ML14260A062
Text
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY GEOSCIENCES DEPARTMENT TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number: GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08 Report ReYision: 0 Report Date:OS/6/14 Quality Related: Y Page 1 of21 REPORT TITLE: Hazard Sensitivity and Impact Evaluation SIGNATORIES PREPAREDBY: ~
Norman Abrahamson PG&E Printed Name Organization VERIFIED BY: ~
)~/};J;I Kathryn Wooddell PG&E Printed Name Organization APPROVED BY: /Z.kf ~
DATE:
O'f /tV /zo/ 'f Richard Klimczak Printed Name Organization
Page 2 of 21 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08, Rev. 0 RECORD OF REVISIONS Rev.
No.
Reason for Revision Revision Date 0
Initial Report - this work is being tracked under Notification SAPN 50638425-1 8/6/2014
Page 3 of 21 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08, Rev. 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Signatories Page............................................................................................................. 1 Record of Revisions........................................................................................................ 2 Lists of Tables and Figures.............................................................................................. 4 Abbreviations and Acronyms........................................................................................... 6
1.0 INTRODUCTION
.................................................................................................... 7 2.0 DETERMINISTIC GROUND MOTIONS.................................................................. 9 2.1 Hazard Sensitivity for Updated Scenarios...................................................... 9 2.2 Shoreline Rupture Sensitivity....................................................................... 17
3.0 CONCLUSION
S AND LIMITATIONS.................................................................... 20
4.0 REFERENCES
..................................................................................................... 21
Page 4 of 21 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08, Rev. 0 LISTS OF TABLES AND FIGURES Tables Table 1-1 Comparison of Source Characterizations for the Deterministic Ground-Motion Evaluation Table 2-1 Source Input Parameters Required for the GMPEs Table 2-2 Distance and Site Input Parameters Required for the GMPEs Table 2-3 Total Site-Specific Amplification from the NGA-West2 GMPEs for a Reference Site with VS30=760 m/s to the Power-Block and Turbine-Building Foundation Levels Table 2-4 Deterministic Response Spectra (5% Damping) for the Hosgri Fault for the Reference Site Condition (VS30=760 m/s)
Table 2-5 Deterministic Response Spectra (5% Damping) for the Los Osos Fault for the Reference Site Condition (VS30=760 m/s)
Table 2-6 Deterministic Response Spectra (5% Damping) for the San Luis Bay Fault for the Reference Site Condition (VS30=760 m/s)
Table 2-7 Deterministic Response Spectra (5% Damping) for the Shoreline Fault for the Reference Site Condition (VS30=760 m/s)
Table 2-8 Deterministic 84th Percentile Site-Specific Ground Motions for the Power-Block Foundation Level Table 2-9 Deterministic 84th Percentile Site-Specific Ground Motions for the Turbine-Building Foundation Level Table 2-10 Deterministic Response Spectra (5% Damping) for the Scenario with the Shoreline Fault Rupture Linked to the Hosgri Fault and for the Reference Site Condition (VS30=760 m/s)
Table 2-11 Deterministic 84th Percentile Site-Specific Ground Motions for the Turbine-Building Foundation Level for the Scenario with the Shoreline Fault Rupture Linked to the Hosgri Fault
Page 5 of 21 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08, Rev. 0 Figures Figure 2-1 Deterministic Response Spectra (5% Damping) for the Power-Block Foundation Level Figure 2-2 Deterministic Response Spectra (5% Damping) for the Turbine-Building Foundation Level Figure 2-3 Deterministic Response Spectra (5% Damping) for the Power-Block and Turbine-Building Foundation Levels for the Scenario with the Shoreline Fault Rupture Linked to the Hosgri Fault
Page 6 of 21 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08, Rev. 0 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AB Assembly Bill CCCSIP Central Coastal California Seismic Imaging Project DCPP Diablo Canyon Power Plant GMPE ground-motion-prediction equation Hz hertz km kilometer LN natural logarithm LTSP Long Term Seismic Program m/s meters per second NGA Next Generation Attenuation NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PEER Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company SSHAC Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee SWUS Southwestern United States VS shear-wave velocity VS30 shear-wave velocity for the upper 30 meters Z1 soil depth to Vs = 1.0 km/s Z2.5 soil depth to Vs = 2.5 km/s
Page 7 of 21 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08, Rev. 0
1.0 INTRODUCTION
As part of the Central Coastal California Seismic Imaging Project (CCCSIP), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) evaluated the sensitivity of the deterministic ground motions at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) to the new information collected.
