DCL-10-003, Submittal of Progress Report on Shoreline Fault Zone, Central Coastal California

Submittal of Progress Report on Shoreline Fault Zone, Central Coastal California

ML100190142
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	01/13/2010
From:	Becker J Pacific Gas & Electric Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
DCL-10-003
Download: ML100190142 (38)

Text

PacificGas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Power Plant James R. Becker Site Vice President Mail Code 104/5/601 P 0. Box 56 Avila Beach, CA 93424 January 13, 2010 805.545.3462 Internal: 691.3462 Fax: 805.545.6445 PG&E Letter No. DCL-10-003 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Docket No. 50-275, OL-DPR-80 Docket No. 50-323, OL-DPR-82 Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 Progress Report: Shoreline Fault Zone, Central Coastal California

Dear Commissioners and Staff:

On January 5, 2010, representatives from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) met with the NRC to discuss the analysis of the California Central Coast Shoreline Fault Zone that is in close proximity to the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. provides the progress report for the Shoreline Fault Zone as discussed with the NRC.

PG&E makes no regulatory commitments as a part of this submittal.

swh Enclosures cc: Norman A. Abrahamson Lloyd S. Cluff Elmo C. Collins, NRC Region IV Annie M. Kammerer, NRC Marcia K. McLaren Michael S. Peck, DCPP NRC Resident Alan B. Wang, NRR A member of the STARS (Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing) Alliance Callaway

• Comanche Peak

• Diablo Canyon e Palo Verde eSan Onofre

• South Texas Project e Wolf Creek Acc (

ug

Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL-10-003 PROGRESS REPORT ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE SHORELINE FAULT ZONE, CENTRAL COASTAL CALIFORNIA

Enclosure I PG&E Letter DCL- 10-003 PROGRESS REPORT ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE SHORELINE FAULT ZONE, CENTRAL COASTAL CALIFORNIA Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission January 2010

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In November 2008, PG&E informed the NRC that preliminary results from the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Long Term Seismic Program (LTSP) seismic hazard update indicated that there was an alignment of microseismicity that may indicate a previously unidentified fault located about 1 km offshore of DCPP (Figure 1). This seismicity alignment was called the Shoreline fault zone.

PG&E conducted an initial sensitivity study to evaluate the potential impact of the Shoreline fault zone on the seismic safety of DCPP (PG&E, 2008) using a seismic margin approach. Using conservative assumptions about the total length of the fault zone, a magnitude 6.5 strike-slip earthquake at a distance of 1 km was considered. The results of this sensitivity study demonstrated that the 84th percentile ground motion from the Shoreline fault zone was lower than the 1991 LTSP ground motion for which the plant had been evaluated and shown to have adequate margin (NRC, 1991). Therefore, PG&E concluded that the plant had adequate seismic margin to withstand the ground motions from the Shoreline fault zone. In early 2009, the NRC conducted an independent study of the potential impacts of the Shoreline fault zone on DCPP (NRC, 2009) and they also concluded that there is adequate seismic margin.

Although these initial sensitivity studies show that the plant had adequate margin to withstand ground motion from the potential Shoreline fault zone, three main parameters of the Shoreline fault zone are not well constrained: geometry (length, width, dip) and segmentation, location offshore of DCPP and slip-rate. To reduce the uncertainties in these source parameters, PG&E prepared a 2-year Action Plan to collect additional data to better characterize the Shoreline fault zone. Once completed, the improved characterization will be used to update the ground motion hazard at DCPP and to also assess the potential for secondary deformation along the Auxiliary Salt Water (ASW) intake pipe corridor.

1

Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL-10-003 This report describes the data collection and initial results from new geologic interpretations for the first year of this study. This report distinguishes between the seismicity lineament as defined by Hardebeck (2009) and the Shoreline fault zone as currently defined by bathymetry and the interpretations presented in this report. The report is organized into the following sections:

2.0 Data Collection - describes the new geologic and geophysical data, including multibeam echo sounding (MBES) swath mapping and high resolution seismic reflection profiling, that were used to identify the surface expression of the Shoreline fault zone.

3.0 Seismicity Lineament - evaluates the Shoreline seismicity lineament including estimates of earthquake location uncertainty.

4.0 Initial Results - integrates the new geologic and geophysical data with the seismicity to improve the characterization of the Shoreline fault zone in terms of its geometry and segmentation, location offshore from DCPP, and activity rate.

5.0 Impacts at DCPP - presents an updated evaluation of the ground motion and initial evaluation of secondary fault deformation at DCPP related to surface faulting on the Shoreline fault zone.

6.0 Summary and Planned 2010 Studies - summarizes PG&E's conclusions to date and the research program that has been identified for 2010 to address unresolved issues and questions.

7.0 References The study area addressed in this report is the offshore region between the Hosgri fault zone on the west, the Irish Hills on the east, Estero Bay on the north and San Luis Obispo Bay on the south (Figure, 1). Tectonically the study area lies within the Pacific-North American transpressional plate margin between the San Simeon/Hosgri system of near-,

coastal faults to the west and the San Andreas fault system to the east in a region called the Los Osos-Santa Maria (LOSM) domain, as first described in the PG&E Long Term Seismic Program Final Report (PG&E, 1988) (Figure 1 inset). The domain consists of northwest-striking reverse and oblique slip faults that border intervening uplifted blocks and subsiding basins (PG&E, 1988, Lettis et al., 2004). The Shoreline fault zone is located within the San Luis Pismo block of the LOSM domain.

2.0,DATA COLLECTION Modem high resolution potential field (magnetics and gravity) and bathymetric data have significantly improved the ability to resolve geologic structures in the vicinity of DCPP since the original LTSP (PG&E, 1988). During 2008 and 2009, new marine magnetic, 2

Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL- 10-003 high resolution seismic profiling, and multibeam echo sounding (MBES) data were collected offshore DCPP. New aeromagnetic data were collected onshore in 2008 and 2009, and new gravity measurements were collected in 2009 to update earlier models for the area (Figure 2).

2.1 Magnetics Figure 2a shows the coverage of a fixed wing aeromagnetic survey that was flown in 2008 under the PG&E/USGS CRADA program. A total of 20,508 line-kilometers of data were collected at an altitude of 305 m (-1000 feet) with an 800 m line spacing using differential GPS navigation. A contour map of this aeromagnetic data was published as USGS Open File Report 2009-1044 (Langenheim et al., 2009).

Marine magnetic data were collected at 400 m line spacing during 2008 and 2009 as part of a joint marine magnetics and high resolution seismic reflection study as part of the PG&E/USGS CRADA and the California State Waters Mapping Program. The data collected in 2008 were published as USGS Open File Report 2009-1100 (Sliter et al.,

2009). Figure 2b shows the track lines for both marine studies.

The USGS "merged" the marine magnetic data, collected at sea level, with the aeromagnetic data, collected at an altitude of 305 m above terrain, by applying a simple datum shift (Watt et al., 2009; see Figure 2c). The data "merge" quite well despite the difference in measurement height. This is confirmed by the similar magnetic character between the aeromagnetic data and the marine magnetic data that have been filtered to effectively place those data at the same height as that of the aeromagnetic data (upward continuation).

