Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Challenges Ahead for Nuclear Facility Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Assessment in France: The Alternative Energies and the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) Vision

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Best Practices in Physics-based Fault Rupture Models for Seismic Hazard Assessment of Nuclear Installations

Part of the book series: Pageoph Topical Volumes ((PTV))

Abstract

Seismic analysis in the context of nuclear safety in France is currently guided by a pure deterministic approach based on Basic Safety Rule (Règle Fondamentale de Sûreté) RFS 2001-01 for seismic hazard assessment, and on the ASN/2/01 Guide that provides design rules for nuclear civil engineering structures. After the 2011 Tohohu earthquake, nuclear operators worldwide were asked to estimate the ability of their facilities to sustain extreme seismic loads. The French licensees then defined the ‘hard core seismic levels’, which are higher than those considered for design or re-assessment of the safety of a facility. These were initially established on a deterministic basis, and they have been finally justified through state-of-the-art probabilistic seismic hazard assessments. The appreciation and propagation of uncertainties when assessing seismic hazard in France have changed considerably over the past 15 years. This evolution provided the motivation for the present article, the objectives of which are threefold: (1) to provide a description of the current practices in France to assess seismic hazard in terms of nuclear safety; (2) to discuss and highlight the sources of uncertainties and their treatment; and (3) to use a specific case study to illustrate how extended source modeling can help to constrain the key assumptions or parameters that impact upon seismic hazard assessment. This article discusses in particular seismic source characterization, strong ground motion prediction, and maximal magnitude constraints, according to the practice of the French Atomic Energy Commission. Due to increases in strong motion databases in terms of the number and quality of the records in their metadata and the uncertainty characterization, several recently published empirical ground motion prediction models are eligible for seismic hazard assessment in France. We show that propagation of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties is feasible in a deterministic approach, as in a probabilistic way. Assessment of seismic hazard in France in the framework of the safety of nuclear facilities should consider these recent advances. In this sense, the opening of discussions with all of the stakeholders in France to update the reference documents (i.e., RFS 2001-01; ASN/2/01 Guide) appears appropriate in the short term.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ameri, G. (2014). Empirical ground motion model adapted to the French context. Deliverable SIGMA Project. Ref. SIGMA-2014-D2-131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ameri, G., Drouet, S., Traversa, P., Bindi, D., & Cotton, F. (2016, submitted). Toward an empirical ground motion prediction equation for metropolitan France: Accounting for regional differences in the source stress parameter. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ameri, G., Hollender, F., Perron, V., & Martin, C. (2017). Sitespecific partially nonergodic PSHA for a hard-rock critical site in southern France: adjustment of ground motion prediction equations and sensitivity analysis. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0118-6.

  • Anderson, J. G. (2014). Lessons learned from Fukushima related to seismic hazards at U.S. power plants and future seismic hazards studies. Presentation available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/slides/2014/20141007/anderson-20141007.pdf.

  • Aochi, H., Cushing, E., Scotti, O., & Berge-Thierry, C. (2006). Estimating rupture scenario likelihood based on dynamic rupture simulations: The example of the Middle Durance fault, southeastern France. Geophysical Journal International, 165, 436–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.0284.x.

  • Aochi, H., Scotti, O., & Berge-Thierry, C. (2005). Three-dimensional dynamic rupture propagation along complex segments with different mechanisms. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L21304. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL024158.

  • ASN/2/01 Guide. (2006). Consideration of seismic risk for the design of civil engineering buildings of nuclear plants excepted long duration radioactive wastes disposal. http://www.asn.fr/index.php/Divers/Autres-RFS/Guide-ASN-Guide-2-01-ex-RFS-V.2.g.

  • ASN Expert Group Advice. (2016). Agressions externes extrêmes à prendre en compte pour la mise en place du «noyau dur». Published 18 February 2016 (available on https://www.asn.fr/LASN/Appuis-techniques-de-l-ASN/Les-groupes-permanents-dexperts/Groupe-permanent-d-experts-pour-les-reacteursnucleaires-GPR, «Avis des groupes permanents d’experts»).

