DOCSLIB.ORG

Southwestern United States Ground Motion Characterization Sshac Level 3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Southwestern United States Ground Motion Characterization Sshac Level 3 SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES GROUND MOTION CHARACTERIZATION SSHAC LEVEL 3 Workshop #1 Proceedings Version 1.1 ii Southwestern United States Ground Motion Characterization SSHAC Level 3 WORKSHOP #1 PROCEEDINGS WORKSHOP #1 PROCEEDINGS: Critical Issues and Data Needs March 19-21, 2013 Hilton Oakland Airport, California Prepared for: Arizona Public Service Company Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Wandell, Christopher J. Senior Consulting "Chief" Civil Engineer Phone: (623) 393-6741; E-mail: [email protected] Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Power Plant Klimczak, Richard Director Geosciences Phone: (415) 973-2791; E-mail: [email protected] Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station McAndrews, Caroline Director, Nuclear Strategic Projects Phone: (949)368-3540; E-mail: [email protected] Version: 1.1 Date: May 13, 2013 Page ii Southwestern United States Ground Motion Characterization SSHAC Level 3 WORKSHOP #1 PROCEEDINGS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS and COMMON ACRONYMS ACR Active Crustal Region AFE Annual Frequency of Exceedance APS Arizona Public Services BBP Broad Band Platform CBR Center, Body, and Range CEA California Earthquake Authority CEC California Energy Commission CEUS Central and Eastern United States CFM Community Fault Models CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGS California Geological Survey CPUC California Public Utilities Commission DCPP Diablo Canyon Power Plant EE Evaluator Expert FGF Fragile Geological Feature FW Foot Wall GIS Geographic Information System GMC Ground Motion Characterization GMPE Ground Motion Prediction Equation GMRS Ground Motion Response Spectrum GPS Global Positioning System HID Hazard Input Document HC Hazard Calculation HW Hanging Wall Hz Hertz IPRG Independent Peer Review Group ITC Informed Technical Community LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging NGA Next Generation Attenuation NGA-West2 Project name for the update of the 2008 NGA models NI Newport Inglewood NI/RC Newport Inglewood / Rose Canyon NPP Nuclear Power Plant Page iii iv Southwestern United States Ground Motion Characterization SSHAC Level 3 WORKSHOP #1 PROCEEDINGS NSHM National Seismic Hazard Mapping PE Proponent Expert PEER Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center PGA Peak Ground Acceleration PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric OBT Oceanside Blind Thrust PM Project Manager PPRP Participatory Peer Review Panel PSHA Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis PTI Project Technical Integrator PV Palos Verdes PVNGS Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station QA Quality Assurance RC Rose Canyon RE Resource Expert RG Regulatory Guide SCE Southern California Edison SCEC Southern California Earthquake Center SCFM Statewide Community Fault Model SCSN Southern California Seismic Network SONGS San Onofre Nuclear General Station SSC Seismic Source Characterization SSHAC Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee SWUS Southwest United States TA Transportable Array TDI Technically Defensible Interpretation TI Technical Integrator UCERF2 Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 UCERF3 Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 USGS United States Geological Society U.S.NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission USR Unified Structural Representation VS,30 Shear Wave Velocity in the upper 30m WGCEP Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities WUS Western United States Page iv Southwestern United States Ground Motion Characterization SSHAC Level 3 WORKSHOP #1 PROCEEDINGS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS and COMMON ACRONYMS .......................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ v WORKSHOP #1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose: ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Approach: ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Workshop #1 Agenda ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Workshop #1 participants ............................................................................................................................... 6 WORKSHOP #1 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 8 Project background ......................................................................................................................................... 8 General workshop summary ........................................................................................................................... 8 Topic 1: Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs) ......................................................................... 8 Topic 2: Data to constrain GMPEs in Critical Ranges ............................................................................... 9 Topic 3: Use of Simulations for SWUS GMC .......................................................................................... 10 Topic 4: Arizona Ground Motion Data and Issues ................................................................................. 10 Topic 5: California Ground Motion Data and Issues .............................................................................. 11 Topic 6: Fragile Geological Features ...................................................................................................... 12 Topic 7: Reference Conditions ............................................................................................................... 12 Topic 8: Addressing Sigma for SWUS GMC ............................................................................................ 13 Focused questions submitted to Workshop #1 Presenters ........................................................................... 13 GROUND MOTION CHARACTERIZATION PRESENTATIONS ................................................................................. 21 TECHNICAL INTEGRATOR TEAM SUMMARIES and ACTIONS .............................................................................. 23 LETTER COMMENTARY FROM THE PARTICIPATORY PEER REVIEW PANEL ........................................................ 41 TECHNICAL INTEGRATION TEAM LEAD RESPONSES TO PARTICIPATORY PEER REVIEW PANEL COMMENTS .... 45 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................ 50 Page v Southwestern United States Ground Motion Characterization SSHAC Level 3 WORKSHOP #1 PROCEEDINGS WORKSHOP #1 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the Request for Information put forth on March 12, 2012 by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to the Near-Term Task Force’s (NTTF) evaluation of the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and Arizona Public Service (APS) are co-sponsoring a joint Southwestern U.S. (SWUS) Ground Motion Characterization (GMC) SSHAC Level 3 study for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP), the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), and the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS). This is the first out of three Workshops that will be conducted in accordance with the applicable SSHAC Level 3 guidelines. Purpose: The specific goals of Workshop #1 are to: 1) Review the ground rules for the conduct of SSHAC workshops and expert roles within the project 2) Identify the technical issues of highest significance to the hazard analysis. 3) Review available data that will be considered for constructing the GMC model; this includes identification of data, information and/or additional work to be done on the continuing development of the project to address those issues. It will also address the evaluations to be performed in the period leading up to Workshop #2 Approach: The goals of the Workshop have been accomplished by a series of presentations and discussions designed to provide the Technical Integration (TI) team with information pertaining to: (1) assessment of the main ground motion and uncertainty contributors to the ground motion shaking hazard at the three sites of interest, and (2) discussion on the availability, applications, and limitations of the available data. Presentations are also to address the new data collection efforts currently underway and those that will be completed throughout the next two years to support this SSHAC project. All the presentations are part of the project record. At this stage of the project, the focus is on identifying the data that are available to address the hazard- significant technical issues. Interpretation of the available data in terms of alternative models or implications to the seismic hazard at the site is to be avoided; this will be the focus of Workshop #2. Speakers have been provided with detailed guidance by the TI Lead to ensure that the presentations are oriented to the goals of the project and Workshop. When inclusion of interpretations cannot be avoided, the speakers have been asked to identify biases or limitations in the interpretation process. Page 1 2 Southwestern United
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Seismic Shift Diablo Canyon Literally and Figuratively on Shaky Ground
    SEISMIC SHIFT DIABLO CANYON LITERALLY AND FIGURATIVELY ON SHAKY GROUND Five years ago, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) informed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) about a newly discovered fault offshore from its Diablo Canyon nuclear plant that could cause more ground motion during an earthquake than the plant was designed to withstand. In other words, there was a gap between seismic protection levels of the plant and the seismic threat levels it faced. When similar gaps were identified at other nuclear facilities in California, New York, Pennsylvania, Maine, and Virginia, the facilities were not permitted to generate electricity until the gaps were closed. The electricity generation gaps did not trump the seismic protection gaps: the need for safety was deemed more important than the need for electricity and its revenues. But the two reactors at Diablo Canyon continue operating despite the seismic protection gap. In the former cases the NRC would not allow nuclear facilities to operate until they demonstrated an adequate level of safety through compliance with federal regulations. It wasn’t that evidence showed disaster was looming on the horizon. Instead, it was that evidence failed to show that the risk of disaster was being properly managed. At Diablo Canyon the NRC has flipped the risk management construct. Despite solid evidence that Diablo Canyon does not conform to regulatory requirements, the nuclear version of the “no blood, no foul” rule is deemed close enough to let its reactors continue operating. This seismic shift places Diablo Canyon’s two aging reactors literally and figuratively on shaky ground. If an earthquake occurs, it may result in more damage than the nuclear plant can withstand, with dire consequences for tens of thousands of Californians.
    [Show full text]
  • DCL-2011-600.Pdf
    Central Coastal California Seismic Imaging Project Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 1 PACIFIC GAS and ELECTRIC COMPANY APPLICATION FOR RESOURCE LEASE, PERMIT OR OTHER ENTITLEMENT FOR USE CENTRAL COASTAL CALIFORNIA SEISMIC IMAGING PROJECT Part 1, Section A, Item1. The following PG&E personnel are the project contacts throughout the environmental analysis and permitting processes for the Central Coastal California Seismic Imaging Project (CCCSIP): Mr. Mark Krause, Director, State Agency Relations 1415 L. Street, Suite 280 Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: 916-721-5709 Fax: 916-386-6720 e-mail: [email protected] Mr. Loren Sharp, Senior Director, Technical Services Diablo Canyon Power Plant Mail Code 104/6/603 PO Box 56 Avila Beach, California 93424 Phone: 805-781-9785 Fax: 805-545-4884 e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Stuart Nishenko, Senior Seismologist, Geosciences Mail Code N4C PO Box 770000 San Francisco, California 94177 Phone: 415-973-1213 Fax: 415-973-1409 e-mail: [email protected] Sarah Gassner, Supervisor, Land-Environmental Planning and Permitting 1455 E. Shaw Avenue Fresno, California 93710 Phone: 559-263-5073 Fax: 559-263-5262 e-mail: [email protected] Part 1, Section A, Item 2. PG&E has designated following company/personnel as agents for the Offshore Seismic Imaging Project: Mr. Ray de Wit, Senior Project Manager Padre Associates, Inc. 1485 Enea Court, Bldg. G, Suite 1480 Concord, California 94520 Phone: 925-685-9441 X 21 Fax: 925-685-8401 e-mail: [email protected] Page - 1 Central Coastal California Seismic Imaging Project Attachment 1 Mr. Simon Poulter, Partner Padre Associates, Inc. 5290 Overpass Road, Suite 217 Goleta, California 93111 Phone: 805-683-1233 X 4 Fax: 805-683-3944 e-mail: [email protected] Page - 2 Central Coastal California Seismic Imaging Project Attachment 2 ATTACHMENT 2 PACIFIC GAS and ELECTRIC COMPANY APPLICATION FOR RESOURCE LEASE, PERMIT OR OTHER ENTITLEMENT FOR USE CENTRAL COASTAL CALIFORNIA SEISMIC IMAGING PROJECT DESCRIPTION Part I, Section E, Item 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Faults Near DCPP : Sources of Uncertainty
    California Energy Commission DOCKETED 13-IEP-1J TN 71300 JUN 19 2013 Faults Near DCPP : Sources of Uncertainty Jeanne Hardebeck USGS, Menlo Park, CA Fault Information Needed for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment: (()1) Fault Geometry • Location • Strike, Dip, Rake • Length • Connection to other faults (2) Fault Slip Rate • Offset geological features • Past large earthquakes • Geodesy (GPS, InSAR) Known Faults Relevant to DCPP Seismic Hazard. Strike‐slip fault system: Hosgri Fault Shoreline Fault Geometry: ‐ Hosgri and Shoreline Faults both near‐vertical, strike‐slip motion. ‐ Hosgri and Shoreline Faults appear to join at earthquake depths, plausible they could rupture together. ‐ Southern end of Shoreline Fault unknown, connection to other faults to the south unknown. Slip Rate: ‐ Hosgri slip rate of 1‐3 mm/yr from geologic observations near San Simeon. ‐ Shlhoreline slip rate poorly constrained. Lithosphere, 2012 From J. Watt, SSHAC SSC Workshop 2 Southern End of Shoreline Fault? From J. Watt, USGS. Fault Geometry from Small Earthquakes From Hardebeck, BSSA, 2013. Multi-Fault Earthquakes. 2012 Sumatra 1999 California 1992 California 2002 Alaska From J. Hardebeck, SSHAC SSC Workshop 2 1999 Turkey EtiEstimat tded MiMaximum MitdMagnitude Earthquake: • Shoreline defined by seismicity: ‐ Mmax = 6.7. • Shoreline extended south to coast: ‐ Mmax = 6.8. • Hosgri, Lompoc to Big Sur: ‐ Mmax = 757.5. • Shoreline + Hosgri (pictured): ‐ Mmax = 7.2. From Hardebeck, BSSA, 2013. Weak bounds on Shoreline slip rate from small earthquakes. • Lower bound from extrapolation to Mmax=6.7. • Upper bound assuming slip rate less than Hosgri. • Slip rate: 0.04 mm/yr ‐ 3 mm/yr. • Recurrence time of M6.7 earthquakes: 1,000 yr ‐ 67,000 yr.
    [Show full text]
  • Southward Continuation of the San Jacinto Fault Zone Through and Beneath the Extra and Elmore Ranch Left-Lateral Fault Arrays, Southern California
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 5-2013 Southward Continuation of the San Jacinto Fault Zone through and beneath the Extra and Elmore Ranch Left-Lateral Fault Arrays, Southern California Steven Jesse Thornock Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Geology Commons Recommended Citation Thornock, Steven Jesse, "Southward Continuation of the San Jacinto Fault Zone through and beneath the Extra and Elmore Ranch Left-Lateral Fault Arrays, Southern California" (2013). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 1978. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/1978 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SOUTHWARD CONTINUATION OF THE SAN JACINTO FAULT ZONE THROUGH AND BENEATH THE EXTRA AND ELMORE RANCH LEFT- LATERAL FAULT ARRAYS, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA by Steven J. Thornock A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Geology Approved: ________________ ________________ Susanne U. Janecke James P. Evans Major Professor Committee Member ________________ ________________ Anthony Lowry Mark R. McLellan Committee Member Vice President of Research and Dean of the School of Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2013 ii ABSTRACT Southward Continuation of the San Jacinto Fault Zone through and beneath the Extra and Elmore Ranch Left-Lateral Fault Arrays, Southern California by Steven J. Thornock, Master of Science Utah State University, 2013 Major Professor: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • AGU Poster Session
    Dual-System Tectonics of the San Luis Range and Vicinity, Coastal Central California Douglas H. Hamilton, Consulting Geologist 2 Bassett Lane, Atherton, California 94027 Text and illustrations from poster displayed at the Wednesday, December 15 Session of the 2010 American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting San Francisco, California Dual – System Tectonics of the San Luis Range and Vicinity, Coastal Central California Douglas H Hamilton Consulting Geologist, Atherton, CA, United States ABSTRACT The M 6.5 "San Simeon" earthquake of December 22, 2003, occurred beneath the San Lucia Range in coastal central California, and resulted in around $250,000,000 property damage and two deaths from collapse of an historic building in the town of Paso Robles, located 40 km from the epicenter. The earthquake and more than 10,000 aftershocks were well recorded by nearby seismographs, which permitted detailed analysis of the event (eg: McLaren et al., 2008). This analysis facilitated evaluation of the hazard of the occurrence of a similar event in the nearby San Luis Range, located along the coast west of the City of San Luis Obispo some 55 km south of the San Simeon epicenter. The future occurrence of earthquakes analogous to the 2003 event in this area had been proposed in the late 1960's (eg: Benioff and Smith, 1967; Richter, 1969) but the apparent hazard of such occurrences came to be overshadowed by the discovery of the "Hosgri" strike slip fault passing close to the area in the offshore. However data accumulated since the early 1970's clearly demonstrate the hazard as being partitioned between nearby earthquakes of strike slip origin, and underlying earthquakes of thrust origin analogous to that of the 2003 San Simeon earthquake.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Jordan: Solving Prediction Problems in Earthquake System Science
    BLUE WATERS HIGHLIGHTS SOLVING PREDICTION PROBLEMS IN EARTHQUAKE SYSTEM SCIENCE Allocation: NSF/3.4 Mnh ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE PI: Thomas H. Jordan1 Collaborators: Scott Callaghan1; Robert Graves2; Kim Olsen3; Yifeng Cui4; The SCEC team has combined the Uniform California 4 4 1 1 1 Jun Zhou ; Efecan Poyraz ; Philip J. Maechling ; David Gill ; Kevin Milner ; Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF), the official statewide Omar Padron, Jr.5; Gregory H. Bauer5; Timothy Bouvet5; William T. Kramer5; 6 6 6 7 model of earthquake source probabilities, with the CyberShake Gideon Juve ; Karan Vahi ; Ewa Deelman ; Feng Wang computational platform to produce urban seismic hazard 1Southern California Earthquake Center models for the Los Angeles region at seismic frequencies up 2U.S. Geological Survey to 0.5 Hz (Fig. 1). UCERF is a series of fault-based models, 3 San Diego State University released by the USGS, the California Geological Survey, and 4San Diego Supercomputer Center 5 SCEC, that build time-dependent forecasts on time-independent National Center for Supercomputing Applications 6Information Sciences Institute rate models. The second version of the time-dependent model 7AIR Worldwide (UCERF2, 2008) has been implemented, and the third version, released last summer (UCERF3, 2014), is being adapted into the Blue Waters workflow. SCIENTIFIC GOALS CyberShake uses scientific workflow tools to automate the repeatable and reliable computation of large ensembles Research by the Southern California Earthquake Center (millions) of deterministic earthquake simulations needed for (SCEC) on Blue Waters is focused on the development of physics-based PSHA (Graves et al., 2010). Each simulation physics-based earthquake forecasting models. The U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Operational Earthquake Forecasting: Proposed Guidelines for Implementation
    Southern California Earthquake Center Operational Earthquake Forecasting: Proposed Guidelines for Implementation Thomas H. Jordan Director, Southern California Earthquake Center S33D-01, AGU Meeting 14 December 2010 Southern California Earthquake Center Operational Earthquake Forecasting Authoritative information about the time dependence of seismic hazards to help communities prepare for potentially destructive earthquakes. • Seismic hazard changes with time – Earthquakes release energy and suddenly alter the tectonic forces that will eventually cause future earthquakes • Statistical models of earthquake interactions can capture many of the short-term temporal and spatial features of natural seismicity – Excitation of aftershocks and other seismic sequences • Such models can use regional seismicity to estimate short-term changes in the probabilities of future earthquakes Southern California Earthquake Center Operational Earthquake Forecasting Authoritative information about the time dependence of seismic hazards to help communities prepare for potentially destructive earthquakes. • What are the performance characteristics of current short-term forecasting methodologies? – Probability (information) gain problem • How should forecasting methods be qualified for operational use? – Validation problem • How should short-term forecasts be integrated with long-term forecasts? – Consistency problem • How should low-probability, short-term forecasts be used in decision-making related to civil protection? – Valuation problem Southern California Earthquake Center Supporting Documents • Operational Earthquake Forecasting: State of Knowledge and Guidelines for Implementation – Final Report of the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection (T. H. Jordan, chair), Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, Rome, Italy, 79 pp., December, 2010. • Operational Earthquake Forecasting: Some Thoughts on Why and How – T. H. Jordan & L. M. Jones (2010), Seismol. Res. Lett., 81, 571-574, 2010. Southern California Earthquake Center Prediction vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix K—The UCERF3 Earthquake Catalog
    Appendix K—The UCERF3 Earthquake Catalog By K.R. Felzer1 The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3 (UCERF3) earthquake catalog is an update of the catalog compiled for UCERF2, which is documented in Felzer and Cao (2008). The present document summarizes the updates and changes from the previous catalog. These include: The current catalog covers seismicity through the end of 2011. The current catalog includes an earthquake ID if one was assigned by the original network. This is listed in column 15. If no ID was assigned, there is a “99” in this column. The current catalog includes earthquakes down to M2.5 that occurred after 1984, when the seismic network was updated and catalog completeness improved. Prior to 1984 only earthquakes M≥4.0 are included. The UCERF2 catalog was M≥4.0 throughout. In UCERF2 the catalog of origin was often listed as ANSS (Advanced National Seismic System), which is a summary catalog compiled from contributing networks. The catalog now indicates the actual member network that contributed the event solution. Please note that no changes have been made to the pre-1932 portion of the catalog. Felzer and Cao (2008) provide documentation for this era. The UCERF3 catalog is given in a 17-column format as follows: 1. Year 2. Month 3. Day 4. Hour 5. Minute 6. Second 7. Latitude 8. Longitude 9. Depth 10. Magnitude 11. Magnitude type (currently given as “0” for all pre-1932 magnitudes) 12. Magnitude source 13. Magnitude uncertainty (standard error; given as “0” if unknown) 1U.S. Geological Survey. Appendix K of Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3) 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Soils
    Environmental Checklist – Geology and Soils 1 3.3.6 Geology and Soils Less Than Potentially Less Than VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Significant No Significant Significant with Impact Impact Impact Would the Project: Mitigation a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 2 3.3.6.1 Environmental Setting 3 Region and Site Marine Geology. The onset of glaciation during the Pleistocene 4 Epoch caused several major oscillations in the sea level of more than 91 m (300 ft), as 5 the polar ice caps formed and subsequently receded.
    [Show full text]
  • Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States
    Jump to Navigation Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States As of January 12, 2017, the USGS maintains a limited number of metadata fields that characterize the Quaternary faults and folds of the United States. For the most up-to-date information, please refer to the interactive fault map. Hosgri fault zone (Class A) No. 81b Last Review Date: citation for this record: Hanson, K.L., and Bryant, W.A., compilers, 2016, Fault number 81b, Hosgri fault zone, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, https://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults, accessed 12/14/2020 01:59 PM. Synopsis General: Fault lies entirely offshore, extensive data set including geophysical, seismological, and geologic data was compiled and reviewed for seismic hazard source characterization studies conducted by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E, 1988 #7833) as part of the Long Term Seismic Program for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant; the results of the multi-disciplinary study were extensively reviewed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and their consultants (Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1991). Sections: This fault has 2 sections. Based primarily on geophysical data the Hosgri fault zone is subdivided into five sections (referred to as reaches) characterized by distinct variations in strike, down-dip geometry, trace geometry, amount and sense of vertical separation, and adjacent structural trends that occur along the fault zone (PG&E, 1988 #7833; Rietman and others, in review #7896; Hanson and others, 2004 #7890). Northern section. San Simeon/Hosgri step-over south to intersection with Los Osos [79] fault– 20–22 km San Luis-Pismo section.
    [Show full text]
  • Hanford Sitewide Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis 2014
    Hanford Sitewide Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis 2014 Appendix A Biographies of Project Participants Appendix A Biographies of Project Participants A.1 Technical Integrator Leads Kevin J Coppersmith, PhD, of Coppersmith Consulting, Inc., is the Project Technical Integrator and the Technical Integration (TI) Lead of the Seismic Source Characterization (SSC) Team for the Hanford Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) Project. He has 33 years of consulting experience, with primary emphasis in probabilistic hazard analyses (seismic, volcanic, and related geohazards) for design and review of critical facilities within regulated environments. He has pioneered approaches to characterizing earth sciences data and their associated uncertainties for PSHAs for a range of critical facility sites, including nuclear power plant sites, high-level waste repositories, dams, offshore platforms, pipelines, and bridges. Dr. Coppersmith was a member of the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC), which provided PSHA methodology guidance to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). As a co-principal investigator, he recently completed a study for the NRC on reviewing lessons learned from the application of SSHAC Study Level 3 and 4 methodologies over the past 10 years. In light of that study, he worked with NRC research staff to develop NUREG-2117, which provides detailed implementation guidance for SSHAC Level 3 and 4 studies. Dr. Coppersmith has extensive experience in leading SSHAC Level 3 and 4 studies for nuclear facilities. He served as the SSC Technical Facilitator/Integrator (TFI) for SSHAC Level 4 seismic hazard studies at the Yucca Mountain, Nevada, high-level waste repository, and he was the SSC TFI for the PEGASOS (Pan-European Gas-AeroSOls Climate Interaction Study) SSHAC Level 4 study for four nuclear power plants in Switzerland.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix N—Grand Inversion Implementation and Testing
    Appendix N—Grand Inversion Implementation and Testing By Morgan T. Page1, Edward H. Field1, Kevin R. Milner2, and Peter M. Powers1 Abstract We present results from an inversion-based methodology developed for the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) that simultaneously satisfies available slip- rate, paleoseismic event-rate, and magnitude-distribution constraints. Using a parallel simulated- annealing algorithm, we solve for the long-term rates of all ruptures that extend through the seismogenic thickness on major mapped faults in California. In this system-level approach, rupture rates, rather than being prescribed by experts as in past models, are derived directly from data. The inversion methodology enables the relaxation of fault segmentation and allows for the incorporation of multi-fault ruptures, which are needed to remove magnitude-distribution misfits that were present in the previous model, UCERF2. In addition to UCERF3 model results, we present verification of the inversion methodology, including sensitivity tests, convergence metrics, and a synthetic test. Introduction The evaluation of earthquake rupture forecasts in California dates back to the original Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP; 1988), which considered the probabilities of future earthquakes on different segments of the San Andreas Fault. The most recent California model, UCERF2 (Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2007), used expert opinion to determine the rates of ruptures on many of the major faults. This expert opinion framework is not compatible with the incorporation of significant numbers of multi-fault ruptures on a large, complex fault system. Furthermore, in UCERF2 methodology, there was no way to simultaneously constrain that the model fit both observed paleoseismic event rates and fault slip rates.
    [Show full text]