In order to capture the shorter wavelength features of the magnetic field in the vicinity of the Shoreline fault zone and fill the gap between the fixed wing and marine surveys, PG&E conducted a helicopter-based magnetic survey along the coast line in December 2009. An additional 933 line-kilometers of total field aeromagnetic data were collected between Pt. Buchon and Pt. San Luis along flight lines spaced 150 m apart and at a nominal altitude of-100m above terrain (see Figure 2b for survey area). Processing of these data is in progress.

2.2 Gravity The USGS compiled, edited and reprocessed nearly 30,000 gravity measurements to produce an isostatic residual gravity map for the region, spanning Monterey on the north to the Santa Barbara channel on the south (Langenheim et al., 2008). Data includes the PG&E LTSP offshore data base as well as data collected at - 1 mile spacing by NIMA (formerly the Defense Mapping Agency) for the area south of 36015'N near Vandenberg Air Force Base. Terrain corrections were applied using 30 m DEMs to create a roughly 2 km grid over the central California coastal area The USGS also collected about 180 new 3

Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL-10-003 gravity measurements in the Pt. Buchon /Pt. San Luis area and in the Santa Maria basin during 2009. Several older measurement sites were reoccupied to aid in editing the old data and highlighted the inaccuracy of the older data. Figure 2d shows the isostatic gravity anomalies in the vicinity of the DCPP at a grid spacing of 400 meters (Watt et al, 2009).

2.3 High Resolution Seismic Reflection Profiling Single-channel seismic-reflection data were acquired in 2008 and 2009 by the U.S.

Geological Survey between Piedras Blancas and Pismo Beach, along shore-perpendicular transects spaced 800 m apart extending from close to shore to beyond the 3-mile limit of California State waters (Figure 2b). Data were, collected as part of the PG&E/USGS CRADA and the California State Waters Mapping Program. The 2008 data were published as USGS Open File Report 2009-1100 (Sliter et al., 2009). Data collected in 2009 are still being processed. In general, the USGS survey vessel was not able to approach as close to shore as the CSU Monterey Bay vessel (see below) due to the presence of shallow rocks and kelp. Specific attempts were made in 2009 to image portions of the Shoreline fault zone based on locations mapped by MBES; however, these attempts were not successful.

2.4 Multibeam Echo Sounding Multibeam echo sounding (MBES) data for the Estero Bay to San Luis Bay nearshore region were acquired by the Seafloor Mapping Lab at California State University Monterey Bay during 2008 and 2009. Figure 2e shows the areas mapped in 2006 (Point Buchon- grey colored track lines) and 2009 (Point Buchon to San Luis Bay - red colored track lines). The acquired MBES bathymetry data are shown on Figure 2f. The spatial resolution in water depths less than 50 m is 1 m, and is 2 m for water depths greater than 50 m. Multibeam databases can be accessed at the CSU Sea Floor Mapping Lab Data Library http://seafloor.csumb.edu/SFMLwebDATA c.htm. Data bases for 2006 Pt.

Buchon survey are currently on line, and the databases for the 2009 Pt. Buchon to Avila Beach survey will be available at the end of 2009.

3.0 SEISMICITY LINEAMENT 3.1 Hardebeck Studies In November 2008, Dr. Jeanne Hardebeck (USGS) presented relocations of earthquakes that have occurred from 1987 to 2007 in the'south-central coastal region of California at a PG&E/USGS Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) workshop.

Dr. Hardebeck's study, supported by the CRADA as part of the regional LTSP Update program, used the Double Difference (DD) program, hypoDD (Waldhauser and 4

Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL- 10-003 Ellsworth, 2000) and found a microseismicity lineament about one km offshore of DCPP.

In 2009, Hardebeck relocated the earthquakes through 2008 using a new relocation technique called tomoDD (Zhang and Thurber, 2003). TomoDD is a more robust program than hypoDD because it incorporates absolute and relative arrival time data from the phase picks and waveform cross correlations, respectively, and it uses DD tomography to determine a 3D velocity model jointly with absolute and relative event locations (Zhang and Thurber, 2003). Hardebeck's tomoDD results also show the Shoreline seismicity lineament (Figure 1). The seismicity lineament consists of approximately 50 microearthquakes of magnitude 0.8 to 3.5 located between 2 and 15 km depth.

We evaluated why the seismicity lineament was not previously visible using typical catalog locations based on a ID velocity model. We found that a diffuse pattern of earthquakes between the shoreline and the Hosgri fault zone centered about I V2 km west of DCPP was visible, but they did not show a strong alignment (Figure 3, frame CAT08).

The diffuse pattern was due primarily to imprecise locations of earthquakes occurring offshore and outside the seismic networks using a ID velocity model.

During the 1988 through 2008 time period, the seismographic station coverage did not change. The yearly plots in Figure 3 show that during this time period the Shoreline microseismicity lineament began in the northern end and, in about 1992, the seismicity began to fill inthe central and southern parts. Analysis of earlier seismicity data with less station coverage identified possibly 3 additional microearthquakes associated with the seismicity lineament (J. Hardebeck, personal communication, 2009).

3.2 Peer Review of Seismicity Lineament Regardless of the location method used, hypocentral accuracy depends on several factors such as the quality of the P- and S- arrival time picks, an adequate velocity model and good station geometry (<1800 azimuthal gap). The accuracy of the offshore Shoreline fault zone earthquake locations is likely affected by all of these factors.

Hardebeck's tomoDD location results for earthquakes within the study area were reviewed by Dr. Clifford Thurber, co-author of tomoDD (Zhang and Thurber, 2003). He first reproduced the tomoDD results of Hardebeck using her same assumptions, and then relocated the earthquakes using tomoDD with his preferred parameters, and velocity model. Thurber also estimated the hypocentral location uncertainty for comparison with Hardebeck's uncertainty estimates (Hardebeck, 2009). Thurber concluded that the seismicity lineament identified by Hardebeck is a robust feature (Thurber, 2009).

5

Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL-10-003 Figure 4 shows both the Hardebeck and Thurber locations with the 2009 Shoreline fault zone interpretation (this study). The earthquakes that are associated with the seismicity lineament are defined here as those events whose 0.5 km uncertainty circles (buffers) intersect the mapped traces of the Shoreline fault zone (as described in Section 4.2) or the cross section line A-A' to the northwest. Thurber's locations are generally farther offshore than Hardebeck's and the difference in location generally increases with distance offshore (i.e., there is less offset between Thurber and Hardebeck along the seismicity lineament and more offset along the Hosgri fault zone). Thurber's locations are also approximately 1 km shallower than Hardebeck's locations (Figure 5).

3.3 Location Uncertainty Hardebeck and Thurber each estimated location uncertainties for earthquakes within the Shoreline seismicity lineament. Their methods are described below. In this report, we estimate location uncertainty by comparing the individual Hardebeck and Thurber uncertainty estimate to our estimate based on a comparison of the two tomoDD results.