  • Baize, S., Cushing, M., Lemeille, F., Gelis, C., Texier, D., Nicoud, G., et al. (2011). Contribution to the seismic hazard assessment of a slow active fault, the Vuache fault in the southern Molasse basin (France). Bulletin de la Societe Geologique de France, 182(4), 347–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baize, S., Cushing, E., Lemeille, F., & Jomard, H. (2013). Updated seismotectonic scheme of Metropolitan France, with reference to geologic and seismotectonic data. Bulletin of the Geological Society of France, 184(3), 225–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, J. W., Luco, N., Abrahamson, N. A., Graves, R. W., Maechling, P. J., & Olsen, K. B. (2014). Engineering uses of physics-based ground motion simulations. In Tenth U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering frontiers of earthquake engineering, July 21–25, 2014, 10NCEE, Anchorage, Alaska.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baroux, E., Alessandro Pino, N., Valensise, G., Scotti, O., & Cushing, E. (2003). Source parameters of the June 11, 1909 Lambesc (Provence, southern France) earthquake: A reappraisal based on macroseismic and geodesic observations. Journal of Geophysical Research, 108(B9). https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JB002348.

  • Baumont, D., Ruiz, J. Berge-Thierry, C., & Cushing, E. (2004). On the simulations of broadband strong ground motions for moderate earthquakes along the Durance Fault, France, In: OECD Tsukuba workshop proceedings. Available on https://www.oecdnea.org/nsd/workshops/SEIS2004/Papers/Papers/FR_baumont_s1.pdf.

  • Beauval, C., Tasan, H. A., Laurendeau, A., Delavaud, E., Cotton, F., Guéguen, P., et al. (2012). On the testing of ground-motion prediction equations against small-magnitude data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102, 1994–2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berge-Thierry, C. (2012). Seismic hazard assessment and uncertainties treatment: discussion on the current French regulation, practices and open issues, In: Praha, OECD, PSA workshop. Available on http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/Public/46/027/46027289.pdf

  • Berge-Thierry, C., Cushing, E., Scotti, O., & Bonilla, F. (2004). Determination of the seismic input in France for the nuclear power plants safety: Regulatory context, hypothesis and uncertainties treatment, OECD Tsukuba. http://www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/workshops/SEIS2004/Papers/Papers/FR_Berge_s1.pdf.

  • Berge-Thierry, C., Griot-Pommera, D., Cotton, F., & Fukushima, Y. (2003). New empirical response spectral attenuation laws for moderate European earthquakes. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 7(2), 193–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berge-Thierry, C., Svay, A., Laurendeau, A., Chartier, T., Perron, V., Guyonnet-Benaize, C., Kishta, E., Cottereau, R., Lopez-Caballero, F., Hollender, F., Richard, B., Ragueneau, F., Voldoire, F., Banci, F., Zentner, I., Moussallam, N., Lancieri, M., Bard, P.Y., Grange, S., Erlicher, S., Kotronis, P., Le Maoult, A., Nicolas, M., Re´gnier, J., Bonilla, F., & Theodoulidis, N. (2016). Toward an integrated seismic risk assessment for nuclear safety improving current French methodologies through the SINAPS@ research project. Nuclear Engineering and Design,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2016.07.004.