These deterministic hazard sensitivities considered the results of two recent studies: new information developed as part of the Assembly Bill (AB) 1632 studies and new ground-motion-prediction equations (GMPEs) developed as part of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Centers Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) West2 project. The effect of the new information on the probabilistic seismic hazard for the DCPP is being evaluated separately for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) required Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) seismic source characterization and ground-motion-characterization studies that are due in March 2015.
This study was conducted under PG&E DCPP QA program, as required by 10CFR appendix B.
The source parameters used for the deterministic evaluation in the 2011 Shoreline Fault Zone Report (PG&E, 2011) and the updated source parameters from the AB 1632 studies are compared in Table 1-1. In the 2011 Shoreline Fault Zone Report, the full logic tree was used to estimate the magnitude for the deterministic scenarios. These logic trees are currently being reassessed as part of the SSHAC source characterization study. For this hazard sensitivity study, a simplified approach is used to compute the magnitude of the deterministic scenarios: the magnitude is computed using the magnitude-area scaling relation of Leonard (2010), with the maximum length, minimum dip, and a seismogenic crustal thickness of 12 kilometers (km).
Table 1-1. Comparison of Source Characterizations for the Deterministic Ground-Motion Evaluation Fault 2011 Shoreline Report Updated Parameters Maximum Length (km)
Minimum Dip (degrees)
Mag.
(90th fractile)
Maximum Length (km)
Minimum Dip (degrees)
Mag.*
Shoreline 23 90 6.5 45 90 6.7 Hosgri 110 80 7.1 171 75 7.3 Los Osos 36 45 6.8 36 55 6.7 San Luis Bay 16 50 6.3 16 50 6.4
- The updated magnitudes are based on the Leonard (2010) magnitude-area scaling relation, using the maximum length and the minimum dip with a seismogenic crustal thickness of 12 km.
The Leonard (2010) magnitude-area relations for strike-slip and dip-slip faults are given in Equations 1-1 and 1-2:
M = 3.99 + log10(area) for strike-slip (1-1)
Page 8 of 21 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08, Rev. 0 M = 4.00 + log10(area) for dip-slip (1-2) where area is the rupture area in square kilometers.
The AB 1632 studies of the southern end of the Shoreline fault found that the fault extended an additional 22 km to the south, thereby increasing the fault length from 23 km used in the 2011 Shoreline Fault Zone Report to 45 km. With this increased length, the magnitude, based on Leonard (2010), increased from 6.5 to 6.7 as shown in Table 1-1.
For the Hosgri fault, the step-over between the Hosgri and San Simeon faults is small enough that the two faults are assumed to rupture together. The northern end of the San Simeon fault was not addressed in the AB 1632 studies. The length of the combined Hosgri and San Simeon faults, 171 km, was defined using the Hosgri fault length from the U.S. Geological Survey (Petersen et al., 2008, Table I-3) which treated the San Simeon and Hosgri faults as a single fault called the Hosgri fault. This increased length leads to a magnitude of 7.3.
The AB 1632 studies for the Los Osos fault, found that the minimum dip consistent with the newly collected data is 55 degrees, as compared to a minimum dip of 45 degrees used in the 2011 Shoreline Fault Zone Report. The steeper dip leads to a smaller fault area, and the magnitude is reduced from 6.8 to 6.7.
The AB 1632 studies did not provide new information for the San Luis Bay fault length or dip. Using the length and dip from the 2011 Shoreline Fault Zone Report leads to a magnitude of 6.4. The increase from the 2011 magnitude of 6.3 results from using the bounding length and dip rather than the full logic tree to define the rupture area.
Additional linking of the ruptures to fault segments outside the study region (such as linking the Hosgri-San Simeon rupture to a San Gregorio rupture) was not evaluated in the AB 1632 studies. Because this is best addressed with the probabilistic approach, the potential for linking of ruptures outside the AB 1632 study area is being characterized in the SSHAC seismic source characterization study.
Page 9 of 21 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08, Rev. 0 2.0 DETERMINISTIC GROUND MOTIONS 2.1 Hazard Sensitivity for Updated Scenarios For the scenarios listed in Table 1-1, the parameters required as inputs to GMPEs are listed in Tables 2-1 and 2-2. A reference site condition with shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 meters (VS30) at 760 meters per second (m/s) and default values for depths to VS=1.0 km/s and VS =2.5 km/s (called Z1 and Z2.5) is used to compute the median ground motion and standard deviation for the four NGA-West2 GMPEs (Abrahamson et al.,
2014; Boore et al., 2014; Campbell and Bozorgnia, 2014; Chiou and Youngs, 2014). The four models are given equal weight of 0.25. In addition to the source parameters, the distanes from the source to the DCPP site is also required. There are three distance metrics used in the GMPEs: the closest distance from the rupture plane to the site (RRUP),
the shortest horizontal distance from the vertical projection of the rupture plane to the site (RJB), and the shortest horizontal distance from the vertical projection of the top of the rupture to the site measured perpendicular to strike (RX). These distance metric are listed in Table 2-2 for each scenario.
Table 2-1. Source Input Parameters Required for the GMPEs Fault Mag Dip Downdip Width (km)
Sense of Slip1 Hypocentral Depth (km)
Depth to Top of Rupture (km)
Hosgri (linked to San Simeon) 7.3 75 12.4 SS 8
0 Los Osos 6.7 55 14.6 RV 8
0 San Luis Bay 6.4 50 15.7 RV 8
0 Shoreline 6.7 90 12 SS 8
0 1 RV = reverse-slip; SS = strike-slip Table 2-2. Distance and Site Input Parameters Required for the GMPEs Fault RRUP (km)
RJB (km)
RX (km)
Hanging Wall or Footwall VS30 (m/s)
Z1 (km)
Z2.5 (km)
Hosgri (linked to San Simeon) 4.7 1.7 4.9 HW 760 Default Default Los Osos 8.1 1.5 9.9 HW 760 Default Default San Luis Bay 1.9 0.0 2.5 HW 760 Default Default Shoreline 0.6 0.6 0.6 N/A 760 Default Default To account for the site-specific site response at the DCPP, the amplification factors given in Table 3-3 of CCCSIP Report Chapter 11 (PG&E, 2014) are applied to the reference site condition ground motion from the GMPEs. As described in GEO.DCPP.TR.14.06,
Page 10 of 21 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08, Rev. 0 the deterministic 84th percentile ground motion is computed by combining the epistemic uncertainty in the site term ( SiteAmp( f ) ) with the single-station sigma ( SS( f ) ). The 84th percentile ground motion is computed using Equation 2-1:
ln PSA84th( f )
(
)= ln NGAMed( f )
(
)+ ln SiteAmp( f )
(
)+ SS 2 ( f )+ SiteAmp 2
( f ) (2-1) where NGAMed( f )
(
) is the weighted average of the medians from the five NGA-West2 models, ln SiteAmp( f )
(
)is the natural log of the DCPP site-specific site amplification (for either the power block or the turbine building, SS( f ) is the single-station sigma, and SiteAmp( f ) is the epistemic uncertainty in the DCPP site-specific site amplification in natural log units. The single-station sigma is computed by removing the within-event site variability, S2S( f ), from the ergodic standard deviation, ERG( f ) given by the GMPEs:
SS 2 ( f ) =
ERG 2
( f )S2S 2 ( f )
(2-2)
The values of S2S( f ) from the 2011 Shoreline Fault Zone Report (Table 6-7 in the 2011 report) are listed in Table 2-3. The values of ln SiteAmp( f )
(
) for the power-block and turbine-building foundation levels and the values of SiteAmp( f ) are given in GEO.DCPP.TR.14.06 and are repeated here in Table 2-3.