Hardebeck (2009) estimated the absolute earthquake location uncertainty by relocating shots with known locations. For 13 shots (Murphy and Walter, 1984; Sharpless and Walter, 1988) located inside her 3D velocity model, the RMS shift from the true location was 0.9 kmn horizontal and 1.3 km vertical. She concluded that the absolute uncertainty of the earthquake locations, which should be better located than the shots, was < 0.9 km horizontal and < 1.3 km vertical. She acknowledges that the offshore shot location errors are larger. The location errors in shots tend to be about twice the location errors for earthquakes because the ray path for shots samples the shallow surface structure twice.

Thurber assessed the relative and absolute location uncertainties. Using a jackknife approach, he estimated relative location uncertainties of 140 m in the direction parallel to the lineation, 190 m perpendicular to the lineation, and 280 m in depth. For the absolute location uncertainty he obtained a rough estimate by considering the variations in absolute locations resulting from the use of different starting velocity models and different control parameter settings. He considers 500 meters to be a reasonableestimate of the absolute location uncertainty (horizontal and vertical) for the Shoreline r

earthquakes within the Shoreline seismicity lineament.

Hardebeck (2009) also estimated uncertainties for the San Luis Obispo region based on the stability of the locations determined using various location methods. The median absolute shift between her hypoDD and 3D locations is 470 m horizontal and 450 m vertical. The median absolute location shift between her hypoDD and tomoDD locations is 390 m horizontal and 510 m vertical.

6

Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL- 10-003 In a similar approach, we compared location results specifically between Hardebeck and Thurber's tomoDD earthquake locations. The average shift values between the two tomoDD runs are 0.50 +/- 0.34 km (RMS 0.60 km) horizontal shift and 1.39 +/- 0.82 km (RMS 1.61 km),vertical shift. Our results are consistent with the Hardebeck and Thurber error estimates. In this progress report, we use the Hardebeck locations with uncertainties of 0.50 km horizontal and 1.4 km vertical to study the relation of the seismicity lineament to the Shoreline fault zone.

4.0 INITIAL RESULTS 4.1 Geologic Setting Identifying a potential candidate structure as the cause of the seismicity lineament requires an understanding of the geologic setting in terms of the geomorphology, stratigraphy, and structure of the offshore region west and southwest of the Irish Hills.

The geologic setting of this offshore region is partly known from previous studies (e.g.

PG&E, 1988) but has been greatly improved by interpretation of the recently acquired MBES bathymetric, seismic reflection, and potential field data.

Geomorphology The Shoreline seismicity lineament traverses the inner continental shelf west and south of the Irish Hills. The inner shelf in this area consists of a gentle, westward-sloping (less than I degree) bedrock platform between the coastline and a prominent break-in-slope coincident with the Hosgri fault zone. The-bedrock platform is underlain by Cretaceous

(- 100 million years ago (mya)) and Tertiary rocks (- 2 to 65 mya) that have undergone multiple phases of deformation (Hall 1978), and thus are extensively folded, fractured and faulted. In addition, the bedrock platform was eroded during multiple cycles of Pleistocene (- 10,000 years to 2 mya) and Holocene (10,000 years ago to present) sea level rise and fall, producing both submerged paleo-seacliffs (former coastlines) and sea stacks, as well as enhanced lineaments along the previously folded and faulted strata.

Locally, extensive thin mobile sand sheets veneer and obscure the bedrock surface.

Identification of a potential candidate structure associated with the Shoreline seismicity lineament, therefore, must consider several factors of the geologic, geomorphic, and structural setting:

(1) The multiple phases of Tertiary deformation have produced an inherited structural grain. Most (or all) of these structures are no longer active; however, current active faulting may locally re-activate a pre-existing structure.

7

Enclosure I PG&E Letter DCL- 10-003 (2) Many of the most prominent sea floor lineaments are the result of marine erosion, including multiple paleo-seacliffs and enhanced erosion along inherited, pre-existing geologic structures and bedding.

(3) Marine erosion likely obliterates or obscures subtle geomorphic features associated with low rates of fault activity.

(4) Drifting, mobile sand sheets of modem age cover not only large parts of the bedrock surface, but also locally infill many bathymetric lineaments and seafloor channels, obscuring subtle geomorphic evidence of active faulting.

(5) A potentially active fault must exhibit clear evidence of cross cutting, and thus post-dating, the inherited Tertiary stratigraphic and structural grain, and ideally would have geomorphic evidence of cross-cutting relationships to the Pleistocene erosion surfaces.

Stratigraphy and Structure Rock strata on the offshore bedrock platform are identified through correlation to onshore stratigraphic units following the nomenclature of Hall (1973). The bedrock consists primarily of unnamed Cretaceous greywacke (sandstone) and Franciscan M6lange, and Tertiary Obispo, Monterey, and Pismo formations. These units are recognized and mapped based on changes in seafloor texture and 'tructure seen on the MBES bathymetry and locally confirmed by cores and diver samples.

Understanding the distribution of stratigraphic units provides critical information for interpreting both the inherited Tertiary structural features on the inner shelf, as well as potential Quaternary structural features that either locally reactivate pre-existing structures, or "cross cut", and thus post-date, these earlier structural features.

During the Tertiary (- 2 to 65 mya), northeast-southwest-directed compression produced the northwest-trending anticlines and synclines in the Irish Hills and the offshore inner shelf. Onshore deformation ended sometime in the late Tertiary (Pliocene (2 to 5 mya) and transitioned into uplift of the San Luis/Pismo structural block during the early Quaternary (Pleistocene) (Hanson et al., 1994; Lettis et al., 2004). We infer that offshore deformation also ended by the late Tertiary and was replaced by uplift of the offshore bedrock platform as an extension of the San Luis/Pismo structural block. MBES bathymetry and high resolution seismic reflection data clearly show folded and faulted Tertiary strata (Figure 6). The deformation also warps and folds pre-existing fault contacts or angular unconformities that separate the Tertiary section from the underlying Cretaceous basement section. This pre-existing stratigraphic and structural grain, 8

Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL- 10-003 therefore, provides the basis for identifying and characterizing potential faults that crosscut older structures.

Further to the west, the marine bedrock platform and geologic structures are truncated by the Hosgri fault zone (Figure 6). The Hosgri fault zone is an active transpressional right slip fault that forms one of the major strike slip faults separating the Pacific and North American tectonic plates. It is approximately 110 kilometers long, has a slip rate of 1 to 3 mm/yr, and lies approximately 4 kilometers offshore of the DCPP (Hanson et al., 2004; PG&E, 1988, 1990).

4.2 Potential Candidate Structure for the Shoreline Fault Zone Based on our analysis of the MBES bathymetry and seismic reflection data and interpretation of offshore geology, we identify a candidate geologic structure that we call the Shoreline fault zone. The fault zone cuts across all Cretaceous and Miocene structures and, thus, is younger than the Miocene (5 to 24 mya). It consists of three distinct segments separated by right en echelon steps of several hundred meters width (Figure 6). The characteristics of these three segments are summarized in Table 1 and described below.