  • Berge-Thierry, C., Wang, F., & Feau, C. (2017). The SINAPS@ research project: First lessons of an integrated seismic risk assessment for nuclear safety. In 16th Word Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, January 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billant, J., Hippolyte, J. C., & Bellier, O. (2015). Tectonic and geomorphic analysis of the Belledonne border fault and its extensions, Western Alps. Tectonophysics, 659, 31–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvet, M., Sylvander, M., Margerin, L., & Villasenor, A. (2013). Spatial variations of seismic attenuation and heterogeneity in the Pyrenees: Coda Q and peak delay time analysis. Tectonophysics, 608, 428–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaljub, E., Moczo, P., Tsuno, S., Bard, P. Y., Kristek, J., Ka¨ser, M., et al. (2010). Quantitative comparison of four numerical predictions of three-dimensional ground motion in the Grenoble Valley, France. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 100(4), 1427–1455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C., & Grüenthal. (2007). Hybrid zoneless probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: test and first application to SW Germany. AGU Fall Meeting Abstract.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chardon, D., Hermitte, D., Nguyen, F., & Bellier, O. (2005). First paleoseismological constraints on the strongest earthquake in France (Provence) in the twentieth century. Geology, 33(11), 901–904.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courboulex, F., Dujardin, A. M., Vallée, M., Delouis, B., Sira, C., Deschamps, A., et al. (2013). High-frequency directivity effects for an Mw 4.1 earthquake widely felt by the population in southeastern France. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 103(6), 3347–3353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, T. J., Calais, E., Fleitout, L., Bollinger, L., & Scotti, O. (2016). Evidence for the release of long-term tectonic strain stored in continental interiors through intraplate earthquakes. Geophysical Research Letters, 43(13), 6826–6836.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cushing, E. M., Bellier, O., Nechtschein, S., Sébrier, M., Lomax, A., Volant, P., et al. (2008). A multidisciplinary study of a slowdipping fault for seismic hazard assessment. The example of the Middle Durance Fault (SE France). Geophysical Journal International, 172, 1163–1178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Decision of the Nuclear Safety Authority. (2016). Réacteurs électronucléaires – EDF. Agressions externes extrêmes à prendre en compte pour la mise en place du «noyau dur», published July 19th, 2016 (available on https://www.asn.fr/L-ASN/Appuistechniques-de-l-ASN/Les-groupes-permanents-d-experts/Groupe-permanent-d-experts-pour-les-reacteurs-nucleaires-GPR, «Prise de position de l’ASN»).

  • Del Gaudio, S., Hok, S., Festa, G., Causse, M., & Lancieri, M. (2017). Near fault broadband ground motion simulation using empirical Green’s functions: The Upper Rhine Graben case study, Pageoph, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-017-1575-1.

  • Douglas, J. (2016). Ground motion prediction equations 1964–2016, report. Accessible on http://www.gmpe.org.uk/gmpereport2014.pdf.

  • Douglas, J., Akkar, S., Ameri, G., Bard, P. Y., Bindi, D., Bommer, J., et al. (2014). Comparisons among the five ground-motion models developed using RESORCE for the prediction of response spectral accelerations due to earthquakes in Europe and the Middle East. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 12(1), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9522-8.

  • Drouet, S., & Cotton, F. (2015). Regional stochastic GMPEs in low-seismicity areas: scaling and aleatory variability analysis—application to French Alps. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 105(4), 1883–1902. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140240.

  • Drouet, S., Cotton, F., & Philippe Guéguen, P. (2010). Vs30, j, regional attenuation and Mw from accelerograms: application to magnitude 3–5 French earthquakes. Geophysical Journal International, 182, 880–898. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04626.x.

  • ECS ASN. (2011). Evaluations Complémentaires de Sûreté, rapport de l’Autorité de Sûreté. Nuclear Authority Safety website http://www.asn.fr/Controler/Evaluations-complementaires-de-surete/Actualites-concernant-les-ECS/Rapport-de-l-ASN-sur-lesevaluations-complementaires-de-surete-ECS.

  • ENSREG. (2012). Stress tests performed on European nuclear power plant. Peer review report (France). http://www.ensreg.eu/sites/default/files/Country%20Report%20FR%20Final.pdf.

  • Fenton, C. H., Adams, J., & Halchuk, S. (2006). Seismic hazards assessment for radioactive waste disposal sites in regions of low seismic activity. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 24(3), 579–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, A. (1995). Mapping seismic hazard in the central-eastern United States. Seismological Research Letters, 66(4), 8–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guyonnet-Benaize, C. (2011). Modélisation 3D multi-échelle des structures géologiques de la région de la faille de la Moyenne Durance (SE France), PhD thesis, Aix-Marseille University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guyonnet-Benaize, C., Lamarche, J., Hollender, F., Viseur, S., Mu¨nch, P., & Borgomano, J. (2015). Three-dimensional structural modeling of an active fault zone based on complex outcrop and subsurface data: The Middle Durance Fault Zone inherited from polyphase Meso-Cenozoic tectonics (southeastern France). Tectonics, 34, 265–289. 1https://doi.org/0.1002/2014TC003749.

  • Hanks, T., & Kanamori, H. (1979). A moment magnitude scale. Journal of Geophysical Research, 84, 2348–2350. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB084iB05p02348.

  • IAEA SR series 85. (2015). Ground motion simulation based on fault rupture modelling for seismic hazard assessment in site evaluation for nuclear installations, published by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Available on http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1689Web-30327813.pdf.