Page 11 of 21 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08, Rev. 0 Table 2-3. Total Site-Specific Amplification from the NGA-West2 GMPEs for a Reference Site with VS30=760 m/s to the Power-Block and Turbine-Building Foundation Levels Frequency (Hz)
S2S 2 ( f )
Amplification, ln SiteAmp( f )
(
)
(LN units)
Epistemic Uncertainty in Site Amplification, SiteAmp( f )
Power Block Foundation Turbine Building Foundation 100 0.080
-0.506
-0.416 0.200 50 0.079
-0.520
-0.433 0.199 34 0.081
-0.546
-0.465 0.201 20 0.084
-0.706
-0.625 0.205 13.5 0.087
-0.718
-0.631 0.209 10 0.089
-0.751
-0.650 0.211 6.7 0.090
-0.785
-0.660 0.212 5
0.092
-0.704
-0.562 0.214 4
0.092
-0.551
-0.415 0.214 3.3 0.093
-0.420
-0.293 0.216 2.5 0.094
-0.015 0.075 0.217 2
0.096 0.020 0.094 0.219 1.3 0.099 0.065 0.120 0.222 1
0.103
-0.049
-0.006 0.227 0.67 0.106
-0.010 0.016 0.230 0.5 0.109 0.004 0.024 0.233 Sources: Shoreline Fault Zone Report (Table 6-7 of PG&E, 2011) and GEO.DCPP.TR.14.06 (Table 3-3).
The median and standard deviations of the ground motions are computed for the reference site condition using the NGA-West2 GMPEs. The software used for this calculation is the PEER NGA-W2 spreadsheet (file name: NGAW2-GMPE_Spreadsheets_V5.5_060514_protected.xlsm). This spreadsheet was checked in GEO.DCPP.14.03, Rev0.
The resulting ground motions values are are listed in Tables 2-4 through 2-7 for the Hosgri, Los Osos, San Luis Bay, and Shoreline scenarios. The deterministic 84th percentile ground motions are computed using Equation 2-1. The deterministic response spectra for the power-block foundation level are listed in Table 2-8 and the deterministic response spectra for the turbine-building foundation level are listed in Table 2-9. The deterministic spectra for the power block and turbine building are compared to the 1977 Hosgri and 1991 LTSP spectra on Figures 2-1 and 2-2, respectively. The 1977 Hosgri spectrum is defined for frequencies greater than 1 hertz (Hz). The extension of the 1977 Hosgri spectrum to lower frequencies is shown by the dashed black lines on Figures 2-1
Page 12 of 21 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08, Rev. 0 and 2-2. For all the scenarios and for both sites, the deterministic ground motions are bounded by the 1977 Hosgri spectrum.
Table 2-4. Deterministic Response Spectra (5% Damping) for the Hosgri Fault for the Reference Site Condition (VS30 = 760 m/s)
Frequency (Hz)
Average Median from 4 NGA Models NGAMed( f ) (g)
Average ERG( f )
from 4 NGA Models (LN units)
SS( f )
(LN units) 100 0.475 0.588 0.516 50 0.489 0.590 0.519 34 0.542 0.601 0.529 20 0.688 0.618 0.546 13.5 0.863 0.637 0.564 10 0.972 0.643 0.570 6.7 1.095 0.638 0.563 5
1.069 0.630 0.553 4
0.980 0.625 0.546 3.3 0.889 0.630 0.551 2.5 0.749 0.638 0.560 2
0.636 0.652 0.573 1.3 0.451 0.679 0.602 1
0.337 0.691 0.612 0.67 0.210 0.698 0.617 0.5 0.148 0.699 0.616
Page 13 of 21 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08, Rev. 0 Table 2-5. Deterministic Response Spectra (5% Damping) for the Los Osos Fault for the Reference Site Condition (VS30 = 760 m/s)
Frequency (Hz)
Average Median from 4 NGA Models NGAMed( f ) (g)
Average ERG( f )
from 4 NGA Models (LN units)
SS( f )
(LN units) 100 0.434 0.591 0.518 50 0.446 0.593 0.522 34 0.494 0.603 0.532 20 0.633 0.621 0.549 13.5 0.807 0.640 0.568 10 0.922 0.646 0.573 6.7 1.029 0.641 0.566 5
1.000 0.633 0.555 4
0.902 0.627 0.549 3.3 0.811 0.633 0.554 2.5 0.664 0.641 0.563 2
0.545 0.654 0.576 1.3 0.365 0.682 0.605 1
0.256 0.694 0.615 0.67 0.146 0.700 0.620 0.5 0.096 0.701 0.618
Page 14 of 21 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08, Rev. 0 Table 2-6. Deterministic Response Spectra (5% Damping) for the San Luis Bay Fault for the Reference Site Condition (VS30 = 760 m/s)
Frequency (Hz)
Average Median from 4 NGA Models NGAMed( f ) (g)
Average ERG( f )
from 4 NGA Models (LN units)
SS( f )
(LN units) 100 0.540 0.596 0.525 50 0.558 0.598 0.528 34 0.620 0.608 0.537 20 0.790 0.624 0.553 13.5 0.999 0.642 0.571 10 1.137 0.649 0.576 6.7 1.267 0.645 0.571 5
1.221 0.638 0.561 4
1.109 0.633 0.555 3.3 1.000 0.638 0.560 2.5 0.810 0.646 0.569 2
0.661 0.659 0.582 1.3 0.443 0.686 0.610 1
0.307 0.698 0.620 0.67 0.170 0.704 0.624 0.5 0.109 0.704 0.622
Page 15 of 21 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08, Rev. 0 Table 2-7. Deterministic Response Spectra (5% Damping) for the Shoreline Fault for the Reference Site Condition (VS30 = 760 m/s)
Frequency (Hz)
Average Median from 4 NGA Models NGAMed( f ) (g)
Average ERG( f )
from 4 NGA Models (LN units)
SS( f )
(LN units) 100 0.495 0.591 0.518 50 0.511 0.593 0.522 34 0.569 0.603 0.532 20 0.725 0.620 0.549 13.5 0.910 0.639 0.566 10 1.022 0.645 0.572 6.7 1.148 0.641 0.566 5
1.108 0.633 0.555 4
1.015 0.627 0.549 3.3 0.913 0.633 0.554 2.5 0.753 0.641 0.562 2
0.629 0.654 0.576 1.3 0.440 0.682 0.605 1
0.323 0.694 0.615 0.67 0.191 0.700 0.620 0.5 0.130 0.701 0.618
Page 16 of 21 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08, Rev. 0 Table 2-8. Deterministic 84th Percentile Site-Specific Ground Motions for the Power-Block Foundation Level 5% Damped Spectral Acceleration (g)
Frequency (Hz)
Hosgri (M 7.3, Dip=75)
Los Osos (M=6.7, Dip=55)
San Luis Bay (M=6.4, Dip=50)
Shoreline (M=6.7, Dip=90) 100 0.498 0.456 0.571 0.520 50 0.507 0.464 0.583 0.531 34 0.553 0.505 0.637 0.582 20 0.609 0.561 0.703 0.643 13.5 0.768 0.721 0.895 0.811 10 0.842 0.801 0.991 0.887 6.7 0.912 0.859 1.063 0.958 5
0.957 0.897 1.101 0.993 4
1.015 0.937 1.159 1.055 3.3 1.056 0.966 1.197 1.087 2.5 1.345 1.196 1.467 1.355 2
1.198 1.030 1.256 1.188 1.3 0.914 0.742 0.905 0.894 1
0.616 0.470 0.566 0.592 0.67 0.402 0.280 0.327 0.366 0.5 0.287 0.187 0.213 0.253
Page 17 of 21 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08, Rev. 0 Table 2-9. Deterministic 84th Percentile Site-Specific Ground Motions for the Turbine-Building Foundation Level 5% Damped Spectral Acceleration (g)
Frequency (Hz)
Hosgri (M 7.3, Dip=75)
Los Osos (M=6.7, Dip=55)
San Luis Bay (M=6.4, Dip=50)
Shoreline (M=6.7, Dip=90) 100 0.545 0.499 0.625 0.569 50 0.553 0.506 0.636 0.579 34 0.600 0.548 0.691 0.631 20 0.660 0.609 0.763 0.697 13.5 0.838 0.786 0.976 0.885 10 0.932 0.886 1.096 0.982 6.7 1.033 0.973 1.204 1.086 5
1.103 1.033 1.269 1.145 4
1.163 1.074 1.327 1.208 3.3 1.199 1.097 1.360 1.234 2.5 1.472 1.309 1.605 1.483 2
1.290 1.109 1.352 1.280 1.3 0.966 0.784 0.956 0.945 1
0.643 0.490 0.591 0.618 0.67 0.412 0.287 0.336 0.376 0.5 0.293 0.190 0.217 0.258 2.2 Shoreline Rupture Sensitivity In the evaluation of the Shoreline fault rupture developed in the Shoreline Fault Zone Report (PG&E, 2011), the Shoreline fault was assumed to intersect with the Hosgri fault, but a linked rupture involving the full Shoreline fault and the full Hosgri fault was not included because the geometry of the two faults was unfavorable to allow such a rupture.
Dynamic rupture modeling (see Appendix J in the 2011 Shoreline Fault Zone Report) showed that if the rupture on the Hosgri stepped onto the Shoreline fault, the rupture would continue for only a few kilometers at most. Similarly, ruptures on the Shoreline fault stepping onto the Hosgri would continue for only a few kilometers. To impact the deterministic hazard, the rupture on the Shoreline fault must rupture the section of the fault within 5 km of the DCPP (e.g. the rupture would have to include the central segment of the Shoreline fault), otherwise the ground motion will be less than for the Hosgri rupture, which is at a distance of 4.9 km and has the same magnitude.
The new information collected on the geometry of the Shoreline and Hosgri faults shows that within a resolution of a few hundred meters, the two faults intersect. This new information indicates that the fault may rupture together, but it does not change the unfavorable geometries for a linked rupture discussed above.
Page 18 of 21 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08, Rev. 0 As a sensitivity, the deterministic hazard is computed assuming that the full Shoreline fault rupture is linked to a rupture on the Hosgri fault, extending north to the end of the San Simeon fault. The rupture length for this scenario is computed using the part of the Hosgri/San Simeon fault that is north of the intersection of the Shoreline fault and the Hosgri fault (100 km) and the full length of the Shoreline fault (45 km) for a total length of 145 km. Using a fault width of 12 km, this linked rupture has a magnitude of 7.23 based on the Leonard (2010) magnitude-area scaling relation for strike-slip faults. For this sensitivity, the magnitude is rounded up to M7.3. For this scenario, the closest distance is 0.6 km (this is the shortest distance to the Shoreline fault).
The median and standard deviations of the ground motions computed for the reference site condition using the NGA-West2 GMPEs are listed in Table 2-10. The deterministic 84th percentile ground motions are listed in Table 2-11, and the spectra are compared to the 1977 Hosgri and 1991 LTSP spectra on Figure 2-3. The ground motion from this linked rupture case remains bounded by the 1977 Hosgri spectrum.
Table 2-10. Deterministic Response Spectra (5% Damping) for the Scenario with the Shoreline Fault Rupture Linked to the Hosgri Fault and for the Reference Site Condition (VS30=760 m/s)
Frequency (Hz)
Average Median from 4 NGA Models NGAMed( f )
(g)
Average ERG( f )
from 4 NGA Models (LN units)
SS( f )
(LN units) 100 0.521 0.588 0.516 50 0.536 0.590 0.519 34 0.595 0.600 0.529 20 0.754 0.618 0.546 13.5 0.941 0.636 0.564 10 1.057 0.643 0.569 6.7 1.193 0.638 0.563 5
1.161 0.630 0.552 4
1.074 0.625 0.546 3.3 0.977 0.630 0.551 2.5 0.827 0.638 0.560 2
0.706 0.652 0.573 1.3 0.509 0.679 0.602 1
0.386 0.691 0.612 0.67 0.243 0.698 0.617 0.5 0.172 0.699 0.616
Page 19 of 21 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08, Rev. 0 Table 2-11. Deterministic 84th Percentile Site-Specific Ground Motions for the Scenario with the Shoreline Fault Rupture Linked to the Hosgri Fault 5% Damped Spectral Acceleration (g)
Frequency (Hz)
Power Block Turbine Building 100 0.546 0.598 50 0.556 0.606 34 0.607 0.658 20 0.667 0.723 13.5 0.838 0.914 10 0.915 1.012 6.7 0.993 1.125 5
1.038 1.196 4
1.113 1.275 3.3 1.160 1.317 2.5 1.485 1.625 2
1.330 1.432 1.3 1.032 1.090 1
0.706 0.737 0.67 0.465 0.477 0.5 0.334 0.340
Page 20 of 21 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08, Rev. 0
3.0 CONCLUSION
S AND LIMITATIONS For all the cases considered in this sensitivity study, the 84th percentile ground motions for the power-block and turbine-building foundation levels are bounded by the 1977 Hosgri spectrum.
For this evaluation, the reference rock ground motion is computed using the five NGA-West2 GMPEs with equal weight. The Southwestern United States (SWUS) ground-motion project is the SSHAC evaluation that will develop a complete set of ground-motion models and weights for application to the DCPP. The SWUS models will be completed as part of the March 2015 report. In addition, analytical modeling of the three-dimensional site amplification is being conducted and evaluated as part of the March 2015 hazard study, and this may affect the DCPP site-specific factors. Therefore, the ground motions shown in this section are for an initial hazard sensitivity evaluation only.
Page 21 of 21 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.08, Rev. 0
4.0 REFERENCES
Abrahamson, N.A., Silva, W.J., and Kamai, R., 2014. Summary of the ASK14 ground-motion relation for active crustal regions, Earthquake Spectra, in press.
Boore, D.M., Stewart, J.P., Seyha, E., and Atkinson, G.M., 2014. NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra, in press.
Campbell, K.W., and Bozorgnia, Y., 2014. NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra, Earthquake Spectra, in press.
Chiou, B.S.-J., and Youngs, R.R., 2014. Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra, Earthquake Spectra, in press.
Leonard, M., 2010. Earthquake fault scaling: self-consistent relating of rupture length, width, average displacement, and moment release, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 100: 1971-1988.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), 2011. Shoreline Fault Zone Report: Report on the Analysis of the Shoreline Fault Zone, Central Coastal California, report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January; www.pge.com/myhome/edusafety/
systemworks/dcpp/shorelinereport/.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), 2014. Site Conditions Evaluation, Technical Report GEO.DCPP.TR.14.06, June.
Petersen, M.D., Frankel, A.D., Harmsen, S.C., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Wheeler, R.L., Wesson, R.L., Oliver, Y.Z, Boyd, S., Perkins, D.M., Luco, N., Field, E.H., Wills, C.J., and Rukstales, K.S., 2008. Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps, USGS Open-File Report 2008-1128, 128 pp.
GEOFORM.CF3.GE2.02 (05/02/13)
Page I of2 GEO.DCPP.TR.14.08 RO Attachment I VERIFICATION
SUMMARY
REPORT Item Parameter Yes No*
NIA*
I Purpose is clearly stated and the report satisfies the
./
Purpose.
2 Data to be intetpreted 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.
./
II Appendices are complete, accurate, and suppmi text.
NIA*
- No appendices or suppmting documents are included.
Comments:
Table 1-1 "20 II Shoreline Repmi" parameters are the maximum fault length, the minimum dip, and the 90th fractile magnihtde. The minimum dip and 90th fractile parameters in this table are correctly transmitted from Table 6-8 of the 2011 Shoreline Fault repmt. The maximum length for each fault source is taken from the 2011 Shoreline Fault logic trees in Chapter 5 (Shoreline: Figure 5-2, Hosgri: Figure 5-9, Los Osos:
Figure 5-10, San Luis Bay: Figure 5-11). The "Updated Parameters" in Table 1-1 also include the maximum fault length, the minimum dip, and the magnitude. Updated magnitudes are verified using Leonard 2010 (see "Chapter13check.xls"). Updated dip for the Hosgri and Los Osos faults are taken from the "Study Results" section of the CCCSIP Repmt Executive Summary (Hosgri Dip: Study Result #2, Los Osos Dip:
Shtdy Result #5). The updated maximum length for the Shoreline fault is taken from the Shtdy Result# I 0 of the CCSIP Report Executive Summary, and the updated maximum length for the Hosgri fault consistent with the USGS value. The approach for computing the Hosgri length is verified and appropriate. All values in Table 1-1 are verified to be accurate.
Table 2-1 magnitudes and dips are correctly transmitted from Table 1-1. The downdip widths are independently computed (see "Chapter13check.xls") and verified to be
GEOFORM.CF3.GE2.02 (05/02/13)
Page 2 of2 GEO.DCPP.TR.l4.08 RO correct. The sense of slip for each of the faults is verified to be appropriate based on Table 6-8 of the 2011 Shoreline Fault report. Hypocentral depth is an assumed parameter, and it is verified to be reasonable. Also, the depth to top of rupture is an assumed parameter, and it is reasonable based on the magnitudes of the ruptures assigned to each fault. All values in Table 2-1 are verified to be accurate.
Because the Hosgri and Los Osos dips have been updated, the RRUP and Rm parameters in Table 2-2 are new values. These parameters were independently computed by hand and verified to be correct. All other distance metrics (RRuP, Rm, and Rx) in Table 2-2 are correctly transmitted from Table 6-8 of the 20 II Shoreline Fault report. DCPP is located on the HW side of each of these fault sources (with the exception of Shoreline because dip=90) and this parameter is verified to be correct. Vs30 is a default parameter based on the reference rock condition. It is a reasonable assumption and verified to be appropriate.
Default values are used for Z1 and Z2.5 and this is a reasonable approach for the purposes of this calculation. All values in Table 2-2 are verified to be accurate.
Table 2-3 was verified against Tables 6.5-1 and I 0.1-1 in GEO.DCPP.14.03 revO.
Median SA values (the geometric mean over the 4 NGA-W2 models) for the deterministic fault sources in Tables 2-4,2-5,2-6,2-7, and 2-10 were computed using the PEER spreadsheet (NGA W2_ GMPE_Spreadsheets_v5.5_060514_Protected.xlsm). The spreadsheet was also used to compute the Median SA plus one standard deviation and from these two numbers, the average standard deviation model over the 4 NGA GMPEs was computed. Finally, ass was computed using equation 2-2. Tables 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-10 are verified to be correct (see "Chapter 13check.xls" for independent ITR computation).
Using equation2-l, the deterministic 841" percentile ground motions were independently computed using the median spectral acceleration (Tables 2-4,2-5,2-6,2-7, and 2-10), the site amplification factors for the power block foundation and the turbine building foundation (Table 2-3) and the standard deviation. The values in Table 2-8, 2-9, and 2-11 are verified to be correct (see "Chapter13check.xls" for independent ITR computation).
All supporting documents for this ITR report are located on the Geosciences S:/ Drive.
({3/tff/11 (date)
'