DOCSLIB.ORG

Discussion of Seismic Hazard Reevaluation and NRC's Technical

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Discussion of Seismic Hazard Reevaluation and NRC's Technical Discussion of Seismic Hazard Reevaluation and NRC’s Technical Focus Areas for Columbia Generating Station June 4, 2015 Agenda Introduction Presentation of Seismic Reevaluation Report ◘ SSHAC Activities ◘ Seismic Sources ◘ Ground Motion Model and Site Response Discussion of Interim Actions and Evaluations ◘ Flexible and Diverse Mitigation Strategies (FLEX) ◘ Seismic Analysis (PSA) ◘ Path Forward 2 Introduction Energy Northwest followed the approved process for development of seismic hazard reevaluation for the Columbia Generating Station site in response to Enclosure 1 of the NRC’s 10 CFR 50.54(f) Request for Information Screening determination performed in accordance with NRC- endorsed Screening, Prioritization, and Implementation Details (SPID) (EPRI 1025287) Energy Northwest will present a detailed technical basis to demonstrate how process was followed and is prepared to discuss each of the technical focus areas 3 SSHAC Activities Kevin Coppersmith Coppersmith Consulting, Inc. SSHAC Activities SSHAC Level 3 (SL3) conducted as “Hanford Site-Wide PSHA” with sponsorship from DOE and Energy Northwest Project planned and conducted to comply with NUREG-2117 and other guidance Roles and responsibilities of all project participants defined and adhered to Project-specific enhancements to SL3 process Participatory Peer Review Panel (PPRP) confirmed acceptability of both technical and process aspects of the project 5 Hanford Site-Wide SSHAC Level 3 PSHA Purpose of Study: to develop a technically defensible PSHA that can be used for design and safety evaluations at the Hanford Site, Washington, including Columbia Generating Station ◘ PSHA must enjoy high levels of regulatory assurance, as indicated by a SSHAC Level 3 process ◘ Must provide outputs that allow use at multiple facility sites within the Hanford Site, including the CGS ◘ Outputs must be compatible in format with site response analyses for site-specific facility input motions ◘ Compliant with NRC requirements, per 50.54(f) letter, and regulatory guidance ◘ Compliant with DOE Order 420.1B (later 420.1C) regarding 10-year update and expectations of DNFSB 6 SSHAC Guidelines and Guidance NUREG-2117 SSHAC Implementation Guidelines 7 Project Plan for SSHAC Level 3 PSHA Project Plan specifies: ◘ Project organization ◘ Participant roles and responsibilities ◘ Scope ◘ Schedule ◘ Deliverables and instructions for usage Provided a basis for all project planning and contracting Ongoing information for participants and reviewers Recommended elements given in NUREG-2117 Hanford PSHA Enhancements ◘ New data collection activities ◘ PPRP participation ◘ Interfaces between seismic source characterization (SSC), ground motion characterization (GMC), and site response 8 Selection Criteria for SSHAC Participants Bommer, J.J. and Coppersmith, K.J., 2013, SMiRT-22, Lessons Learned from Application of the NUREG-2117 Guidelines for SSHAC Level 3 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Studies for Nuclear Sites 9 HanfordProject PSHA Organization Project Organization 10 SeismicSeismic Source Source Characterization Characterization Team Team Kevin Coppersmith – TI Lead Lorraine Wolf Kathryn Hanson • Valentina Montaldo-Falero – Hazard Analyst Ryan Coppersmith • Roseanne Chambers – PSHA document integrator • Joe Lettrick – GIS data base manager Jeff Unruh 11 Ground Motion Characterization Team Julian Bommer - TI Lead Bob Youngs Linda Al Atik Gabriel Toro Adrian Rodriguez-Marek 12 Resource and Proponent Experts – WS1 Individual Affiliation Walt Silva Pacific Engineering & Analysis Carl Costantino Consultant Norm Abrahamson University of California, Berkeley Tuna Onur Onur Seemann Consulting Rob Graves U.S. Geological Survey Art Frankel U.S. Geological Survey Tom Hearns New Mexico State University Alan Rohay Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Tom Pratt U.S. Geological Survey Brian Sherrod U.S. Geological Survey Rick Blakely U.S. Geological Survey George Last Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Harvey Kelsey Humboldt State University Rex Flake Central Washington University Erick Burns U.S. Geological Survey Paul Thorne Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Bruce Bjornstad Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 13 Resource and Proponent Experts – WS2 Individual Affiliation Walt Silva Pacific Engineering & Analysis Carl Costantino Consultant Norm Abrahamson University of California–Berkeley Art Frankel U.S. Geological Survey Alan Rohay Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Suzette Payne Idaho National Laboratory Yousef Bozorgnia University of California–Berkeley Paul Spudich U.S. Geological Survey Jennifer Donahue Geosyntec Consultants Dave Boore U.S. Geological Survey Olga Ktenidou ISTerre, Université Joseph Fourier – CNRS Gail Atkinson University of Western Ontario Nick Gregor Consultant John Zhao Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, New Zealand Al Rohay Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Tom Pratt U.S. Geological Survey Brian Sherrod U.S. Geological Survey Rick Blakely U.S. Geological Survey Marcia McLaren Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Steve Reidel Washington State University Judy Zachariasen URS Corporation, Tyler Ladins Humboldt State University Craig Weaver U.S. Geological Survey 14 Participatory Peer Review Panel (PPRP) Bill Lettis Brian Chiou Woody Savage Ken Campbell, Chair Carl Stepp 15 Goal of a SSHAC Process “The fundamental goal of a SSHAC process is to properly carry out and completely document the activities of evaluation and integration, defined as: Evaluation: The consideration of the complete set of data, models, and methods proposed by the larger technical community that are relevant to the hazard analysis. Integration: Representing the center, body, and range of technically defensible interpretations in light of the evaluation process (i.e., informed by the assessment of existing data, models, and methods).” NUREG-2117 16 NUREG-2117 17 18 TI Team Working Meetings (WM) WM1 WM2 WM3 WM4 • 3-4 days duration • All team members • Conference room with GIS support 19 • PPRP observers Requirements for SSHAC Level 3 PPRP PPRP Roles and Responsibilities Technical review: ensure that the full range of data, models, and methods have been duly considered in the assessment and all technical decisions are adequately justified and documented Process review: ensure that the project conforms to the requirements of the selected SSHAC level Provide timely perspectives and advice regarding the manner in which ongoing activities can be improved or carried out more effectively Be present at all the formal workshops as observers and subsequently submit a consensus report containing comments, questions, and suggestions Provide one or more representatives of the PPRP to attend as observers the working meetings of the TI Teams Perform detailed review of all project documentation and provide written comments to ensure complete technical justification of integrated distribution Prepare PPRP Closure Letter providing final technical and process review 20 Hanford PPRP Major Activities Review of Project Plan and attendance at Kick-Off Full PPRP present at all 3 Workshops PPRP representative as observers at all 8 Working Meetings PPRP encouraged to interrogate TI Teams on their preliminary models at WS3 PPRP Briefing to review Final SSC and GMC models Review of Draft Report Preparation of PPRP 21 Closure Letter PPRP Closure Letter November 15, 2014 22 Seismic Source Characterization Model Kevin J. Coppersmith Coppersmith Consulting, Inc. Hanford Site-Wide SSHAC Level 3 PSHA 24 SSC-Related Activities Compilation of extensive geologic/geophysical/tectonic database Update and analysis of earthquake catalogs: crustal and subduction zone Identification of seismic source zones and future earthquake characteristics Structural geologic and Quaternary analyses of Yakima folds Assessments of behavioral characteristics of fault sources including segmentation and slip rates Incorporation of associated uncertainties, including both aleatory and epistemic components 25 Seismic Sources in SSC Model Cascadia Subduction Zone sources ◘ Plate interface ◘ Intraslab source Seismic source zones ◘ YFTB zone: serves as a “background” zone to fault sources ◘ Zones B, C, and D Fault sources within Yakima Fold and Thrust Belt (YFTB) ◘ 19 faults characterized ◘ More distant faults are implicitly included in source zones 26 New Data Collection and Analyses Focused studies and analyses designed to reduce uncertainties in key SSC and GMC issues, within the project schedule and budget GMC-related ◘ Velocities at recording sites ◘ Analyses of kappa ◘ Analyses of basin effects SSC-related ◘ Structural analyses of Yakima folds ◘ Quaternary geologic studies ◘ High-resolution earthquake relocation analyses 27 Seismic Source Characterization, Focus Area 1 1. Summarize the information used to constrain the slip rates on the YFTB faults, including: a. Methodology used to evaluate fault slip from topography including associated uncertainties in the ages and offsets. c. How potential effects of surficial erosion were accounted for in the use of an average topographic profile to represent structural relief in individual faults. Pertains to these sections of the report ◘ Section 5.2.1 Structural Analyses ◘ Section 8.4.3 Fault Characteristics Included in the SSC Model ◘ Appendix E, Section 5 Evaluation of Long-Term Structural Relief 28 Steps in Characterizing Fault Sources Measure topographic relief along lengths ◘ Define segments for use in estimating Mchar, Mmax ◘ Alternative rupture length, area relationships
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report
    RECONNAISSANCE SURFICIAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING OF THE LATE CENOZOIC SEDIMENTS OF THE COLUMBIA BASIN, WASHINGTON by James G. Rigby and Kurt Othberg with contributions from Newell Campbell Larry Hanson Eugene Kiver Dale Stradling Gary Webster Open File Report 79-3 September 1979 State of Washington Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources Olympia, Washington CONTENTS Introduction Objectives Study Area Regional Setting 1 Mapping Procedure 4 Sample Collection 8 Description of Map Units 8 Pre-Miocene Rocks 8 Columbia River Basalt, Yakima Basalt Subgroup 9 Ellensburg Formation 9 Gravels of the Ancestral Columbia River 13 Ringold Formation 15 Thorp Gravel 17 Gravel of Terrace Remnants 19 Tieton Andesite 23 Palouse Formation and Other Loess Deposits 23 Glacial Deposits 25 Catastrophic Flood Deposits 28 Background and previous work 30 Description and interpretation of flood deposits 35 Distinctive geomorphic features 38 Terraces and other features of undetermined origin 40 Post-Pleistocene Deposits 43 Landslide Deposits 44 Alluvium 45 Alluvial Fan Deposits 45 Older Alluvial Fan Deposits 45 Colluvium 46 Sand Dunes 46 Mirna Mounds and Other Periglacial(?) Patterned Ground 47 Structural Geology 48 Southwest Quadrant 48 Toppenish Ridge 49 Ah tanum Ridge 52 Horse Heaven Hills 52 East Selah Fault 53 Northern Saddle Mountains and Smyrna Bench 54 Selah Butte Area 57 Miscellaneous Areas 58 Northwest Quadrant 58 Kittitas Valley 58 Beebe Terrace Disturbance 59 Winesap Lineament 60 Northeast Quadrant 60 Southeast Quadrant 61 Recommendations 62 Stratigraphy 62 Structure 63 Summary 64 References Cited 66 Appendix A - Tephrochronology and identification of collected datable materials 82 Appendix B - Description of field mapping units 88 Northeast Quadrant 89 Northwest Quadrant 90 Southwest Quadrant 91 Southeast Quadrant 92 ii ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Periodically Spaced Anticlines of the Columbia Plateau
    Geological Society of America Special Paper 239 1989 Periodically spaced anticlines of the Columbia Plateau Thomas R. Watters Center for Earth and Planetary Studies, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. 20560 ABSTRACT Deformation of the continental flood-basalt in the westernmost portion of the Columbia Plateau has resulted in regularly spaced anticlinal ridges. The periodic nature of the anticlines is characterized by dividing the Yakima fold belt into three domains on the basis of spacings and orientations: (1) the northern domain, made up of the eastern segments of Umtanum Ridge, the Saddle Mountains, and the Frenchman Hills; (2) the central domain, made up of segments of Rattlesnake Ridge, the eastern segments of Horse Heaven Hills, Yakima Ridge, the western segments of Umtanum Ridge, Cleman Mountain, Bethel Ridge, and Manastash Ridge; and (3) the southern domain, made up of Gordon Ridge, the Columbia Hills, the western segment of Horse Heaven Hills, Toppenish Ridge, and Ahtanum Ridge. The northern, central, and southern domains have mean spacings of 19.6,11.6, and 27.6 km, respectively, with a total range of 4 to 36 km and a mean of 20.4 km (n = 203). The basalts are modeled as a multilayer of thin linear elastic plates with frictionless contacts, resting on a mechanically weak elastic substrate of finite thickness, that has buckled at a critical wavelength of folding. Free slip between layers is assumed, based on the presence of thin sedimentary interbeds in the Grande Ronde Basalt separating groups of flows with an average thickness of roughly 280 m.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Ellensburg Parks & Recreation System Comprehensive Plan Update
    City of Ellensburg CITY OF ELLENSBURG PARKS & RECREATION SYSTEM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE 2016 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 1 City of Ellensburg Parks & Recreation System Comprehensive Plan Update 2016 City of Ellensburg PARKS & RECREATION SYSTEM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE 2016 Page 2 City of Ellensburg Parks & Recreation System Comprehensive Plan Update 2016 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 3 City of Ellensburg Parks & Recreation System Comprehensive Plan Update 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Mayor Rich Elliott City Manager John Akers City Council Jill Scheffer1 Chris Herion Nancy Lillquist David Miller Mary Morgan Bruce Tabb Parks and Recreation Department Brad Case, Director Jodi Hoctor, Supervisor Aquatic and Recreation Diane Starkweather, Department Secretary Dennis Roberts, Coordinator Ellensburg Racquet & Recreation Center (ERRC) Katrina Douglas, Coordinator Adult Activity Center of Ellensburg (AAC) David Hurn Coordinator Youth Programs & Stan Bassett Youth Center (SBYC) Doug Demory, Parks Forman Parks and Recreation Commission Members Joe Sheeran-Chair…………. Term expires: May 31, 2017 Phyllis (PJ) MacPhaiden… Term expires May 31, 2017 Dolores Gonzalez…………. Term expires: May 31, 2018 Jack Frost…………………….. Term expires: May 31, 2018 Michael Burdick………….. Term expires: May 31, 2018 Karen Johnson………….. Term expires: May 31, 2016 Dan Witkowski…………… Term expires May 31, 2016 Prepared by: Arvilla Ohlde/AjO Consulting Robert W. Droll, Landscape Architect, P.S. MIG Inc. Jonathan Pheanis Project Manager 1 Currently serves as City Council Liaison to the Parks and Recreation Commission Page 4 City of Ellensburg Parks & Recreation System Comprehensive Plan Update 2016 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 5 City of Ellensburg Parks & Recreation System Comprehensive Plan Update 2016 PREFACE It with great pleasure that we present to you the City of Ellensburg Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Hazard Input Document (HID) Final SSC Model Contents
    Appendix D.1 Hanford Sitewide SSHAC Level 3 PSHA Project March 18, 2014 Hazard Input Document (HID) Final SSC Model Contents Appendix D.1 ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Appendix D.1 ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Description of Seismic Sources .................................................................................................. 2 1 Appendix D.1 Hanford Sitewide SSHAC Level 3 PSHA Project March 18, 2014 Hazard Input Document (HID) Final SSC Model This document is the Hazard Input Document (HID) that describes the Final Seismic Source Characterization (SSC) model for the Hanford PSHA. The goal of this HID is to provide sufficient information for the hazard analyst to unequivocally input the SSC model into the hazard code for calculations. In some cases, to avoid making the main text of this document unnecessarily bulky, tables defining some elements of the SSC model are included as appendices. Description of Seismic Sources Four types of seismic sources are identified in the model: seismic source zones, fault sources, and the Cascadia subduction zone (CSZ) intraslab and plate interface sources. Characteristics that are applicable to both the seismic source zones and fault sources are discussed first, followed by characteristics of source zones, fault sources, and CSZ sources. Common Characteristics for Source Zones and Fault Sources This section includes elements of the SSC model that are common to seismic source zones and fault sources. Rupture Size and Geometry Future earthquake ruptures are assessed to have rupture areas that are magnitude-dependent in the hazard calculations. The magnitude dependency for rupture area A is given by the following relationships as given by Hanks and Bakun (2008): M = log A + 3:98 for A≤ 537 km2; and M = 1.33 log A + 3:07 for A>537 km2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Grape Vine Eastern Washington’S Favorite Visitor Guide
    Free The Grape Vine Eastern Washington’s Favorite Visitor Guide A Northwest Tradition 30th Anniversary Edition 2016 Tours ● Events ● Attractions 'S STAY ANDRC PLAY Join Us For Daily Dinner Specials Prime Rib every Friday and Saturday Restaurant Overlooking The Golf Course Enjoy Big Screen TV’s In Our Sports Lounge Large Banquet Facilities For Family, Holiday & Office Parties Valley Lanes Bowling & Fun Center Take a Break! Fun for the Whole Family • BLACKJACK 1802 E. Edison, Sunnyside, Washington • SPANISH 21 10 Championship Lanes • PULL TABS • TEXAS SHOOTOUT • VIDEO GAMES • ULTIMATE TEXAS HOLD’EM • COSMIC BOWLING • SNACK BAR • DOUBLE ACTION BLACKJACK • ADUlt BEVERAGES Party Packages • AIR CONDITIONED • TEXAS HOLD’EM TOURNAMENts Bowling Included AND LIVE POKER WED-SUNDAY • PROGREssIVE PAI GOW WIN Book Your Ticket Redemption OVER $70,000 Party Now! and Video Games 839-6103 For All Ages Birthday Party Central RESTAURANT Sunnyside • 509-836-7555 'S CASINO 31A Ray Road SPORTS BAR Between Exit 69 and 72 on I 82 RC Open Mon-Thurs 4 p.m. • Fri-Sat-Sun 2 p.m. Next to Black Rock Creek Golf Course and Tucker Cellars Welcome to the 30th Edition of the Grape Vine, a Northwest tradition. Written, designed, and produced in Eastern Washington, The Prosser our visitor guide aims to give you the local’s view of the wine Danielle Fournier Record-Bulletin Publisher country we know and love. The tours, events, and attractions recordbulletin.com found in The Grape Vine are the best for fun and exploration from 613 7th Street EDITORIAL STAFF • Victoria Walker Ellensberg to the Tri-Cities.
    [Show full text]
  • Hanford Sitewide Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis 2014
    Hanford Sitewide Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis 2014 Contents 4.0 The Hanford Site Tectonic Setting ............................................................................................... 4.1 4.1 Tectonic Setting.................................................................................................................... 4.1 4.2 Contemporary Plate Motions and Tectonic Stress Regime .................................................. 4.11 4.3 Late Cenozoic and Quaternary History ................................................................................ 4.16 4.3.1 Post-CRB Regional Stratigraphy ............................................................................... 4.17 4.3.2 Summary of Late Miocene, Pliocene and Quaternary History .................................. 4.19 4.4 Seismicity in the Hanford Site Region ................................................................................. 4.21 4.4.1 Crustal Seismicity ..................................................................................................... 4.21 4.4.2 Cascadia Subduction Zone Seismicity ...................................................................... 4.26 4.5 References ............................................................................................................................ 4.28 4.i 2014 Hanford Sitewide Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Figures 4.1 Plate tectonic setting of the Hanford Site .................................................................................... 4.1 4.2 Areal extent
    [Show full text]
  • Differential Uplift and Incision of the Yakima River Terraces, Central
    PUBLICATIONS Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth RESEARCH ARTICLE Differential uplift and incision of the Yakima River 10.1002/2015JB012303 terraces, central Washington State Key Points: Adrian M. Bender1, Colin B. Amos1, Paul Bierman2, Dylan H. Rood3,4, Lydia Staisch5, • 26 10 Al- Be isochron burial ages and lidar 6 5 data constrain bedrock incision rates Harvey Kelsey , and Brian Sherrod • Incision rates spanning ~2.9 Myr imply 1 2 differential rock uplift over two folds Geology Department, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington, USA, Department of Geology and 3 • Modest uplift and shortening imply Rubenstein School of the Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA, Department that other regional structures are of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK, 4Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, also active East Kilbride, UK, 5U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Science Center, Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA, 6Geology Department, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California, USA Supporting Information: • Texts S1–S3, Tables S1 and S2, and Figures S1–S12 Abstract The fault-related Yakima folds deform Miocene basalts and younger deposits of the Columbia Plateau in central Washington State. Geodesy implies ~2 mm/yr of NNE directed shortening across the folds, Correspondence to: but until now the distribution and rates of Quaternary deformation among individual structures has been A. M. Bender, [email protected] unclear. South of Ellensburg, Washington, the Yakima River cuts a ~600 m deep canyon across several Yakima folds, preserving gravel-mantled strath terraces that record progressive bedrock incision and related rock uplift.
    [Show full text]
  • Thirty-One Days After Filing
    Washington State Register, Issue 11-12 WSR 11-11-013 WSR 11-11-013 sortium of landowners that includes the owner of a previous PERMANENT RULES LHP, the 4-O Ranch. DEPARTMENT OF Proposed deer and elk hunting on the Grande Ronde FISH AND WILDLIFE Vista LHP include: [Order 11-86—Filed May 6, 2011, 5:01 p.m., effective June 6, 2011] Landowner permits: Seven deer permits (three point minimum) and twenty-three elk permits (eleven bull and Effective Date of Rule: Thirty-one days after filing. twelve antlerless). Purpose: WAC 232-12-424 Public conduct on lands Public Special Permits: Three 3-pt minimum deer per- under cooperative agreement with the department— mits, six youth only antlerless deer permits, six bull elk per- Unlawful acts. mits, and twenty antlerless only elk permits. Purpose of the Proposal and its Anticipated Effects, The split of landowner and public deer and elk hunting Including Any Changes in Existing Rules: The department opportunity is within the guidelines established in Commis- is recommending creation of a new WAC that will regulate sion Policy C6002. public conduct on lands under cooperative agreement. Reasons Supporting Proposal: This proposal increases Examples of regulated activities include violating posted public deer and elk hunting access to private land in Asotin safety zones, quality hunting site rules, and driving vehicles County. in areas that have been posted closed to motorized vehicle WAC 232-28-331 Game management units (GMUs) travel. The new rule will allow enforcement of private lands boundary descriptions—Region one. access rules that are mutually agreed to by the landowner and Purpose of the Proposal and its Anticipated Effects, the department.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Gas Storage in Basalt Aquifers of the Columbia Basin, Pacific Northwest USA: a Guide to Site Characterization
    PNNL-13962 Natural Gas Storage in Basalt Aquifers of the Columbia Basin, Pacific Northwest USA: A Guide to Site Characterization prepared for United States Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory 626 Cochrans Mill Road Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15236 August 2002 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161; phone orders accepted at (703) 487-4650. This document was printed on recycled paper. (8/00) PNNL-13962 Natural Gas Storage in Basalt Aquifers of the Columbia Basin, Pacific Northwest USA: A Guide to Site Characterization S. P. Reidel V. G. Johnson F. A. Spane August 2002 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Executive Summary Increasing domestic and commercial demand for natural gas in the Pacific Northwest requires development of adequate storage facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Landslides and Related Mass Wasting Features in the Yakima River Corridor Field Trip
    Ellensburg Chapter, Ice Age Floods Institute Landslides and Related Mass Wasting Features in the Yakima River Corridor Field Trip Karl Lillquist Geography Department Central Washington University 1 April 2018 Field Trip Overview Field Trip Description: Central Washington includes a variety of landslides and related “mass wasting” features. Why? What causes these? How active are they? What have they impacted? On this trip, we will explore the evidence of various types of mass wasting along the Yakima River corridor from east of Cle Elum to south of Union Gap. Examples will include landslides, debris flows, rockfall, dry ravel, and creep. Along the way, we will develop a sense of what indicates past mass wasting, what caused it, what are its implications on the surroundings, and where it might occur again in the future. Our stops will range from ancient landslides to recent debris flows to the currently active Rattlesnake slide. Tentative Schedule: 10:00am Depart CWU 10:30 Stop 1— Lambert Road, East of Cle Elum 11:15pm Depart 11:45 Stop 2—Near MP 101, WA 10, North of Thorp 12:45 Depart 1:30 Stop 3—MP 20, WA 821, Yakima River Canyon 2:30 Depart 3:00 Stop 4—Between MP 3 and 4, WA 821, Yakima River Canyon 3:45 Depart 4:15 Stop 5—North of MP 74, US 97, South of Union Gap 5:00 Depart 6:00 Arrive at CWU 2 Our Route & Stops 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 1. General route map of field trip. Source: Google Maps. 3 Ellensburg to Lambert Road Route.
    [Show full text]
  • Stratigraphy of South-Central Washington
    t l WHC-SA-1764-FP _OV09 199_ Late Cenozoic Structure and o s T/ Stratigraphy of South-Central Washington S. P. Reidel N. P. Campbell K. R. Fecht K. A. Lindsey To bepublishedin SecondSymposiumonthe GeologyofWasaington Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management WHanfon;IestinlCompany[llouse RP,O,lchlandBox, _W.97oashington 99352 HanfordOpera0onsand EngmeenngCono'aclorfor _e U.S. 0epartmentot EnergyunclerContractOE.AC06.87RL10930 i i . - CopyrightLloen_e9ya==_mceo_In,=an=e.¢_emX=ih_ariaor, t=_po___ cneU.S.Gov_rvnent'r,gr,= to retaina non=clul_,, royUy-_reet=enl4 _narmto anyooPyngm¢ovettngmmI_. Approved for Public Release _l__lt_ DIIS!RtBU]'ION OF ]HIS DOCUMP-.N]" IS UNLIMITE_ J LEGALDISCLAIMER Thisreportwaspreparedas an accountof worksponsoredby an agencyof theUnitedStatesGovernment,Neitherthe UnitedStatesGovernmentnorany agencythereof,noranyof theiremployees,nor anyof theircontractors,subcontractors ortheiremployees,makesanywarranty,expressorimplied, orassumesanylegalliabilityorresponsibilityfor the accuracy,completeness,or anythirdparty'suseor theresults ofsuch useof anyinformation,apparatus,product,orprocess disclosed,orrepresentsthatits usewouldnotinfringe privatelyownedrights. Referencehereintoanyspecific commercialproduct,process,orserviceby tradename, trademark,manufacturer,orotherwise,doesnotnecessarily constituteor implyils endorsement,recommendationo,r favoringbytheUnitedStatesGovernmentorany agency thereoforits contractorsorsubcontractors.Theviewsand opinionsof authorsexpressedhereindo
    [Show full text]
  • USGS NEHRP Final Technical Report 1. Award Numbers 2. Title of Awards
    USGS NEHRP Final Technical Report 1. Award numbers G14AP00050, G14AP00054, G14AP00055 2. Title of awards Differential Uplift and Incision of the Yakima River Terraces: Collaborative Research with Western Washington University, University of Vermont and State Agricultural College, and University of California Santa Barbara a a 3. Authors Adrian M. Bender , Colin B. Amos , Paul Biermanb, Dylan H. Roodc,d,e, Lydia Staischf, Harvey Kelseyg, Brian Sherrodf aGeology Department, Western Washington University, 516 High St., MS 9080 Bellingham, WA 98225; [email protected], [email protected] bDepartment of Geology and Rubenstein School of the Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, 180 Colchester Avenue, Burlington, VT 05405-1785; [email protected] cDepartment of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK; [email protected] dScottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, East Kilbride G75 0QF, UK eEarth Research Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA; [email protected] fUS Geological Survey Earthquake Science Center, Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195; [email protected], [email protected] gGeology Department, Humboldt State University, 1 Harpst St., Arcata, CA 95521; [email protected] a b c,d 4. Principal investigators Colin B. Amos , Paul Bierman , Dylan H. Rood 5. Term of award June 2014 through May 2015 Bender, Adrian M., "Differential Incision and Uplift of the 6. List of related Yakima River Terraces" (2015). WWU Masters Thesis publications Collection. Paper 426. http://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet/426 Bender, A. M., Amos, C. B., Bierman, P. R., Rood, D.
    [Show full text]