Segmentation and Length The Shoreline fault zone consists of three segments: (1) a 6 to 9 km Northern Segment defined by a distinct N40W-trending escarpment that locally truncates Miocene bedding and structures; (2) a 8 km Central Segment expressed as a sharp bathymetric lineament and scarp that locally juxtaposes unlike bedrock lithologies, truncates bedding and structures (folds and faults), and has associated gas-related pock marks and mud extrusions; and (3) a 6 km Southern Segment expressed as a poor to moderate bathymetric lineament with local truncation of bedding. The geomorphology of all the segments shows that differential erosion is the primary cause of the bathymetric lineaments on the seafloor. Fault line scarps accentuated by wave erosion are common where faults juxtapose resistant and weak rock. The weaker materials in the fault zone are eroded into troughs.

The northern part of the seismicity lineament and the Central and Southern fault segments forms a right-stepping en echelon pattern with an overall strike of North 600 to 70' West. Within the Central Segment, the bathymetric lineament also shows a right-stepping en echelon pattern at both the kilometer scale and 10 to 100 meter scale. The en echelon right stepping fault pattern strongly suggests right-lateral strike-slip surface displacements consistent with the focal mechanisms of the recent microseismicity (Figure 7).

9

Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL- 10-003 The Shoreline seismicity lineament coincides With the surface trace of the Central and Southern segments of the Shoreline fault zone, and thus these two segments of the fault zone appear to have been reactivated in the current tectonic setting. The alignment of seismicity with the fault zone occurs from directly west of the DCPP southward along the coastline to directly southwest of Point San Luis, where both the seismicity lineament and the Shoreline fault zone die out (Figure 4).

To the north, however, the seismicity lineament is more diffuse and diverges along a more westerly trend than the Northern segment of the Shoreline fault zone. No fault has been identified that can be associated with the northern part of the seismicity lineament.

To the contrary, six shallow high resolution seismic reflection lines that cross the northern part of the seismicity lineament provide direct stratigraphic evidence showing the absence of faulting within the upper hundred meters of the bedrock platform and the Quaternary sediments that overly the platform (e.g., Figures 8 and 9a and 9b). It may be that this part of the seismicity lineament is associated with a fault that does not reach the surface. Some of the seismicity may be associated with the western trace of the Hosgri fault zone at depth.

The total length of the seismicity lineament is 22 to 23 kilometers (Table 1). The northern part that is not associated with a known fault extends from the Hosgri fault zone southward to near the discharge cove of DCPP for a distance of 8 to 9 kilometers.

The microseismicity defines nearly vertical fault planes (Figure 5) and the composite focal mechanisms indicate vertical strike-slip earthquakes. In the Central and Southern parts of the seismicity lineament, the seismicity reaches a depth of about 10 km. Along the northern part of the seismicity lineament, there is a change in the depth distribution with depths up to 15 km. The seismicity lineament appears to be most active near the Hosgri fault zone and decreases in activity to the southeast.

4.3 Location of the Shoreline Fault Zone with Respect to DCPP Our analysis of the MBES data in the DCPP area (Figure 10a) locates the Central Segment of the Shoreline fault zone southwest of the Intake Cove breakwater, 600 meters from the Power Block and 300 meters from the intake structure (Figure 10b). The high quality of the MBES data clearly shows the Shoreline fault zone in this area as a sharp lineament whose northern end projects beneath the sand sheet west of the Discharge Cove.

4.4 Activity Rate of the Shoreline Fault Zone Evidence of Activity 10

Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL- 10-003 The offshore seismicity lineament correlates well with the Central and Southern segments of the Shoreline fault zone. As described previously, most of the microseismic events along the Central and Southern segments locate along the fault zone within the V2 kilometer uncertainty bound (Figure 4). Because of this direct association with -

microseismicity, we conclude that the Central and Southern segments of the Shoreline fault zone are active and that the evidence of activity is sufficient to warrant inclusion of the fault zone in sensitivity analyses to assess implications of ground motion and secondary deformation at the DCPP.

In contrast, the Northern part of the seismicity lineament is not associated with a mapped fault. Seismic reflection records confirm that the underlying wave cut platform and the overlying Quaternary sediments are not deformed (Figures 8 and 9a and 9b). The lack of coincidence of the seismicity with a mapped fault indicates that the northern part of the lineament should be considered separate from the Central and Southern segments of the Shoreline fault zone.

Our preliminary analysis of the MBES bathymetry and seismic reflection data along the Central and Southern segments of the Shoreline fault zone has not identified conclusive geologic, geomorphic, or geophysical evidence of late Quaternary (Holocene) fault activity; however, the prominent seafloor scarps, local gas pock marks, subtle geomorphic features that crosscut talus and colluvium are consistent with a late Quaternary active fault. Further analysis is required during 2010 to test these observations.

Slip Rate on the Shoreline Fault Zone Slip rate on the Shoreline fault zone is poorly constrained at this point of our preliminary analysis. Several approaches are being used to constrain slip rate or activity rate on the Shoreline fault zone. Progress on each of these approaches is as follows:

(1) Direct quantitative estimate of slip rate. The Northern Segment of the Shoreline fault zone crosses numerous submerged marine terrace surfaces and paleo-coastlines. These marine terraces represent former still stands of sea level, and thus form an excellent strain gauge to assess the amount and age of late Quaternary deformation if they can be mapped and dated with confidence. A preliminary map of these terraces has been prepared, and work is in progress to correlate and assign ages to the terraces. At this point, our preliminary observation is that the Northern Segment of the Shoreline fault zone has not produced significant deformation (greater than one meter) of the 80,000 and 125,000 year old terrace sequences suggesting that the fault is not active or has a slip rate that is less than 0.01 mm/yr.

11

Enclosure I PG&E Letter DCL-10-003 (2) Qualitativeestimate of slip rate. Many active faults with known slip rates cross the inner continental shelf of California. Comparing the geomorphic, geologic, and geophysical signature of these faults to the Shoreline fault zone provides a qualitative estimate of slip rate. We compare the Shoreline fault zone to the Hosgri fault zone that has a known slip rate of I to 3 mm/yr. The Hosgri fault zone forms a prominent geomorphic break-in-slope, clearly deforms late Pleistocene and Holocene marine deposits, and is associated with a prominent gravity and magnetic anomaly (Figures 6 and 11). In contrast, the Shoreline fault zone does not form a prominent break-in-slope and does not appear to significantly offset offshore submerged marine terraces. It is also not associated with a major geophysical anomaly indicating that it has had relatively minor cumulative bedrock offset. We interpret the contrast between theses faults to show that the slip rate on the Shoreline fault zone is one to two orders of magnitude lower than the Hosgri fault zone. Hence, our preliminary qualitative estimate of slip rate on the Shoreline fault zone using this approach is 0.01 to 0.3 mm/yr.

