1 project overview sshac level 3 process workshop ground rules · 1 pg&e dcpp sshac study...

1

PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study

Project Overview SSHAC Level 3 process Workshop Ground Rules

William Lettis SSC TI Lead

Diablo Canyon SSHAC Level 3 PSHA Workshop #3

Feedback to Technical Integration Team on Preliminary Models March 25-27, 2014

San Luis Obispo, CA

PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 2

Introduction and SSHAC Training Overview of PG&E DCPP project objective Summary of SSHAC Level 3 process, steps, and roles Context of Workshop #3 (WS3) in SSHAC Level 3 process Role of the PPRP in WS3 Ground rules for WS3 Expected outcome of WS3


Project Objective To develop a SSHAC Level 3 Seismic Source Model for input to a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) at Diablo Canyon • Pacific Gas & Electric Co is responding to NRC 10 CFR 50.54(f)

letter issued on March 12, 2012

3


4

Provides a Structured Framework for Incorporating Data, Knowledge, and Scientific Assessments from the Technical Community Evaluation of Available Data, Methods and Models, and Competing Scientific Hypotheses - Use of Experts Integration into SSC model that Captures Center, Body and Range of Technically Defensible Interpretations

NUREG-2117 SSHAC Implementation

Guidelines

Kevin Coppersmith Chair, PPRP

What is the “SSHAC Process”?

NUREG/CR 6372 SSHAC Guidance


(1) Present preliminary SSC model to PPRP Step through the model elements

(2) Receive feedback from Hazard Analyst on sensitivity alyses on preliminary SSC model

Understand relative importance of model elements Provide information to prioritize finalization of the SSC model

(3) Receive feedback from PPRP (1) Technical Review PPRP will ask questions to enhance their understanding and to probe the bases for our assessments to be sure that:

Data, models, and methods have been considered SSC model captures the CBR of TDI (2) SSHAC Process Review

Primary objectives of SSHAC Level 3 Workshop 3


For this Workshop #3, new information is being presented by Resource and Proponent Experts.

This information is being introduced during the workshop, and will be considered and fully evaluated by the TI Team AFTER the workshop.

This information may or may not be integrated in the SSC model based on the TI Team evaluation.

Secondary Objective of this DCPP Workshop 3 (1) Receive update on new data and

interpretations/models from additional REs and PEs for later Evaluation and Integration into SSC Model, as

appropriate.


30

Workshop 1 SSC Sessions—March 25th Day 1, Tuesday, March 25th, 2014

Morning Afternoon Time Topic Presenter Time Topic Presenter 8:00 Welcome K. Ferre 13:00 Hosgri - Location and Dip H. AbramsonWard

8:15 PTI Comments N. Abrahamson 13:15 Discussion 8:30 Training W. Lettis 13:30 Hosgri - Slip Rate H. AbramsonWard

(PE) 8:45 13:45 Discussion

9:00 SSC Model Overview S. Thompson 14:00 Hosgri - Slip Rate P. Hogan (PE) 9:15 14:15 Discussion 9:30 14:30 Hosgri - Slip Rate CDF S. Thompson

9:45 Discussion 14:45 Discussion 10:00 Break 15:00 Break 10:15 Hazard Sensitivity N. Gregor 15:15 Hosgri Rupture Model G. Biasi

10:30 15:30 Discussion 10:45 15:45 Earthquake Rate Model K. Wooddell (PE)

11:00 Discussion 16:00 Discussion 11:15 Tectonic Setting

Stress/Strain Regime J. Caskey / N. Lewandowski (PE)

16:15 Comparison to UCERF3 S. Thompson

11:30 16:30 Day 1 Discussion W. Lettis 11:45 Discussion 16:45 12:00 Lunch 17:00 Observer Comments 12:15 17:15 Adjourn 12:30 17:30 Public Science Q&A 12:45 17:45


30

Workshop 1 SSC Sessions—March 26th Day 2, Wednesday, March 26th, 2014

Morning Afternoon Time Topic Presenter Time Topic Presenter 8:00 Training W. Lettis 13:00 Tectonic Models Overview W. Lettis / G. Biasi 8:15 ONSIP - Intro and Data S. Nishenko and D.

O'Connell (RE) 13:15

8:30 13:30 Tectonic Models: Outward, Southwest Vergent, Northeast Vergent

H. AbramsonWard 8:45 Discussion 13:45 9:00 ONSIP - Results J. Unruh (PE) 14:00

9:15 14:15 Discussion 9:30 Discussion 14:30 Break 9:45 Microseismicity Analysis J. Hardebeck (PE) 14:45 Deformation Models:

Overview S. Thompson / J. Caskey 10:00 15:00

10:15 Discussion 15:15 Discussion 10:30 Break 15:30 Deformation Models:

Outward, Southwest Vergent, Northeast Vergent

S. Thompson 10:45 Evaluation of New Data W. Lettis 15:45 11:00 LESS - Shoreline Results G. Greene (PE) 16:00

11:15 Discussion 16:15 Discussion 11:30 Shoreline - Slip Rate CDF S. Thompson 16:30 Day 2 Discussion W. Lettis

11:45 Discussion 16:45 12:00 Lunch 17:00 Observer Comments 12:15 17:15 Adjourn 12:30 17:30 Public Science Q&A N. Abrahamson 12:45 17:45


30

Workshop 1 SSC Sessions—March 27th Day 3, Thursday, March 27th, 2014

Morning Afternoon Time Topic Presenter Time Topic Presenter 8:00 Training W. Lettis 13:00 Discussion S. Thompson 8:15 Rupture and Earthquake

Rate Models Intro S. Thompson 13:15

8:30 13:30 Recurrence Models: Approach and Results

G. Biasi (PE)

8:45 Discussion 13:45 9:00 Rupture and Rate Model:

Outward H. AbramsonWard / S. Thompson

14:00 Discussion 9:15 14:15 Break 9:30 14:30 San Andreas and Other

Fault sources S. Thompson

9:45 14:45 10:00 Discussion 15:00 Discussion 10:15 Break 15:15 Background Sources N. Gregor 10:30 Rupture and Rate Model:

Southwest Vergent H. AbramsonWard / S. Thompson

15:30 Discussion 10:45 15:45 Day 3 Discussion W. Lettis

11:00 Discussion 16:00 11:15 Rupture and Rate Model:

Northeast Vergent H. AbramsonWard / S. Thompson

16:15 Observer Comments 11:30 16:30 Adjourn

11:45 Discussion 16:45 Public Science Q&A N. Abrahamson 12:00 Lunch 17:00 12:15 17:15 12:30 17:30 12:45 17:45

PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 10 Roles in a SSHAC Level 3 Process

EVALUATOR EXPERT Impartial and objective assessor of potentially applicable data, models,

and methods

INTEGRATOR EXPERT Develops logic-tree that captures the full range of defensible models

RESOURCE EXPERT Has particular knowledge of a relevant data set, method, or model

PROPONENT EXPERT Advocates a particular hypothesis or

technical position; will often promote a model that they have developed

PARTICIPATORY REVIEWER Provides process and technical review; ensures consideration of full range of

views and robust technical justifications of logic-tree

HAZARD ANALYST Performs hazard calculations and sensitivity analyses to inform

evaluators

TI Team


“The fundamental goal of a SSHAC process is to properly carry out and completely document the activities of evaluation and integration, defined as: Evaluation: The consideration of the complete set of data, models, and methods proposed by the larger technical community that are relevant to the hazard analysis. Integration: Representing the center, body, and range of technically defensible interpretations in light of the evaluation process (i.e., informed by the assessment of existing data, models, and methods).”

11

NUREG-2117

TI Team Responsibilities


30

DCPP SSHAC Organizational Chart


Process and Technical Review

PPRP

Evaluation of Models to Form

Com

posite Distribution

TI Team

Hazard sensitivity calculations Preliminary database

WORKSHOP 1: Hazard Sensitive Issues and Data Needs Resource

Experts

Additional data collection & analysis

WORKSHOP 2: Review of Database and Discussion of Alternative

Models

Resource Experts

Proponent Experts

Final database Preliminary SSC model

WORKSHOP 3: Presentation of Models and Hazard Sensitivity Feedback

Final SSC model, then final hazard calculations, Documentation of all technical bases

Database C

ompilation

Technical Staff & Contractors

Integration SSHAC Level 3 Scope of Work

Nov 29-Dec 1, 2011

Nov 6-9, 2012

Today


“Workshop #3 Feedback” in a SSHAC Level 3 Project Per NUREG-2117 (given in italics)

“The goal of Workshop #3 Feedback is to present and discuss the preliminary models and calculations in a forum that provides the opportunity for feedback to the evaluators.” • The workshop is intended to provide feedback to the TI

Teams “Feedback is given in the form of hazard results and sensitivity analyses to shed light on the most important technical issues. Feedback is also provided at this workshop by participation of the PPRP and allowing them to ask questions regarding the preliminary SSC and GMC models.” • Two types of feedback provided to Teams: - Hazard Sensitivity Analysis - PPRP Questions and Comments


“Workshop #3 Feedback” in a SSHAC Level 3 Project Per NUREG-2117 (cont’d.)

“The feedback provided at this workshop will ensure that no significant issues have been overlooked and will allow the evaluators to understand the relative importance of their models, uncertainties, and assessments of weights. This information will provide a basis for the finalization of the models following the workshop.” • Purpose of the workshop is to provide the Teams with insight

into their models and documentation • Information on relative importance to hazard will help

prioritize final evaluation and integration “It should be noted that these feedback calculations are not intended to provide a basis for artificially truncating or otherwise limiting the models developed by the evaluators. Rather, they are intended to provide a basis for prioritizing the activities associated with developing the final models.”



“The workshop consists of two parts: (1) the evaluators presenting their preliminary models with particular emphasis on the manner in which alternative viewpoints and uncertainties have been incorporated and (2) sensitivity analyses and hazard calculations that provide insight into the preliminary models.” • Workshop is structured to provide for these two activities • In addition, Workshop provides time for RE and PE

presentations for evaluation of new data, interpretations and alternative models following the workshop


“At Workshop #3, the main participants will be the evaluators/integrators and the PPRP.” • Although the main “evaluation” phase is over, the

evaluation of new data, models, or methods continues until SSC model is finalized

• Resource experts/proponent experts are present at WS3 to provide new data and analyses but are not otherwise active participants in the model feedback unless called upon by the TI Team

“This means that the PPRP is charged with ensuring that the full range of data, models, and methods have been duly considered in the assessment and also that all technical decisions are adequately justified…” • Evidence that available data, models, and methods

were evaluated will rest with the project report



Role of PPRP at Workshop #3 “It is recommended that at Workshop #3 the PPRP be relieved of their observer status and allowed to participate directly in discussions and technical challenge of the preliminary models developed by the evaluation and integration teams.” •Participation benefits the TI Teams: provides insight into strengths and weaknesses of the preliminary SSC model; areas needing additional support; focus efforts as the models are finalized •Participation benefits the PPRP: provides early understanding of the SSC model prior to documentation; probes technical basis of the models; identifies any data, models, or methods that don’t appear to have been evaluated •PPRP participation covers TI Team presentations and SSC model, but does not extend to RE and PE presentations


Role of PPRP at Workshop #3 (cont’d.) “…but all members of the panel should be vigilant about being drawn into participating in the actual technical assessments.” “Beyond completeness, it is not within the remit of the PPRP to judge the weighting of the logic-trees in detail but rather to judge the justification provided for the models included or excluded, and for the weights applied to the logic-tree branches.” • Inappropriate: “You should have given that branch higher

weight.” • Appropriate: “What is the basis for the weight given to that

branch?”

• Inappropriate: “You should have included Smith’s model in your logic tree since it is out there in the technical community.”

• Appropriate: “Are you aware of Smith’s model? If so, what is the technical basis for not including it or how is the uncertainty incorporated in the model?”


Ground Rules for Workshop #3 Workshop 3 is an opportunity for the TI Team to: • Present and defend the preliminary SSC Model • Gain information through hazard sensitivity feedback • Gain information through PPRP questions and

interactions • Gain information from additional RE and PE

presentations • Not to review all data, methods and models presented

previously by RE and PEs


Ground Rules for Workshop #3 (continued)

Conduct of the technical discussions at the workshops will be at the highest professional level Discussions will be primarily among the TI team,

the PPRP, and the Hazard Analysts; all others will be considered observers, including REs and PEs Observers will be provided with opportunities for

comments at the end of each day The TI Team runs the workshop and is responsible

for keeping to the schedule


Expected Outcome of Workshop #3

The SSC TI Team Benefits from: • Enhanced knowledge of the relative importance and

hazard significance of elements of SSC model • List of model elements and issues requiring careful

and complete documentation • List of activities requiring additional analysis to

assist in the finalization of the SSC model • Additional new data and interpretations/models for

further evaluation

23

PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study

Diablo Canyon SSHAC Level 3 Study

Thank You

1 project overview sshac level 3 process workshop ground rules · 1 pg&e dcpp sshac study...

Documents