See Summary Verification Pages: See Summary - ..

TITLE: Determination of Potential Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Potential Sliding Masses along DCPP ISFSI Transport Route

PREPARED BY:

VERIFIED BY:

DATE I\7.T4

2141 I AN- WA -- r Printed Name

Printed Name

/,ofCr F0 M%4 sT RI )

Organization

DATE

Organization

APPROVED BY: DATE

Printed Name

GEO.001 4~-

Organization

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. 3 of 48 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.30

REVISION 0

Calculation Title: Determination of Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Potential Sliding Masses along DCPP ISFSI Transport Route (Newmark Analysis)

Calculation No.: GEO.DCPP.01.30 Revision No.: 0 Calculation Author: Zhi-Liang Wang Calculation Date: 11/21/01

PURPOSE

The purpose of this calculation package is to estimate earthquake-induced permanent

displacements of potential sliding masses along DCPP ISFSI transport route using Newmark

type analyses. The calculations reported in this package were performed in accordance with the

requirements of Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. Work Plan Revision 2 (dated December 8, 2000),

entitled "Laboratory Testing of Soil and Rock Samples, Slope Stability Analyses, and

Excavation Design for Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation

Site."

ASSUMPTrlONS

Not applicable.

INPUT

1. Five sets of rock motions originating on the Hosgn fault: Transmittal from PG&E

Geosciences dated September 28, 2001 (Attachment I as confirmed in Attachment 7).

2. Plan and three cross sections along the transport route (Sections D-D', E-E', and L-L'):

Transmittal from PG&E Geosciences, dated November 12, 2001 (Attachment 2).

3. Azimuths of three cross-sections along transport route (Attachment 1)

4. Orientation (azimuth) of the strike of the llosgn fault: Transmittal from William Lettis &

Associates dated August 23, 2001 (Attachment 4 as confirmed in Attachment 8).

5. Direction of positive fault parallel component on Hosgri fault: Transmittal from PG&E

Geosciences dated October 18, 2001 (Attachment 5as confirmed in Attachment 6).

6. Yield accelerations and locations for potential sliding masses from calculation package

GEO.DCPP.01.28, revision 0.

7. Average acceleration time histories in potential sliding masses from calculation package

GEO.DCPP.01.29, revision 0.

IAProj ect\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.0 1.30\GEO.DCPP.01.30.doc Page I of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. - of 48


METHODOLOGY

Development of Rotated Motions along Sections L-L' and E-E'

Geosciences department of PG&E developed five sets of possible earthquake rock motions for

the ISFSI site (see Attachment 1, as confirmed in Attachment 7) to be used as input to the

analyses. These motions are estimated to originate on the Hosgri fault about 4.5 km west of the

plant site. Both fault normal and fault parallel components were determined for each of the five

sets of motions. The fault parallel component incorporated the fling effect and its positive

direction was specified in the southeasterly fault direction (see Attachment 5, as confirmed in

Attachment 6). The fault normal component has a direction normal to the fault, and its polarity

can be either positive or negative depending on the assumed location of the initiation of the

rupture. Based on Attachments 3 and 4 as confirmed in Attachment 7, the direction of movement

along cross section L-L' (which as shown in Figure 1 has an azimuth of 67 degrees) is 91

degrees (counter-clock wise) from the direction of the strike of the Hosgri fault. (i.e., to the

southeast, see Attachment 2). The fault normal component can be at + 90 degrees from fault

parallel direction, that is 91+90 = 181 (or 91-90 = 1) degrees from the direction of section L-L'.

From these relations, the ground motion component along section L-L' can be determined from

the specified components along the fault normal and fault parallel directions. Similar

computations are made for section E-E' that has an azimuth of 35 degrees as shown in Figure 1,

and thus is 123 degrees (counter clock wise) from the direction of the positive fault parallel

component of the Hosgri fault. The computed motions along the directions of sections L-L' and

E-E' will be referred to as the rotated components.

The rotated component along each of the specified section is the sum of the projections of the

fault normal and fault parallel components along the direction of the section. The formulation is

as follows:

Rot' = Fp cos(0) + FN sin(0)

and

Rot- = Fp cos(0) - FN sin(0)

l:\Project\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.01.30\GEO.DCPP.01.30.doc Page 2 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. 5 of 48 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.30

REVISION 0

in which the F, and F,, are fault parallel and fault normal components of the acceleration time

histories, Rot' is the component along the section (for a positive fault normal component) and

Rot is the component along the section (for a negative fault normal component). 0 is the angle

between up-slope direction of the section analyzed and the fault parallel direction (southeast).

The five sets of earthquake motions on the Hosgri fault, are now rotated to earthquake motions

along the up-slope direction of cross sections L-L' and E-E'. For a given angle between the

analyzed section and the fault direction, there are 10 rotated earthquake motions, because for

each set the positive and negative directions of the fault normal component are considered

separately.

Procedures for Permanent Displacement Calculation

The procedure used to estimate permanent displacements is based on the concept of yield

acceleration proposed by Newmark (1965) and modified by Makdisi and Seed (1978). It involves

the following steps:

1. A yield acceleration, ky, at which a potential sliding surface would develop a factor of

safety of unity, is estimated using limit equilibrium, pseudo-static slope stability methods.

The yield acceleration depends on the slope geometry, the ground water conditions, the

undrained shear strength of the slope material, and the location of the potential sliding

surface. The analyses are presented in calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.28, revision 0.

2. The seismic coefficient time history (and the maximum seismic coefficient, kmax) induced

within a potential sliding mass is estimated using two-dimensional dynamic finite

element methods. The seismic coefficient is the ratio of the force induced by an

earthquake in a sliding block to the total mass of that block. Alternatively, the seismic

coefficient time history can be obtained directly by averaging acceleration values from

several different nodal points within the sliding block at each time interval. These

analyses are presented in calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.29, revision 0.

3. For a specified potential sliding mass, the seismic coefficient time history for that mass is

compared with the yield acceleration ky. When the seismic coefficient exceeds the yield

acceleration, down-slope movement will occur along the direction of the assumed failure

plane. The movement will decelerate and will stop after the level of the induced

acceleration drops below the yield acceleration, and the relative velocity of the sliding

1:\Project\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.01.30\GEO.DCPP.0 1.30.doc Page 3 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. (- of 48 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.30

REVISION 0

mass drops to zero. The accumulated down-slope permanent displacement is calculated

by double-integrating the increments of the seismic coefficient time history that exceed

the yield acceleration. The program DEFORMP (see software section below) was used to

compute the permanent displacements. The results of these computations are presented

below.

SOFTWARE

The program DEFORMP was validated in GEO.DCPP.01.35, revision 1 and used in this package

for the displacement computation.

ANALYSIS

The earthquake-induced deformation was initially estimated (in an approximate manner) using a

Newmark type (Newmark, 1965) analysis for a sliding block on a rigid plane. An estimated yield

acceleration of 0.5g (based on estimates from calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.28) was used

to calculate the deformation of the potential sliding masses. The displacement was computed for

the negative direction (representing down-slope movement) only. The down-slope permanent

displacement of the sliding mass was integrated by using the input rock motions in the positive

direction (representing up-slope direction) only. These preliminary displacement estimates were

used to help in selecting the ground motion time histories that provided the largest permanent

displacement, for subsequent use as input to the dynamic response analyses.

Table 1 shows the calculated down-slope permanent displacements (for the five sets of rotated

rock motions) using the program DEFORMP, following the Newmark rigid block approach

described above. Details of the DEFORMP calculations including the input and output files are

included in the enclosed compact disc. The results indicate that, on average, ground motion sets

1, 5, 6, provided the largest displacements (0.30 feet to 0.51 feet) for yield acceleration of 0.5g.

Set 1 motion, when combined with the negative fault normal component, produced 0.30 feet of

displacement at section E-E', however when combined with the positive fault normal

component, produced much smaller displacement than that from sets 5 and 6.

Accordingly rock motion sets 5 and 6 were selected as the input motions for the dynamic finite

element analyses that are described in calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.29. Both motions are


Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. -1 of 48 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO. DCPP.01.30

REVISION 0

rotated relative to the orientations of sections L-L' and E-E' using the fault parallel and the

negative fault normal components.

TABLE 1. DOWN SLOPE DISPLACEMENT CALCULATED BASED ON

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

Set No. Description Polarity ky=0.50g of FN E-E 123 L-L91

Set 1 Lucerne FN- 0.05 0.11

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

FN+ 0.08 0.03

Set 3 LGPC FN- 0.09 0.09 FN+ 0.08 0.06

Set 5 El Centro FN- 0.24 0.18 FN+ 0.13 0.15

Set 6 Saratoga FN- 0.51 0.38 FN+ 0.07 0.05

RESULTS

Earthquake-induced Displacements at full ground motions

The results of stability analyses were reported in calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.28. Using

the yield accelerations for potential sliding masses having the lowest factor of safety obtained for

section L-L' and E-E' in calculation package GEO.DCPP.0 1.28, the potential for permanent

displacements was evaluated using the concept of yield acceleration and procedure described

above.

The potential sliding masses and the node points where the computed acceleration time histories

were used to develop average-acceleration time histories for each sliding mass, are presented in

Figures 2 and 3, for sections L-L' and E-E', respectively. The computed average acceleration

time histories for the potential sliding masses are presented in Figures 4 and 5 for sections L-L'

and E-E', respectively. The computed peak seismic coefficient, kmax, for the potential sliding

masses at sections L-L' and E-E' are listed in Table 2.

:\Project\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.01.30\GEO.DCPP.01.30.doc Page 5 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. % of 48


The seismic coefficient time histories shown in Figures 4 and 5 were then double integrated,

using the program DEFORMP, to obtain earthquake-induced displacements for any specified

yield acceleration. Details of these calculations including the input and out files are included in

the enclosed compact disc labeled GEO.DCPP.01.30. Note that the positive direction (shown in

Figure 1) of the rock motions is consistent with the coordinate system selected for the dynamic

analysis, i.e. the horizontal coordinate increases in the up-slope direction. As mentioned before,

the integration was made for the ground motion amplitudes exceeding the yield acceleration in

the positive direction only, and the resulting displacement in the down-slope direction was

computed for each potential sliding mass.

The relationships between calculated displacement and yield acceleration, ky, for each of the two

potential sliding masses considered, are presented on Figures 6 and 7 for sections L-L' and E-E',

respectively. The normalized relationships between calculated displacement and yield

acceleration ratio, ky/kmax, for the potential sliding masses considered, are presented on Figures 8

and 9 for sections L-L' and E-E', respectively.

The yield accelerations estimated for potential sliding masses at sections L-L', E-E', and D-D'

are also presented in Table 2. These results were presented in calculation package

GEO.DCPP.01.28, revision 0. For the yield acceleration values listed in Table 2, the earthquake

induced down-slope displacements for the potential sliding masses at sections L-L' and E-E'

were estimated from Figures 6 and 7, and are summarized in the same table. For the potential

sliding mass at section D-D', the average acceleration time histories for potential sliding mass at

section E-E' were used to calculate earthquake induced deformation (i.e. Figure 7). This is

because that the seismic response of section D-D' was not analyzed, and it is estimated that it

could be similar to those at section E-E'.

Computed permanent displacements using set 5 motion as input, range from about 0.5 foot, for

the potential sliding mass at section E-E' to about 1.3 feet for the potential sliding mass at

section L-L'. Computed displacements using ground motion set 6 as input, are lower and range

from 0.3 foot for the sliding mass at section E-E', to about 0.9 foot at section L-L'.

l:\Project\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.01.30\GEO.DCPP.0 1.30.doc Page 6 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. cl of 48 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.30

REVISION 0

Earthquake-induced displacements at reduced ground motion levels

Peak accelerations computed along the slope surface at sections L-L' and E-E', using reduced

input bedrock motions (scaled to 0.15g), were reported in calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.29,

Revision 0. The computed peak accelerations in the vicinity of the potential sliding masses at the

two sections analyzed were of the order of 0.3g. The estimated peaks (kmax) of the average

acceleration time histories within the specified potential sliding masses are expected to be less

than 0.3g. The computed yield accelerations shown in Table 2 for the corresponding sliding

masses are of the order of 0.5 g. Therefore, because the earthquake-induced peak accelerations

are less than the yield acceleration, the potential for downslope displacements are expected to be

negligible.

TABLE 2 COMPUTED DOWN-SLOPE DISPLACEMENTS

USING SET 1 AND SET 5 INPUT MOTIONS

Sliding Input Factor of Yield Peak Seismic Down-slope Mass Motion Safety Acceleration, Coefficient, Displacement,

Location k, (g) k. , (g) feet

L-L' Set 5 1.60 0.46 1.15 1.3

E-E" Set 5 3.38 0.57 1.07 0.50

D-D" Set 5 2.21 0.45 1.07 1.1

L-L' Set 6 1.60 0.46 0.97 0.90

E-E' Set 6 3.38 0.57 0.91 0.32

D-D' Set 6 2.21 0.45 0.91 0.85

REFERENCES

1. Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. Work Plan, Laboratory Testing of Soil and Rock Samples,

Slope Stability Analyses, and Excavation Design for Diablo Canyon Power Plant

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Site, Revision 2, dated December 8, 2000.

2. Geosciences Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.28, Revision 0, Stability and yield

acceleration analysis of potential sliding masses along DCPP ISFSI transport route.

3. Geosciences Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.29, Revision 0, Determination of

seismic coefficient time histories for potential sliding masses on DCPP ISFSI transport

route.

l:\Project\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.01 .30\GEO.DCPP.0 1.30.doc Page 7 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. to of 48 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.30

REVISION 0

4. Geosciences Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.35, Revision 1, Verification of

computer code - DEFORMP.

5. Makdisi, F.I., and Seed, H.B., 1978, Simplified procedure for estimating dam and

embankment earthquake-induced deformations: Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering

Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, v. 104, no. GT7, July, pp. 849-867.

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

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. 09/28/2001, PG&E Geosciences, Robert K. White, Re: Confirmation of transmittal of

inputs for DCPP ISFSI slope stability analyses.

2. 11/12/01, PG&E Geosciences, Robert K. White, Re: Forwarding of approved plan and

cross-sections D-D', E-E', and L-L' for DCPP ISFSI transport route stability analyses

3. 11/9/01, William Lettis & Associates, Inc.. Jeff Bachhuber, Re: Azimuths for Analytical

Cross-sections - ISFSI, e-mail transmittal to F. Makdisi.

4. 08/23/2001, William Lettis & Associates. Inc., Jeff Bachhuber, Re: Revised Estimates for

-•- Hosgri Fault Azimuth, DCPP ISFSI Project.

5. 10/18/2001, PG&E Geosciences, Joseph Sun, Re: Positive direction of the fault parallel

component time history on the Hosgri fault.

6. 10/25/2001, PG&E Geosciences, Robert White, Re: Input parameters for calculations,

7. 10/31/2001, PG&E Geosciences, Robert White. Re: Confirmation of preliminary inputs

to calculations for DCPPISFSI site.

8. 11/1/2001, PG&E Geosciences, Robert White. Re: Confirmation of additional inputs to

calculations for DCPP ISFSI site.

9. 11/19/01, PG&E Geosciences, Robert K. White. Re: Transmittal of additional inputs for

DCPP ISFSI transport route analysis.

ENCLOSURE

Compact Disc (CD), labeled, "Data Files for Calculation Package GEO.DCPP.01.30" with input

and output files for computed earthquake-induced displacements of potential sliding

masses.

:\Project\6000s\6427.006\geo.dcpp.01.30\GEO.DCPP.01.30.doc Page 8 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. j_ of 48 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.30

REVISION 0

N

Az= 3380

Section E-E' Az= 350

Section L-L' Az= 670

- Motion, A

Figure 1. Orientations of Section E-E', Section L-L' and Hosgri Fault.

Page 9 of 46

I

K

280

260

240

220

a,

.o 200

U, w

180

160

140-

K

I I I I I I

120 T I r - I I 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 Horizontal Distance, feet

Figure 2. Potential Sliding Mass and Node Points of Computed Acceleration Time Histories for Cross Section L-L'.

K,

0

4•.

C) n

C-)

C) n rn

0 0

00

w w

4? 180C"

.o 160

_. 140uJ

120

100- -3 80- -.- r-T--

650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250


z

00

0 Figure 3. Potential Sliding Mass and Node Points of Computed Acceleration Time Histories for Cross Section E-E'. b 0

<0

C/) C)

z. o

(

-qqw

/

1.0

S 0.5

' -0.0 a) (D

O-0.5 <

-1.0 L _j_ Average cbeleration inpotential slidipg mass using set 5 motion 0 10 20 30 40 30 40 1.0

0.5 .2 .

_O 0.0

8 -0.5

Average acceleration in potential sliding mass using set 6 motion -1 .0 m- , 0 10 20 30 40 Time (second) >

mo& 0

Figure 4. Average acceleration time histories of potential sliding masses at section L-L'. Z R

Q 0

1.0

C 0.5 S o o-F .2• c..)

Z 0.0

-0.5 =

Average apceleration in eotential sliding mass using set 5 motion -1.0

i 0 10 20 30 40

1.0

0.5

0.0

8 -0.5 > n

Average cceleration in potential slidipg mass using set 6 motion , -1,0 > > 0 10 20 30 40 -e

Time (second)

Figure 5. Average acceleration time histories of potential sliding masses at section E-E'. zL. 00O

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. IL of 48


100.00

10.00

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 ky

Figure 6. Permanent displacement versus yield acceleration from average acceleration time histories, section L-L'.

Page 14 of 46

a)

E 1.00 a) C.,

C

0.10

0.01

1.0

I

0.2 0.4ky

0.6 0.8

Figure 7. Permanent displacement versus yield acceleration from average acceleration time histories, section E-E'.

Page 15 of 46

100.0

10.00

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. L- of 48


0 _ _

Potential sliding mass in section E-E' -... ..------ from set 5 motion, kmax = 1.07 g

- - from set 6 motion, kmax = 0.91 g

NN

\\\\

_ -N-\E C.) CZ

CL) 0

1.00

0.10

0.010.0 1.0

100.0

0.2 0.4ky/kma x

0.6 0.8 1.0

Figure 8. Permanent displacement versus yield acceleration ratio from average acceleration time histories, section L-L'.

Page 16 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. q of 48


03

Potential sliding mass in section L-L' ,, -------- - from set 5 motion, kmax = 1.15 g

,,-from set 6 motion, kmax = 0.97g

\

, \ -___

\

•\ 7N

10.0(

a)

E a)

CD

ci5

1.00

0.10

0.010.0

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. tq of 48 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.30

REVISION 0

100.00

10.00

E 1.00

D 0 CuL

C',

0.10

0.010.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ky/kmax

Figure 9. Permanent displacement versus yield acceleration ratio from average acceleration time histories, section E-E'.

I

Page 17 of 46



ATTACHMENT 1

Page 18 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. IA of 48

Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyCALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.30

Geosciences REVISION 0 245 Market Street, Room 418B Mail Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 415/973-2792 Fax 415/973-5778

page 1 of 2 trans2fml .doc:rkw:9/28/01

Page 19 of 46

I

I

IDr. Faiz Makdisi

Geomatrix Consultants 2101 Webster Street Oakland, CA 94612

September 28, 2001

Re: Confirmation of transmittal of inputs for DCPP ISFSI slope stability analyses

DR. MAKDISI:

This is to confirm transmittal of inputs related to slope stability analyses you are scheduled to perform for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) under the Geomatrix Work Plan entitled "Laboratory Testing of Soil and Rock Samples, Slope Stability Analyses, and Excavation Design for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Site."

Inputs transmitted include:

Drawing entitled "Figure 21-19, Cross Section I-1'." dated 9/27/01, labeled "Draft," and transmitted to you via overnight mail under cover letter from Jeff Bachhuber of WLA and dated 9/27/01.

Time histories in Excel file entitled "timehistories 3comprevl.xls," dated 8/17/2001, file size 3,624 KB, which I transmnited to you via email on 8/17/2001.

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

Please note that both these inputs are preliminary until the calculations they are part of have been fully approved. At that time, I will inform you in writing of their status. These confirmation and transmittal letters are the vehicles for referencing input sources in your calculations.

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. 2V of 48 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.30

REVISION 0

Confirmation of transmittal of inputs for DCPP ISFSI slope stability analyses

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

I am also attaching a copy of the Work Plan. Please make additional copies for members of your staff assigned to this project, review the Work Plan with them, and have them sign Attachment 1. Please then make copies of the signed attachment and forward to me.

If you have any questions, feel free to call.

Thanks.

ROBERT K. WHITE

Attachment

cc: Chris Hartz

page 2 of 2

Page 20 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. _7 of 48 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.30

REVISION 0

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 21 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. gý of 48

Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyCALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.30

Geosciences REVISION 0 245 Market Street, Room 418B Mail Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 415/973-2792 Fax 415/973-5778


November 12, 2001

Re: Forwarding of Approved Plan and Cross Sections D-D', E-E', and L-L' for

DCPP ISFSI Transport Route Stability Analyses

DR. MAKDISI:

Please find enclosed the following approved plan and cross sections from Geosciences Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.21, rev. 1:

Figure 21-3, Geologic Map of the ISFSI Site and Transport Route Vicinity Figure 21-17a, Cross Section D-D' through Patton Cove Landslide Figure 21-18a, Cross Section E-E' Figure 21-25, Cross Section L-L'

for your use in DCPP ISFSI transport route stability analyses. These figures supersede those transmitted to you in draft form by Rich Koehler of William Lettis Associates on October 25, 2001.

Also for your use, we have determined the azimuth of each section from Figure 21-3, as follows:

Section D-D': 38 degrees Section E-E': 34 degrees Section L-L': 67 degrees


ROBERT K. WHITE

Enclosures

page 1 of 1 1tr2fm6.doc:rkw: 11/12/01

Page 22 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. 2A of 48 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.30

REVISION 0

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 27 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. 3-_ of 48 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.30

REVISION 0

Faiz Makdisi

From: Jeff Bachhuber [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 9:42 AM To: Page, William Cc: [email protected] Subject: AZIMUTHS FOR ANALYTICAL CROSS SECTIONS - ISFSI

Nov. 9, 2001

Bill:

Per your request, we have calculated azimuths for cross sections used for stability analyses for the DCPP ISFSI project. The azimuths were determined using a protractor and the WLA (2001) Geologic Map of the ISFS1 Site and Transport Route Vicnity (Figure 21-3 from Calculation Package 21). The following azimuths were determined:

Section D-D': above transport route - 0290 below transport route - 0380 average total section above and below transport route - 032'

Section E-E': below elevation 600' - 035°

above elevation 600' - 0190

Section I-I': 300'

Section L-L': 0670

Please call me if you have any questions regarding these azimuths, or require additional information.

WILLIAM LETTIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Jeff Bachhuber Jeff Bachhuber William Lettis & Associates, Inc. 1777 Botelho Dr., STE 262 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 [email protected] (925) 256-6070 TEL (925) 256-6076 FAX

l1

Page 28 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. 3_ of 48 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.30

REVISION 0

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 29 of 46

,qalcqtqation..,52a27.!0,740,.ReyvQAttachmejit-Ag..I__•of48 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.30

REVISION 0

William Lettis & Associates, inc.

1777 Bctelho Drive, Stilte 262, WaRlnt Creek, California 94596 Voice: (925) 256-6070l FAX: (925) 256-6076

MEMORANDUM

TO: Dr. Faiz Makdisi - Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. FROM: Jeff L. Bachhuber - William Lettis & Associates, Inc. DATE: August 23, 2001

RE: Revised Estimates for Hosgri Fault Azimuth, DCPP ISFSI Project

FAIZ:

This memorandum provides a revised strike azimuth of 338' for the I-Iosgri fault for evaluation of ground motion directional components for slope stability analyses at the PG&E DCPP ISFSI site. The revised azimuth presented in this memorandum supercedes the previous estimated azimuths (328' to 335') presented in our memorandum dated August 8, 2001, and is based on a re-evaluation of fault maps in the PG&E LTSP (1988), and ISFSI project Calculation Package GEO.01.21.

The revised estimated average strike for the Hosgri fault nearest the ISFSI site (between Morro Bay and San Luis Bay) is 338'. Figure 21-23 of Calculation Package GEO.01.21, which previously showed an azimuth of 3400 for the Hosgri fault, will be revised to correspond to this re-interpreted average strike. Discrete faults and local reaches of the fault zone exhibit variations in strike azimuth between about 328' and 338', but the average overall strike of 3380 is believed to be the best approximation for the ground motion modeling,

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

Jeff Bachhuber

Cc: Rob White/Bill Page - PG&E Geosciences

Page 30 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. i,_ of 48


ATTACHMENT 5

Page 31 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. a-of 48 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.30

REVISION 0

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

I¶ Geosciences Department

P.O- 8jox 770000, Mail C. San Francisco, CA 94177

Fax: (415) 973-5773

TELEFAX COVER SHEET

To:

Company: 1r•'r/!'

Phone: r•tz/) 6r'l- 4I",-

Fax: 44 4-1cc:

Date: C(2c.-L ' Number of pages including

cover sheet: -_ _

REMARKS: o Per request C3 For review C] Reply ASAP E Please comment

J

f2 E~M fa Z t.Are ciu1 11 4 t ,11'6e-i . 1{

. -,•-',-c

I

Page 32 of 46

From:

Company: PG&E

Phone: 1415) 973- :-L4'

Fax: 1415) 973-5778

C:%031 ý--'Aoc

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. IS of 48

CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01 30

REVISION 0

PACIFIC. GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPAN-f GEOS CIENCES DEP.ARTMEENT CALCULATION DOCUMNENT

Calc Number 6' -•F °[./r Revision ._

Date Oci"o.k-i / 2',)( Caic Pages;: Z-4, Verification Method: A Verification Pages: 17 • '

< ~ t 7ý /O- L'/

PREPARED BY: DATE C A~1-~( 3

Printed Name

VERPFTED BY:

Organization

DATE Orai er/on

Printed Name organization

APPROVED BY: DATE

OrganizatiOn

-L i. I LOV~D "" - , LU-F

-- 17 " "--I.. -_., .:.. . ... . .. .. C - . ..

"<", , ,"- ,•4"

Page 33 of 46, , l-M.

Prin-Eed*;ame

,;'¢p : ,/D %

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. _3 of 48


Calc Number: GEO.DCPP.01.14

Rev Number: 1 Sheet Number: 4 of 26

Dare: 10/12/01

6. BODY OF CALCULATIONS

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

Table 6- 1. Time of Fling

Set Reference Time History Approximate Arrival Time Polarity* Arrival time of of fling (tl) S-waves (see),

I Lucerne 8.0 7.1 -1 2a Yarimca 9.0 8.5 -1 3 LGPC 4.0 3.4 -1 5 El Centro (1940) 1.5 0.0 1 6 Saratoga 4.5 3.7 -1 * The polarity is applied to the fault parallel time history from calculations GEO.DCPP.01.13 (rev 1) to cause constructive interference between the S-wave and the fling- (eq. 5-2).

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

Since DCPP is on the east side of the Hosgri fault and the fault has right-lateral slip, the permanent tectonic deformation at the site will be to the southeast. In the time histories the fling has a positive polarity. Since the tectonic deformation will be: to the southeast, the positive direction of the fault parallel time history is defined to the* southeast.

Step 2: Fling Time History Using the values of A, o, and Tiln given in input 4-1, and the values oft1 given in Table 6-1, the fling time history is determined using eq. (5-1). The computed fling time histories for the 5 sets are shown in Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Page 34 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. •1 of 48


ATTACHMENT 6

Page 35 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. u_ of 48


Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geosciences REVISION 0

245 Market Street. Room 418B Mail Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 9417415/973-2792 Fax 4151973-5778


October 25, 2001

Re: Input parameters for calculations

DR. MAKDISI:

As required by Geosciences Calculation Procedure GEO.001, entitled "Development and Independent Verification of Calculations for Nuclear Facilities," rev. 4, I am providing you with the following input items for your use in preparing calculations.

1. The shear wave velocity profiles obtained in borings BA98-1 and BA98-3 in 1998 are presented in Figure 21-42, attached, of Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.21, entitled "Analysis of Bedrock Stratigraphy and Geologic Structure at the DCPP ISFSI Site," rev. 0, and can be so referenced. These profiles were previously presented in Figure 10 of the WLA report entitled "Geologic and Geophysical Investigation, Dry Cask Storage Facility, Borrow and Water Tank Sites," dated January 5, 1999.

2. The average unit weight of rock obtained from the hillside has been determined to be 140 pounds per cubic foot, as documented in a data report entitled "Rock Engineering Laboratory Testing - GeoTest Unlimited."

3. Regarding the time histories provided to you on 8/17/01, since the tectonic deformation will be to the southeast, the positive direction of the fault parallel time history is defined as to the southeast, as described in Geosciences Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.14, entitled "Development of Time Histories 'with Fling," rev. 1, page 4.

4. The source of the shear modulus and damping curves are Figures Q19-22 and Q19-23, attached, from PG&E, 1989, Response to NRC Question 19 dated December 13, 1988, and can be so referenced.

Regarding format of calculations, please observe the following:

trt2fml .doc:rkw: 10/25/01

Page 36 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. )A of 48

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

If you have any questions regarding the above, please call me.

ROBERT K. WHITE

Attachments

Page 37 of 46

CALCULATION pAG*CajQ•Qp.(&f•I at ions REVISION 0

Calculation 52.27lO.1 O,ý5 v. 0, Ayacisly tt Ai-Pt.,Vof 48 Borings 98BA-1 and 98BA-4P

Boring 9811A-3Velocity (mpters/second)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500300 350700

-R1-R2VsBA98-04: 7 -O-C--s-RI Vs BA 98-04

--- R I VP 8A 96-48 _______ ____ * RI1-R2 'Vs BA 98-01 .

j 1-R1-R2 VpBA 98-011 5

S-R1 VsBA 98-01 ; 40 --- R 1R2Vp BA 98-01t 40 SR1 \p BA 98-0

60...Pad grade at 310'

100 10_

1200

120 2506

140 w .... ... .. .... .... ... it2 3 0

16021

1210

190

150

10000 12000 1400002000 6000 8000 Velocity (feet/second)

c

0 500 1000 1500

4000 Pad grade at 310'32

~R 1-R2V.31 207S-R 1Vs 300

- ~S-R I Vp

40 ~R 1-R2 Vp 7- 20

60 260

80-1240

100 -- n220 .... .F ........ S120

14018

16016

240. 8

Velocity (meterS/second)

0)

a)i

0Note. Average velocity profiles interpreted from data.

R1 - R2 = Receiver- to-receiver velocity (3.3-foot spacing) S-Al = Source- to- receiver velocity (10.3-foot spacing)

K.

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Velocity (fee;isecond)

Modified from Geo Vision (1998). OCPP ISFSI SAR Section 2.6 Topical Report Appendix C

F DIABLO CANYON ISFSI

FIGURE 21-42 ISFSI SITE SUSPENSION LOGS AND

INTERPRETED AVERAGE SEISMIC VELOCITIES

G E O .IC P P O I 2 1 R E V 0O c o e 1 5 2 0 RagTT6-1ir OtoeriS 20

ý 2a(

/

(

4000

3000 3500 40004000

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. k) of 48 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.30

REVISION 0

ATTACHMENT 7

Page 39 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. 4_kof 48 CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01 30


I DR. FAIZ MAKDISI GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS 2101 WEBSTER STREET OAKLAND, CA 94612

October 31, 2001

Re: Confirmation of preliminary inputs to calculations for DCPP ISFSI site

DR. MAKDISI:

A number of inputs to calculations for the DCPP ISFSI slope stability analyses have been provided to you in a preliminary fashion. This letter provides confirmation of those inputs in a formal transmittal. A description of the preliminary inputs and their formal confirmation follow.

Letter to Faiz Makdisi from Rob White dated June 24, 2001. Subject: Recommended rock strength design parameters for DCPP ISFSI site slope stability analyses.

This letter recommended using 0 50 degrees for the preliminary rock strength envelope in your stability analyses, and indicated that this value would be confirmed once calculations had been finalized and approved. Calculations GEO.DCPP.01.16, rev. 0, and GEO.DCPP.0 1.19, rev. 0, are approved and this recommended value is confirmed.

Letter to Faiz Makdisi from Rob White dated September 28, 2001. Subject: Confirmation of transmittal of inputs for DCPP ISFSI slope stability analyses.

This letter provided confirmation of transmittal of cross section I-' and time histories, and indicated that these preliminary inputs would be confirmed once calculations had been approved. Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.21, rev. 0, is approved and section I-I' as described in the September 28 letter is confirmed. A copy of the figure from the approved calculation is attached. Calculations GEO.DCPP.01.13, rev. 1, and GEO.DCPP.0 1.14, rev. 1, are both approved and time histories as described in the September 28 letter are confirmed. A CD of the time histories from the approved calculations is attached.

page 1 of 2 Itr2fm3.doc:rkw: 10/31/01

"Page 40 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. __of 48

Faiz MakdisiCALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.30

Confirmation of preliminary inputs to calculations for RIDMIM,1M site

Email to Faiz Makdisi from Joseph Sun dated October 24, 2001. Subject: Ground motion parameters for back calculations.

This email provided input for a back calculation to assess conservatism in clay bed properties in the slope. Inputs included maximum displacement per event of 4 inches and a factor of 1.6 with which to multiply ground motions for use in the back calculation analysis. This letter confirms those input values, with the following limitation: these values have not been developed under an approved calculation, therefore should not be used to directly determine clay bed properties for use in forward analyses, but may be used for comparative purposes only, to assess the level of conservatism in those clay bed properties determined in approved calculations

Letter to Faiz Makdisi from Jeff Bachhuber dated October 10, 2001. Subject: Transmittal of Revised Rock Mass Failure Models - DCPP ISFSI Project.

This letter provided you with figures indicating potential rock mass failure models as superimposed on section I-I'. This letter confirms PG&E approval to use these models in your analyses. These figures are labeled drafts and are currently being finalized in a revision to Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.21. Once this revision and the included figures have been approved, I will inform you in writing of their status.

ROBERT K. WHITE

Attachments

page 2 of 2

Page 41 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. 44,of 48


ATTACHMENT 8

I

Page 42 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. •Lt of 48

CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.0 1.30



November 1, 2001

Re: Confirmation of additional inputs to calculations for DCPP ISFSI site

DR. MAKDISI:

Additional inputs to calculations for the DCPP ISFSI slope stability analyses have been

provided to you by Jeff Bachhuber of William Lettis Associates. This letter provides

confirmation.of our acceptance of those inputs in a formal transmittal. A description of

those additional inputs and their formal acceptance follow.

Letter to Faiz Makdisi from Jeff Bachhuber dated August 3, 2001. Subject:

Ground Motion Directional Components.

This letter recommended using an azimuth of 302 degrees plus or minus 10 degrees for

the orientation of the most likely failure surfaces, coinciding with Section I-I'. We

concur with this recommendation based on the discussion on page 53 of the approved

Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.21, rev. 0, and verification of the orientation of Section I-I

on Calculation Figure 21-4, attached.

Letter to Faiz Makdisi from Jeff Bachhuber dated August 23, 2001. Subject:

Revised Estimates for Hosgri Fault Azimuth, DCPP ISFSI Project.

This letter recommended using an azimuth of 338 degrees for the orientation of the

average strike of the Hosgri fault. We concur with this recommendation, based on

verification of the orientation as presented in the LTSP plates and as shown on

Figure 21-36, attached, of Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.21, rev. 0.

ROBERT K. WHITE

Attachments

page 1 of 1 Itr2fm4.doc:rkw:I1/1/01

Page 43 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. k1 of 48


ATTACHMENT 9

Page 45 of 46

Calculation 52.27.100.740, Rev. 0, Attachment A, Pg. it of 48LF uuv

CALCULATION PACKAGE GEO.DCPP.01.30 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geoscicnccs REVISION 0

245 Market Street, Room 418B Mail Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 415/973-2792 Fax 415/973-5778

DR. FAIZ MAKDISI GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS 2101 WEBSTER' STREET OAKLAND, CA 94612

November 19, 2001


DR. MAKDISI:

As part of the scope of your analysis of the stability of the transport route for the DCPP ISFSI, you are assessing stability of the route at various sections using both unreduced ground motions previously transmitted to you (reference my October 31 2001 letter to you) and reduced ground motions based on incorporating results of a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and the estimated exposure interval of the transporter on the route. A probabilistically reduced peak bedrock ground acceleration of 0.15g has been derived in calculation GEO.DCPP.01.02, and this value has been approved for further analyses. Accordingly, please scale the peak acceleration of the unreduced ground motions to this level for your transport route analyses.



ROBERT K. WHITE

page 1 of 1

Page 46 of 46

dcpp isfsi transport route (geo.dcpp.01.29, rev. 0) · pacific gas and electric company...

Documents