  • IAEA-SSG9. (2010) Seismic hazards in site evaluation for nuclear installations, published by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Available on http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/iaeabooks/8413/Seismic-Hazards-in-Site-Evaluation-for-Nuclear-Installations.

  • IAEA TECDOC 1767. (2015). The contribution of palaeoseismology to seismic hazard assessment in site evaluation for nuclear installations, published by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Available on http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE-1767_web.pdf.

  • IRSN-Advice-ECS. (2015). Avis/IRSN N◦ 2015-00421, Agressions externes extrMTCD/publications/PDF/TE-1767_weace du eace du DF/TE-1767_wacteurs à eau sous pression d’EdF http://www.irsn.fr/FR/expertise/theme/Pages/Avis-et-Rapports-Evaluationscomplementaires-surete-ECS-Post-Fukushima.aspx’’\l’’. WByWs9IX3IU.

  • Kuperminc, M., & Bollinger, L. (2013). Parame´trisation des mode`les sismotectoniques du Sud-Est de la France pour l’estimation de l’alèa sismique, Rapport CEA/DIF/DASE/LDG DO 306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Pichon, X., Rangin, C., Hamon, Y., Loget, N., Lin, J. Y., Andreani, L., et al. (2011). Geodynamics of the France southeast basin: importance of gravity tectonics. Bulletin de la Societe Geologique de France, 181, 477–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebrun, B., Hatzfeld, D., & Bard, P.-Y. (2001). Site effects study in urban area: experimental results in Grenoble. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 158, 2543–2557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi, A. M., Akinci, A., Malagnini, L., & Mueller, C. S. (2005). Uncertainty analysis for seismic hazard in northern and central Italy. Annales Geophysicae, 48(6), 853–865.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marin, S., Avouac, J. P., Nicolas, M., & Schlupp, A. (2004). A probabilistic approach to seismic hazard in metropolitan France. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 94(6), 2137–2163. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120030232.

  • Martin, C., Ameri, G., Baumont, D., Carbon, D., Senfaute, G., Thiry, J. M., Faccioli, E., & Savy, J. (2017,submitted). Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for southeastern France. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neopal. (2010). Base de données néotectonique et paléosismologique Française. http://www.neopal.net.

  • Nocquet, J. M. (2012). Present-day kinematics of the Mediterranean: A comprehensive overview of GPS results. Tectonophysics, 579, 220–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC Regulatory Guide 1.208. (2007). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory guide office of nuclear regulatory research. A performance-based approach to define the sitespecific earthquake ground motion, Regulatory guide 1.208, 2007. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0703/ML070310619.pdf.

  • RFS 2001-01. (2001). French Safety Rule, published by the French Nuclear Safety Authority. http://www.asn.fr/index.php/Divers/Autres-RFS/RFS-2001-01.

  • RFS1.3.c. (1985). Etudes géologiques et géotechniques du site; détermination des caractéristiques des sols et études du comportement des terrains, French Safty Rule for site characterization, published by the French Nuclear Safety Authority. Available on https://www.asn.fr/Reglementer/Regles-fondamentales-desurete/RFS-relatives-aux-REP/RFS-I.3.c.-01-08-1985.

  • Schlupp, A., Clauzon, G., & Avouac, J. P. (2001). Mouvement post-messinien sur la faille de Nimes; implications pour la sismotectonique de la Provence. Bulletin of the Geological Society of France, 172(6), 697–711.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scotti, O., Clement, C., & Baumont, D. (2014). Seismic hazard for design and verification of nuclear installations in France: Regulatory context, debates issues and ongoing developments. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica e Applicata, 55(1), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.4430/bgta0080.

  • Sébrier, M., Ghafiri, A., & Blès, J. L. (1997). Paleoseismicity in France: Fault trench study in a region of moderate seismicity. Journal of Geodynamics, 24, 207–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee. (1997). Recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: Guidance on uncertainty and the use of experts. Written by the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC), published by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6372, 1997. Southern California Earthquake Center, platform. http://scec.usc.edu/scecpedia/Broadband_Platform.

  • Specific Safety Guide, N◦ SSG-9. (2010). Seismic hazards in site evaluation for nuclear installations, International Atomic Energy Agency. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1448_web.pdf.