12

Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL- 10-003 Table 1 Characteristics of the Shoreline Fault Zone and the Northern Microseismicity Lineament ic ( hat [INIIICII it)

~Sti 1(fill 1 Microseismlicity Seismic, Reflect on~

pression SHORELINE FAULT ZONE 6 kin, may Moderate geomorphic expression Strong; south end changes Offshore of extend north with fault line scarps in resistant strike and trends onshore as No deformation of North Point Buchon to additional rock in contact with sand sheets. Locally Sharp 'horsetail' strands south of A few microseismic wavecut terraces Segment Lion Rock 3km Strong morphology where not lithologic contacts Lion Rock and may connect events within 1 meter N40ow Not known* covered by sand sheet. Wave-cut ' (Obispo/Monterey) with bedrock faults mapped resolution 900 (?) platform not displaced across fault, onshore Strong geomorphic expression, C-I contact within Strong with 100 to 500 m with fault line scarps in resistant Obispo rocks but stepover between segments Best expression L rock units. Locally sharp covered by sand C-I Strong; truncated bedding, 3 to 8 km deep No reflection data Lion Rock to 8 km morphology with en echelon offsets sheet no onshore connection (?) No differentiation of due to proximity to Segment Creek 2 to 10 km* C-I moderately prominent C-2 sharp lithologic C-2 Very strong; may connect geologic segments shore 0

C-2 prominent; particularly where contact to Olson fault C1, C-2, C-3 Acoustically opaque N65 W 900 not covered by sand sheet (Obispo/Franciscan?) C-3 Locally strong; truncated Right lateral focal basement C-3 sharp contact in bedding; may connect to mechanisms C-3 moderately prominent Franciscan Rattlesnake fault Rattlesnake Weakest expression Creek to end of With cluster and Wavecut platform seismicity 5 to 5 1/2 km Weak to moderate; local fault line Sharp lithologic Locally strong; truncated largest earthquake at and overlying South lineament south 2 to 10 km* scarps in resistant rocks in contact contactin Franciscan bedding markingQuaternary sediments Segment of Point San 90° with sand sheets end not deformed Luis Right lateral focal N50°W mechanisms MICROSEISMICITY LINEAMENT No structural offsets Locally diffuse Northern Hosgri fault to 9 km toward north Wavecut platform Micro- Lion Rock 2 to 15 km* No surface expression No association with North and overlying seismicity N45ow 90° Segment of Shoreline fault Quaternary sediments

'Blind'? Right lateral focal not deformed trend mechanisms Footnote:

• Width of fault zone is estimated from the depth of the microseismic events 1/7/2010 13

Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL-10-003 5.0 IMPACTS AT DCPP 5.1 Ground Motion The previous analysis of the impacts of the ground motion at DCPP assumed a M6.5 strike-slip earthquake at a distance of 1 km. The results from the 2009 studies indicate that the length of the combined central and southern segments corresponds to a magnitude 6.25 earthquake. The distance from DCPP to the power block is 0.6 km, not 1 km as previously assumed.

For the same magnitude, the change from 1 km to 0.6 km distance leads to about a 4%

increase in the 84th percentile ground motions. Reducing the magnitude from 6.5 to 6.25 leads to a 5-10% reduction in the 84th percentile ground motions. As shown in Figure 12, the spectrum from the Shoreline fault zone remains lower than the LTSP spectrum.

In the frequency range of 3-8.5 Hz used for the fragility curves, the Shoreline fault spectra are 10-30 percent lower than the LTSP. Therefore, using the new results, the deterministic ground motion will remain smaller than the LTSP spectrum and there is adequate seismic margin.

5.2 Potential for Secondary Fault Deformation The central segment of the Shoreline fault zone is 600 meters from the Power Block and 300 meters from the cooling water intake. Given this short distance, the potential for secondary fault deformation is evaluated. The geology in the plant region is shown in Figure 10b. There is a unit labeled Tofc, consisting of shale, claystone and siltstone that is a weaker rock material. If secondary fault ruptures occur, they would most likely occur in the weaker Tofc unit.

The Auxiliary Salt Water (ASW) pipes are the only safety related Structures, Systems and Components (SSC) that could be affected by small fault deformations in the Tofc unit. A study of the deformation capacity of the ASW pipes found that there are eight 1-ft long Dresser coupling sections that are susceptible to small ground deformations.

An initial probabilistic analysis of the secondary fault deformation occurring at any of the eight Dresser coupling sections was conducted following the method of Petersen et al (2004). Two rupture segmentation models are considered; rupture of the Central segment by itself (M6.0) and rupture of the combined Central and Southern segments (6.25). As described in Section 4.4, the slip-rate is uncertain but is judged to be between 0.01 and 0.3 mm/yr. The hazard for secondary fault deformation occurring at any of the eight Dresser couplings is shown in Table 2 for the two rupture models. The range of values for each case represents the range of slip rates. The probability of I cm or larger occurring is very small: between 4.2E-9 to 2.4E-7. The NRC allows for events with less than 1E-8 to be excluded from the risk assessment for Yucca Mountain (10-CFR.63-342).

1/7/2010 14

Enclosure I PG&E Letter DCL- 10-003 This screening level falls within the lower range of the probabilities of secondary fault deformation.

Secondary fault deformation was not previously considered in the license of DCPP. The potential impacts are evaluated in terms of the potential change in the seismic Core Damage Frequency (CDF). The seismic CDF at DCPP is 3.7 E-5 (LTSP, 1988).

Therefore, with the probability of secondary fault rupture in the range of 4.2E-9 to 2.4E-7, the increase in seismic CDF due to secondary fault deformation will be much less than 1%. Weconclude that secondary fault deformation impacting the ASW pipes leads to a negligible change in the seismic CDF and does not affect the seismic safety of DCPP.

Table 2. Annual probability of secondary fault rupture at any of the eight Dresser couplings of the ASW in the Tofc unit.

Secondary Deformation, Central Central & Southern (M6.0) (M6.25)

>1.0 cm 4.2E 1.3E-7 8.OE 2.4E-7

>2.0 cm 1.7E-11 -5.1E-10 2.3E 6.9E-8 6.0

SUMMARY

AND PLANNED 2010 STUDIES 6.1 Summary Initial analyses of the seismicity, multibeam (MBES) bathymetry, and high resolution seismic profiles collected to date allow for several preliminary observations and conclusions as summarized below. These preliminary conclusions will be further evaluated during Year 2 (2010) of our planned Investigation Program.

Seismicity Lineament

1. The seismicity lineament as defined by Hardebeck (2009) is a robust feature and consists of approximately 50 events from 1988 to 2008. All of the events are small (most are in the M I to 2 range) with the largest being a M3.5 in 2000.

Horizontal location uncertainty is approximately =+0.5 km, vertical uncertainty is

+/-1.4 km.

2. Seismicity generally becomes more diffuse spatially and extends to greater depths (2 to 15 kilometers) along the northern part of the lineament as it approaches the Hosgri fault zone. The depth range of the seismicity along the central and southern parts of the lineament extends from 2 to 10 kilometers. The seismicity 1/7/2010 15

Enclosure I PG&E Letter DCL-10-003 along the entire lineament defines a nearly vertical zone. Focal mechanisms indicate primarily right lateral strike slip movement.

Shoreline Fault Zone

1. The Shoreline fault zone has been identified based on MBES and high resolution seismic profiling data The Shoreline fault zone displaces Tertiary and older geologic structures, and thus is younger. The fault zone consists of three distinct segments, the Northern, Central and Southern segments. These segments are well expressed in the sea floor bathymetry as the result of differential marine erosion along the fault trace.

2. The total length of the active portions of the Shoreline fault zone is 13 to 14 kin:

8 km for the Central segment and 5- to 5 1/2 km for the Southern Segment. The Northern segment is 6 to 9 km long and is not considered active.

3. The seismicity lineament is coincident with and indicates reactivation of the Central and Southern segments of the Shoreline fault zone. The seismicity lineament diverges northward away from the Northern Shoreline fault zone segment. Therefore, we consider the Northern Shoreline fault zone segment to be a separate structure in the current tectonic setting.

4. Seismic reflection lines across the northern part of the seismicity'lineament provide direct stratigraphic evidence that demonstrates the lineament is not associated with surface faulting. The northern part of the seismicity lineament may be occurring on a buried fault in the crust between the Shoreline and the Hosgri fault zones or it may be occurring on faults at depth within the Hosgri fault zone.

Location with Respect to DCPP

1. The Central segment of the Shoreline fault zone is 300 meters southwest of the Intake structure and 600 meters southwest of the Power Block.

Activity Rate

1. Currently, the activity or slip rate on the Shoreline fault is poorly constrained.

Developing constraints on the slip rate will be a focus of our 2010 investigations.

Qualitative comparison of the Shoreline fault zone to the more prominent Hosgri fault zone suggests a slip rate one to two orders of magnitude less than the Hosgri fault zone, or approximately 0.01 to 0.3 mm/yr. At this time, we believe that this qualitative assessment bounds the range of uncertainty in slip rate on the Shoreline fault zone.

1/7/2010 16

Enclosure I PG&E Letter DCL- 10-003 Implications to DCPP

1. The vibratory ground motion impacts were evaluated using a margin approach.

The 8 4 th percentile ground motions from the Central and Southern segments of the Shoreline fault zone are bounded by the LTSP. Therefore, there is adequate seismic margin due to vibratory ground motion.

The secondary fault deformation impacts were evaluated using a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) approach. The probability of 1 cm or larger deformation at any of the eight Dresser coupling ranges from 4E-9 to 2E-7 depending on the slip-rate (0.01 to 0.3 mm/yr) and rupture segmentation (Central segment versus combined Central and Southern segments). The potential change in the seismic CDF is much less than 1%. Therefore, we conclude that the secondary deformation leads to a negligible change in the seismic CDF.

6.2 Planned 2010 studies PG&E's research program for 2010 will focus on integrating and interpreting the geologic and geophysical data sets collected in 2008 and 2009 in a regional context. A high priority task is to better characterize the slip rate, long-term style of deformation, and slip along the Shoreline fault zone. This will involve completion of our interpretations of the marine multibeam survey and, working with the USGS, completion of the processing and interpretation of the high resolution marine reflection, magnetics, and gravity data. Specific geologic studies to asses the possible relationship of the Shoreline fault zone to the Southwestern Boundary Zone and to improve our estimates of the slip rate for the Shoreline fault will also be conducted.

All of the geologic and geophysical information collected to date will be integrated to develop an initial three dimensional tectonic model of the region in 2010. This compilation will be used as input to a 3-D finite element model to evaluate various kinematic interpretations of crustal deformation in the central California coastal region.

The characterization of the Shoreline fault zone will be incorporated into the seismic hazard update being conducted as part of the LTSP. This complete seismic hazard update is scheduled to be completed in 2013.

1/7/2010 17

Enclosure I PG&E Letter DCL- 10-003

7.0 REFERENCES

California State University Monterey Bay Sea Floor Mapping Lab (2009). Website at http://seafloor.csumb.edu/SFMLwebDATA c.htm (visited 3/26/2009).

Hall, C.A., Jr. (1973). Geologic map of the Morrow Bay South and Port San Luis Quadrangles, San Luis Obispo County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-5 11, scale 1:24,000.

Hall, C.A., Jr. (1978). Origin and development of the Lompoc-Santa Maria pull-apart basin and its relation to the San Simeon-Hosgri strike-slip fault, Western California:

in Silver, E.A. and Normark, W.R., eds, San Gregorio-Hosgri fault zone, California; California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 137, p. 25-32.

Hanson, K. L., Wesling, J.R., Lettis, W.R., Kelson, K.I. , and Mezger, L.(1994)..

Correlation, ages, and uplift Rates of Quaternary marine terraces, South-central California., in I.B. Alterman, R.B. McMullen, L.S. Cluff, and D.B. Slemmons (eds.), Seismotectonics of the Central California Coast Range: Geological Society of America Special Paper 292. p. 45-72. 1994.

Hanson, K.L., Lettis, W.R., McLaren, M.K., Savage, W.U., and Hall, N.T. (2004). Style and rate of Quaternary deformation of the Hosgri fault zone, offshore south-central California: submitted to Keller, M., ed., Santa Maria Province Project, U.S.

Geological Survey Bulletin No. 1995-BB, p 37.

Hardebeck, J.L. (2009). Seismotectonics and fault structure of the California central coast, in review to Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., August 14, 2009.

Langenheim, V.E., Jachens, R.C., Graymer, R.W. and Wentworth, C.M. (2008).

Implications for fault and basin geometry in the central California Coast Ranges from preliminary gravity and magnetic data, EOS (Abs. AGU), Fall Meeting 2008, abstract #GP43B-0811.

Langenheim, V.E., Jachens, R.C, and Moussaoui, K. (2009). Aeromagnetic survey map of the central California Coast Ranges, USGS Open File Report 2009-1044 http ://pubs.usgs. gov/of/2009/1044/.

Lettis, W.R., Hanson, K.L., Unruh, J.R., McLaren, M., and Savage, W.U. (2004).

Quaternary tectonic setting of south-central coastal California: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin"1995-AA, 24 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1995/aa [web only].

1/7/2010 18

Enclosure I PG&E Letter DCL-10-003 Murphy, J.M. and Walter, A.W. (1984). Data report for a seismic-refraction investigation; Morro Bay to the Sierra Nevada, California, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open File Rep., 84-0642, 39 pp.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (199 1).Supplement No. 34 to NUREG-0675, Safety evaluation report Related to the operation of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I & 2, July 1991.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (2009) NRC (2009). Research Information Letter 09-001: Preliminary Deterministic Analysis of Seismic Hazard at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant from Newly Identified "Shoreline Fault", ADAMS ML090330523, April 8, 2009.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) (1988). Final report of the Diablo Canyon long term seismic program, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Enclosure 1, PG&E letter No. DCL-05-002, Docket No. 50-275 and No. 50-323.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) (1989a). Long term seismic program: Plate Q43i-2-1, Geologic map of coastal California from Morrow Bay to the Santa Maria Valley, south-central California. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket No.

50-275 and No. 50-323.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) (1989b). Long term seismic program: Plate Q43i-2-4, Model B longitudinal profile of marine terrace shoreline angles from Morrow Bay to th& Santa Maria Valley, south-central California. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket No. 50-275 and No. 50-323.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) (1990). Long term seismic program: Plate Q16-IB: Onshore-offshore geologic correlation map of the southwestern boundary of the San Luis/Pismo structural block, north sheet. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket No. 50-275 and No. 50-323.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) (2004). Final safety analysis report of the Diablo Canyon independent spent fuel storage installation, figure 2-6.6, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket No. 72-26.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) (2008). Email,

Subject:

Preliminary data for seismic discussion, To: Alan Wang, Vincent Gaddy (NRC), From: Bill Guldemond (PG&E) with attachment, DCPPNov 20-2008_v2 (3).ppt.

Petersen, M., Cao, T., Dawson, T., Frankel, A., Wills, C. and Schwartz, D. (2004).

Evaluation fault rupture hazard for strike-slip earthquakes, proceedings from GeoTrans, p 787-796.

1/7/2010 19

Enclosure I PG&E Letter DCL- 10-003 Sharpless, S.W. and Walter, A.W. (1988). Data report for the 1986 San Luis Obispo, California, seismic refraction survey, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open File Rep., 88-0035, 48 PP.

Sliter, R.W., Triezenberg, P.J., Hart, P.E., Watt, J.T., Johnson, S.Y., and Scheirer, D.S.

(2009). High-resolution seismic reflection and marine magnetic data along the Hosgri fault zone, Central California, USGS Open File Report 2009-1100.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1 100 Thurber, C. H. (2009). Central California Offshore Earthquake Assessment, August 18, 2009.

Waldhauser, F., and Ellsworth, W.L. (2000), A double-differenceearthquake location algorithm; method and application to the northern Hayward Fault, California, Bull.

Seis. Soc. Am., 90, 1353-1368.

Watt, J.T., Johnson, S.Y., Langenheim, V.E., Scheirer, D.S., Rosenberg, L.I., Graymer, R.W., and Kvitek, R. (2009). Geologic mapping in the Central California coastal zone: integrating geology, geophysics, and geomorphology: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 41, n. 7, p. 283.

Zhang, H. and Thurber, C.H. (2003). Double-difference tomography: the method and its application to the Hayward fault, California, Bull. Seis. Soc. Am. 93, 1875-1889.

1/7/2010 20

+

LEGEND Hosgri fault zone Other faults Shoreline fault zone Earthquake Data Depth (Km) Magnitude 00-1.9 0 0.0-0.9 S2.0-3.9 0 1.0-1.9 4.0-5.9 0 2.0-2.9 6.0-7.9 Q 3.0-3.5 8.0 -9.9 10.0-11.9 12.0-13.9 14.0+

Note: Location of offshore faults based on interpretation of high-resolution seismic data and MBES bathymetry (this study).

Map Scale: 1:0,000 NAD 1983, UTMZone 10 North 0 2 4 Mile.

Kilometers 0 2 4 Earthquake Epicenters (Hardebeck, 2009) with 2009 Fault Interpretation (this study). NOTE:

Inset is tectonic setting (modified from PG&E, 1988).

laciflc Gas and Electric Cornpanyi PlaUIe I

I 1009.

a. Aeromagnetic Survey Area 2008 b. New Marine Geophysical Data Colected in 2008-2009 c. Regional Magnetic Anomalies Maps Showing Aeromagnetic, Gravity, Seismic Reflection, and Bathymetry Survey Areas and Data Examples

d. Regional Isostatic Gravity Anomalies e. Multibeamn Echo Sounding Bathymetry Data Coverage 2006 and 2009 NOTE: See next page for 2f.

i Paific Gas and Eclchi Corrany I Fgue 2

LEGEND

-- Limits of MBES data Map Scale: 1:50.000 NAD 1983, UTM Zone 10 North 0 1 2 MWles Kilometers 0 1 2 3 Multibeam (MBES) Bathymetry Image Obtained for Analysis of Offshore Geology within the Shoreline Fault Zone Area in Paciflc Gas and Elechic Company I Fiur 2f

C!ATT.0 TDD88 TDD89 N TDD90 .

CAT93 CAT91 TDD9 N1 CAT92 TDD!92 N TDD93 N

C:AT96 S*ý CNAT94ý T!DD94 CAT95'.. .TNDD9ý5 T!DD9ý6 a * * . . . 01 .* .

• a a

• 0 * - a 3,

• 40*~jsa *~ *. .~, .... . 4. .*q~* * ** ***~ ** .

l~.#i* .**

~ .

a *** a

• a. - .

CAT..97 4

• a -~ *1- a .. ... .t.. a

. a *.* * * . I * .* a ., *

• a *

• I . I l.a * *~0*

• I

• TDD97 . CAT98. TDD98

• CAT99.

• TDD99 SCurrevt yea eardttuake locations

• powI yea*~)eathcuaoke location Yearly Seismicity Plots from 1988 to 1999, Comparing USGS/PGE Catalog (CAT) Locations to Hardebeck tomoDD (TDD) Locations.

NOT:Polygon endosas general areaofthe Shoreline fault zone See FRgure 3b forplots from2000 to 2008 10 Pacific Gas and Electric Companyl Fgure 3a

• V*

• .. *... *E - * ..

4.. *

• q S. *. V

~ ')~. .. ~

• a S -. * * * *

• TD0 * .*

S.

I

~.II.

.5 TDDOO CATOl *. TDDO2 *. 9 5* -

• .. . V S.

• 4*2 ** *

• ii,.

TDDO3

• TDDO4 *

.4 -

4 >.7..

• . V

• 'je:.

.5 TDDO7

• TDDO .

• Cuffe yearearthq.Iale locations

• PrevIous yearls).arthqaketoatios Yearly Seismicity Plots from 2000 to 2008, Comparing USGS/PGE Catalog (CAT)Locations to Hardebeck tomoDD (TDD) Locations.

NOT,Poygen endoses general areaof the Shoreline fault zone.See Ftue3afor*lots from 1918to 1999.

IM Pacific Gas and Electi Companyj Fgum 3b

4, LEGEND Hosgri fault zone Other faults Shoreline fault zone Earthquake Data 0 TomoDD (Thurber) 0 TomoDD (Hardebeck) 0500m buffers represent the average epicentral uncertainty,Colors denote possible association with the NW (red),

Central (green) and SE (blue) segments of the Shoreline fault zone.

Note: See Figure 1 for fault descriptions Map Scale: 1:90,000 NAD1983, UTM Zone 10 North 0 2 4 Milei Kilometers 0 2 4 Earthquake Epicenters from Hardebeck and Thurber tomoDD Inversions with 2009 Fault Interpretation and 2009 MBES data.

Fuure ladhic Gas and Electric Companyl For 4

Northern Central

.A l Northern segment l l ~ l A, Central segment Southern segment Dsegment segment F

Southern segment Cc, T '

I 0 E I .

. . I P'IC . I .

0 1 - 1 - 0 2- 2- 2 2 00 H Horizontal 0 3- 3 3- 00 3 uncertainty 4- o 4 - 4 4 of locations to III0 Coq

+/- 0.5km 5-00 IVertical 5- 0 0 5-00 0 ,

6- 6-0 9. uncertainty 0 0 0 ON O 0 0%

7- .0 0 7- 7 7 of locations 0

• 0. 0 8- a- 02 a +/- 14km 0%

9- S0 9- 0~C 9 9

• TomoDD (Thurber) 10- 0 10- 10 00 0 16

• TomoDD (Hardebeck) 11 - 11 - *0 11

• 0 0 12- 12 12 12-0 *. -

13- 13- 13 13 14- 14 14 14-ft, is- 15 is 15-16- 16 16 16-17 17 17 17 a . . . . . .. . . . . . . .

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 Distnce (k.) Distance(k.) DisM-ne(.on) MM-N.0r(n) Di~ooon(Ion)

Seismicity Cross Sections Projecting Hardebeck and Thurber Locations.

NOTE: Cross sectons AA'.BB'and CC'are sermed together.

See Figure 4 for amo0 section locations. SFZ=Shorelfle fault zone.

1 I Pacific Gas and Electric Company Figure 5

LEGEND*

- Hosgn fault zone

- Other faults

- Shoreline fault zone

- Limits of MBES data Note: See Figure 1 for fault description Map Scale: 1:50,000 NAD 1983, UTM Zone 10 North 0 1 2Miles Kilometers 0 1 2 3 Shoreline Fault Zone and other Faults Interpreted from the MBES Image and from Shallow Seismic Reflection Profiles within the Shoreline Fault Zone Area PacifcGasand ElectricComipany I fItur 6

I

• ~Pt.Buchono) 35"15' mDCPP LEGEND Mechanisms

-eeFocal 0o M5-1.99 SM2-2.99 M3-3.99 Composite 0Focal Mechanisms See Figure 1for fault deauiplions.

Focal Mechanisms from Hardebeck (2009)

-121 OO NOTE: Shoreline fault zone segments are labeled.

IPadclc Gas and Eledric Company IFgum 7

I

+/-

LEGEND

- Hosgri fault zone

- Other faults

- Shoreline fault zone 2008 exploration ship track lines 2009 exploration ship track lines Track lines showing numbers with tick-marks indicating distance in meters Note: See Figure 1 for fault description Map Scale:1:90,000 NAD 1983, UTM Zone 10 North 0 1 2M.iles 0lomte1s 0 i1 2 Shiptrack Unes of High Resolution Seismic Data Collection I Pacilic Gas and Electric Corpany I Figure 8 l,

I FFID 500 2000 1500 1000 500 A j Northern Segment Seismicity Lineament

4. Shoreline Fault Zone C.

0~'

CL tAUT Y-

-75m 1-NOTE: See Figure 8 for location of seismic line.

- 150m Vertical Exaggeration - 10:1 Meters 0 100 200 500 High Resolution Seismic Reflection Profile PBS-23 WPacific Gas and Elechic Companyl Rute 9A

2000 1500 1000 500 I

Northern Segment Seismicity Lineament Shoreline Fault Zonel JIt

~75m .1 - I-NOTE: See Figure 8 for location of seismic line.

Vertical Exaggeration - 10:1

'- 150m Meters 0 100 200 500 High Resolution Seismic Reflection Profile PBS-29 I Pacic Gas and Ectnic Companyl NguMe 9B

+/-

wck ave I

I Map Scsde: 1:10,000 NAD 1983, UTMZone 10 North 0 500 1,000 Meters 0 200 400 Mullibeam (MBES) Image and Digital Elevation Model (DEM) for the DCPP Area Dacific Gas and Electric Company Figure 1Oa

LEGEND Other faults Shoreline fault zone

. Earthquakes associated with the Shoreline fault zone (Hardebeck. 2009)

" Shale unit as shown InFigure 2.6-6, PG&E (2004)

[i--] Offshore mobite sand sheets that we activated bycurrents generated during large ston.ms Sand deposits tilling offishore paleo-streant channels thatwere cut into bedrock during Pleistocene low sea levels. Remnants of auvium may undertie the sand deposits Onshore aluvium; unconsolidated gravel, sand, sat and day; localty includes older alulvium L Onshore landslide deposits Onshore 80,000. to-1 20,000-year-old amrne terrace deposit; generally covered by colluvirm and alluvial fan deposits.

Monterey Formation - uitatone or crert.

dolomitic daystone or sittatone, diatomite, some tuff and opaine or cherty sandstone; offshore generaly diatinctly bedded Obispo Formation (undiffedentlated)

Diabase silland dike Dolomitic sandstone and shale, tuffaceous Zeolotized and silicifled tuff NOTE: Onshore geology from Hall (4973).

Map Scale: 1:10,000 NAD 1983. UTM Zone 10 North 0 500 1,000 Meters 0 200 400 Geologic Map of the DCPP Area In Pic Gas and ElectrcCompanyI Figur lOb

+

LEGEND

- Hosgr fault zone

- Other faults

- Shoreline fault zone 0 Earthquake Locations Isostatkc Gravity Anomaly (mGal) 25

-15

-25

-50 Note: See Figure 1 for fault descriptions Map Scale: 1:190,000 NAD 1983, UTM Zone 10 North 0 2 4 Miles

- 4ieters 0 2 4 Isostatic Gravity (Watt et al, 2009),

Seismicity (Hardebeck, 2009) and Offshore Faults (this study).

Y PaciflGas and Else*trConipany i Fiue 1

r-V9Y~t~WTT II I 11

- LTSP

- M6.5, R=1 km 24- - M6.25, R=0.6 km

- M6.0, R=0.6 m

/ 004 000 OOA 1OF C

0 000, A

1~

0 0

C.)

0 Cu 1~

1~

NOTE:The red curve shows the spectrum CI) from a M6.5 earthquake at a distance of I km assumed in the 2008 evaluation. The green and purple curves show the spectra 0.5 - I-I/// ---- used the updated values for either the central segment (M6.0) or the central and A _ý, 00_0 southern segments together (M6.25) and with the shorter distance of 0.6 km.

- I 0.1 10 100 Comparison of the 84th Percentile Ground Frequency (Hz) Motion Spectra from the Shoreline fault zone with the LTSP Spectrum.

n PadlIC Gas anl Electic Co pany ..

Fure 12