DCL-14-081, Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2, Central Coastal California Seismic Imaging Project (Cccsip) Chapter 12, GEO.DCPP.TR.14.07 R0.Txt.w.ITRs

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2, Central Coastal California Seismic Imaging Project (Cccsip) Chapter 12, GEO.DCPP.TR.14.07 R0.Txt.w.ITRs
ML14260A060
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon  Pacific Gas & Electric icon.png
Issue date: 09/10/2014
From:
Pacific Gas & Electric Co
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML14260A106 List: ... further results
References
DCL-14-081
Download: ML14260A060 (84)
v • d • e


Text

I PACIFIC GAS AND EJ.,ECTRIC COMPANY GEOSCIENCES DEPARTMENT TECHNICAL REPORT RetlOl't Numbe**: GEO. DCPP.TR.l4.07 Rtport Revision:

Rev. 0 Report Date: 8/111014 Quality Related: Y Page 1 of82 REPORT TITLE: Response to Administrative Law Judge's Decision Number 12-09*008 Regarding Dr. Douglas Hamilton's Concerns GEOPHYSICS VERIFIED BY: APPROVED BY: Printed Name Organization Printed Name Mr Richard Klimc.1.ak Printed Name TE: A;;,_,.fif Fugro Consultants.

Inc. Organization DATE: PG&E Geosciences Department Organization RECORD OF REVISIONS 0 Initial Release. This work was defined and tracked under SAPN 50638223. 8/1/2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Signatories ...................................................................................................................... 1 Record of Revisions ........................................................................................................ 2 Lists of Tables, Figures, and Attachments ....................................................................... 5 Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................................................... 8

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

10 1.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................

11 1.2 Intended Use of the Results .........................................................................

11 1.3 Scope of Work .............................................................................................

11 1.4 Project Quality Assurance Program, Participating Organizations, and Responsibilities ............................................................................................

12 2.0 ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................................................................

13 3.0 DATA ....................................................................................................................

14 4.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 17 4.1 MBES Data ..................................................................................................

17 4.2 Construction of Geologic Cross Sections

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

18 4.3 Seismic-Reflection Profiles ...........................................................................

18 4.4 Interpretation of Diabase Intrusion Geometry from Tomographic Data

......... 19 5.0 SOFTWARE .........................................................................................................

20 6.0 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ..................................................................................

21 6.1 Hamilton .......................................................................................................

21 6.2 Diablo Cove Fault .........................................................................................

22 6.2.1 Direct Observations of the Diablo Cove Fault ...................................

24 6.2.2 Diablo Cove Fault Model of Dr. Hamilton ..........................................

28 6.2.3 Evaluation of the Diablo Cove Fault Model .......................................

31 6.2.4 Conclusion with Respect to the Diablo Cove Fault

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

40 6.3 San Luis Range/ IOF Thrust .........................................................................

40 6.3.1 Previous Interpretations of Seismic Sources .....................................

41 6.3.2 San Luis Range/ IOF Thrust Model of Dr. Hamilton

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

47 6.3.3 Analysis of Uplift Rate Boundaries ....................................................

51 6.3.4 Analysis of Seismicity and Seismic-Reflection Data

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

58 6.3.5 Evaluation .................

70

7.0 CONCLUSION

S ...................................................................................................

73 8.0 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................

75 9.0 IMPACT EVALUATION ........................................................................................

76

10.0 REFERENCES

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

77 LISTS OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND ATTACHMENTS Tables Figures

Attachments ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Intended Use of the Results

1.3 Scope of Work 1.4 Project Quality Assurance Program, Participating Organizations, and Responsibilities

2.0 ASSUMPTIONS

3.0 DATA

4.0 METHODOLOGY

4.1 MBES Data

4.2 Construction of Geologic Cross Sections

4.3 Seismic-Reflection Profiles

4.4 Interpretation of Diabase Intrusion Geometry from Tomographic Data

5.0 SOFTWARE

6.0 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 6.1 by Dr. Hamilton

6.2 Diablo Cove Fault

6.2.1 Direct Observations of the Diablo Cove Fault

6.2.1.1 Locations of the Faulting

6.2.1.2 Nature of the Faulti ng

6.2.1.3 Activity of the Faulting

6.2.1.4 Summary

6.2.2 Diablo Cove Fault Model of Dr. Hamilton

6.2.2.1 Location of the Faulting

6.2.2.2 Nature of the Faulting

6.2.2.3 Activity of the Faulting

6.2.2.4 Dip and Depth Extent

6.2.3 Evaluation of the Diablo Cove Fault Model 6.2.3.1 Diablo Cove Fault Onshore

6.2.3.2 Diablo Cove Fault Offshore

6.2.3.3 Downdip Width of the Diablo Cove Fault

6.2.3.4 Diablo Cove Style of Faulting

6.2.3.5 Diablo Cove Fault Activity

6.2.4 Conclusion with Respect to the Diablo Cove Fault

6.3 San Luis Range/ IOF Thrust

6.3.1 Previous Interpretations of Seismic Sources

6.3.1.1 University of Nevada, R eno Interpretation of the IOF

6.3.1.2 LTSP Interpretation of the San Luis Bay Fault Z one

6.3.1.3 PG&E Interpretation of the Shoreline Fault Zone

6.3.2 San Luis Range/ IOF Thrust Model of Dr. Hamilton

6.3.2.1 Location of the Faulting

6.3.2.2 Dip and Width

6.3.2.3 Nature of the Faulting

6.3.2.4 Slip Rate

6.3.2.5 Summary of the Proponent M odel

6.3.3 Analysis of Uplift Rate Boundaries 6.3.3.1 San Luis Range Uplift Rate Boundaries

6.3.3.2 Evaluation of the San Luis Range/ IOF Thrust as an Uplift Rate Boundary

6.3.4 Analysis of Seismicity and Seismic-Reflection Data

6.3.4.1 Seismicity Evidence for an East-Dipping Fault Beneath the Irish HillsAssessment

Table 6-1. Number of Earthquakes as a Function of Magnitude in the Seismicity Analysis Box Shown on Figure 6-42 0 to <1 56 1 to <2 122 2 to <3 24 3 to <4 3

6.3.4.2 Evaluation of Seismicity Beneath the Irish Hills by Dr. Hardebeck

6.3.4.3 Evaluation of the SLRF from Seismic-Reflection Data near Point San Luis

6.3.5 Evaluation of Dr. San Luis Range/ IOF Thrust 6.3.5.1 Fault Location at the Surface

6.3.5.2 Fault Dip and Location at Depth

6.3.5.3 Uplift Rate Boundary

6.3.5.4 Fit to Coastal Terrace Data

7.0 CONCLUSION

S

8.0 LIMITATIONS 9.0 IMPACT EVALUATION

10.0 REFERENCES

VERIFICATION

SUMMARY

REPORT !tern Parameter 1 Purpose is clearly stated and the report satisfies the Puroose. 2 Data to be interpreted and/or analyzed are included or referenced.

3 Methodology is aoorooriate and properlv applied. 4 Assumptions are reasonable, adequately described, and based upon sound geotechnical principles and oractices.

5 Software is identified and properly appl i ed. Validation is referenced or included, and is acceptable.

Input files are correct. 6 Interpretation and/or Analysis is complete, accurate, and leads to Results and Conc l us i ons. 7 Results and Conclusions are accurate, acceptab l e, and reasonable compared to the Data, interpretat i on and/or analvsis and Assumptions. 8 The Lim.itation on the use of the Results has been addressed and is accurate and complete. 9 The Impact Eva l uat i on h as been included and is accurate and comolete.

10 References are valid for in ten d ed use. II Annendices are co m plete, acc u rate, and suooort text. X X X X X X X X X X Page I of 1. GEO.DCPP.TR

.14.07 RO Attachment 1 Yes No* NIA* NIA

  • Explain "No" or N/ A" entries. (For examp l e, Items 3 th ru 7 would be N/ A for a data report that simply presents the collected data.) Comments (use additional pages as necessary):

General: All comments made to earlie r drafts of Rev. 0 (submitted on July 14, 2014 , July 20, 2014 , July 28, 2014, and July 31, 2014) were addressed satisfactorily.

There are no outstanding issues to be resolved.

Item 5: This report identifies the software u sed to analyze geologic and geophysical data and to prepare figures. None of these software required specific va l idation. The report directs the reader to appropriate reports where p ertinent software va li dation n eeded to support statements/results ci t ed in this report reside. Item II: No appendices are included in this rep ort. Th is review co n firmed that no appendix was referred to in the body of the report.

VERIFICATION

SUMMARY

REPORT Item Parameter 1 Purpose is clearly stated and the report satisfies the Purpose. 2 Data to be interpreted and/or analyzed are included or referenced.

3 Methodology is appropriate and properly applied. 4 Assumptions are reasonable, adequately described, and based upon sound geotechnical principles and practices.

5 Software is identified and properly applied. Validation is referenced or included, and is acceptable.

Input files are correct. 6 Interpretation and/or Analysis is complete, accurate, and leads logically to Results and Conclusions.

7 Results and Conclusions are accurate, acceptable, and reasonable compared to the Data, interpretation and/or analysis, and Assumptions.

8 The Limitation on the use of the Results has been addressed and is accurate and complete.

9 The Impact Evaluation has been included and is accurate and complete.

10 References are valid for intended use. 11 Appendices are complete, accurate, and support text. Page 1 of 1 GEO.DCPP.TR.l4.07 RO Attachment 1 Yes No* N/A* X X X X X X X X X X N/A

  • Explain "No" or "N/A" entries. (For example, Items 3 thru 7 would beN/A for a data report that simply presents the collected data.) Comments (use additional pages as necessary):

On this date I have reviewed corrections and modifications made to this report and have found previous comments to be satisfactorily addressed.

Minor, mostly editorial comments have been provided and there are no pending issues to resolve. No appendices were provided with the report and I have verified that none were referenced in the text. Verifier (ITR):

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=DCL-14-081,_Diablo_Canyon_Units_1_and_2,_Central_Coastal_California_Seismic_Imaging_Project_(Cccsip)_Chapter_12,_GEO.DCPP.TR.14.07_R0.Txt.w.ITRs&oldid=869500"