  • Tasan, H., Beauval, C., Helmstetter, A., Sandikkaya, A., & Guéguen, P. (2014). Testing probabilistic seismic hazard estimates against accelerometric data in two countries: France and Turkey. Geophysical Journal International, 198(3), 1554–1571. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggu191.

  • Thomas, F., Rizza, M., Godard, V., Bellier, O., Billant, J., Dussouillez, P., Fleury, J., Hollender, F., Shabanian, E., Benedetti, L., Ollivier, V., Team Aster, & Guillou, V. (2016). Caractérisation des déformations sismogéniques en Provence par une approche pluri-disciplinaire: apport de la géomorphologie quantitative et de la paléosismologie. In 25 ème Réunion des Sciences de la Terre, 24–28 Octobre 2016, Caen, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanneste, K., Vleminckx, B., Stein, S., & Thierry-Camelbeeck, T. (2016). Could M max be the same for all stable continental regions? Seismological Research Letters, 87(5), 1212–1213. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220150203.

  • Vernant, P., Hivert, F., Chery, J., Steer, P., Cattin, R., & Rigo, A. (2013). Erosion-induced isostatic rebound triggers extension in low convergent mountain ranges. Geology, 41(4), 467–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volant, P., Berge-Thierry, C., Dervin, P., Cushing, E., Mohammadioun, G., & Mathieu, F. (2000). The south-eastern Durance fault permanent network: Preliminary results. Journal of Seismology, 4, 175–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walpersdorf, A., Baize, S. C., Cotte, N., Bascou, P., Beauval, C., Collard, P., et al. (2015). Coherence between geodetic and seismic deformation in a context of slow tectonic activity (SW Alps, France). Journal of Geodynamics, 85, 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2015.02.001.

  • Wells, D., & Coppersmith, K. (1994). New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area and surface displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84(4), 974–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wesnousky, S. (2008). Displacement and geometrical characteristics of earthquake surface ruptures: Issues and implications for seismic hazard analysis and the process of earthquake rupture. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 98(4), 1609–1632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woessner, J., Laurentiu, D., Giardini, D., Crowley, H., Cotton, F., Gru¨nthal, G., et al. (2015). The 2013 European seismic hazard model: key components and results. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 13(12), 3553–3596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woo, G. (1996). Kernel estimation methods for seismic hazard area source modeling. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 86, 353–362.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the anonymous reviewer for his in-depth review and comments that helped us further reshape this article. Funding was provided by Commissariat à l’É nergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA),, Centre de Saclay, DEN/DANS/DM2S, Université Paris-Saclay, 91191, Gif sur Yvette, France

    C. Berge-Thierry

  2. Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), Centre de Cadarache, DEN/CAD/DPIE/SA2S/GAS, 13115, Saint-Paul-lez-Durance, France

    F. Hollender & C. Guyonnet-Benaize

  3. Geoter-Fugro Group, 20, Zac du Pujol 1, Les Artauds Est, 13390, Auriol, France

    D. Baumont & G. Ameri

  4. Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), Centre de Bruyères-le-Châtel, DAM/DASE/LDG/LEGA, 91297, Arpajon Cedex, France

    L. Bollinger

Authors
  1. C. Berge-Thierry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Hollender
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Guyonnet-Benaize
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Baumont
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. Ameri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. L. Bollinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Berge-Thierry .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Swissnuclear , Olten, Solothurn, Switzerland

    Luis A. Dalguer

  2. International Atomic Energy Agency , Vienna, Austria

    Yoshimitsu Fukushima

  3. Aichi Institute of Technology , Toyota, Japan

    Kojiro Irikura

  4. Nuclear Regulation Authority , Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

    Changjiang Wu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Berge-Thierry, C., Hollender, F., Guyonnet-Benaize, C., Baumont, D., Ameri, G., Bollinger, L. (2018). Challenges Ahead for Nuclear Facility Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Assessment in France: The Alternative Energies and the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) Vision. In: Dalguer, L., Fukushima, Y., Irikura, K., Wu, C. (eds) Best Practices in Physics-based Fault Rupture Models for Seismic Hazard Assessment of Nuclear Installations. Pageoph Topical Volumes. Birkhäuser, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72709-7_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation