Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 37–54 | Cite as

A streamlined approach for the seismic hazard assessment of a new nuclear power plant in the UK

  • Guillermo Aldama-BustosEmail author
  • Iain J. Tromans
  • Fleur Strasser
  • Graham Garrard
  • Guy Green
  • Liz Rivers
  • John Douglas
  • Roger M. W. Musson
  • Simon Hunt
  • Angeliki Lessi-Cheimariou
  • Manuela Daví
  • Colin Robertson
Case Study Reports


This article presents a streamlined approach to seismic hazard assessment aimed at providing regulatory assurance, whilst acknowledging commercial and program constraints associated with the development of safety–critical facilities. The approach was developed based on international best practice and followed the spirit of the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) Level 2 requirements, while incorporating the key features of the SSHAC Level 3 process aimed at achieving regulatory assurance, but with a more flexible implementation. It has also benefited from experience gained by others regarding the implementation of the SSHAC process in projects in the USA, Switzerland and South Africa. The approach has been successfully applied as part of the Safety Case for the new-build nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point, UK. The proposed approach can be considered as a cost-effective solution for the seismic hazard evaluation of safety-significant facilities where a high level of regulatory assurance is required.


PSHA Safety–critical facilities SSHAC Regulatory assurance UK 



Centre, body and range


Central and eastern United States


CH2M Hill


Électricité de France


Global Earthquake Model


Ground-motion model


Hazard input document


International Atomic Energy Agency


Nuclear New Build Generation Company (subsidiary of EDF Energy)


Nuclear power plant


Office for Nuclear Regulation


Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis


Project management team


Participatory peer review panel


Peer review team


Safety assessment principles


Subject Expert


Seismic source characterization


Seismic source model


Seismic Hazard Working Party


Site response input document


Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee


Technical assessment guides


Technically defensible interpretations


Technical Delivery Team


Technical Integrator


US Nuclear Regulatory Commission



The authors would like to thank the PRT, Hilmar Bungum and Martin Koller, for their valuable comments and discussions during the development of the project, which helped to streamline the approach originally proposed at the beginning of the study. Their experience on previous SSHAC Levels 3 and 4 studies was invaluable. The authors would like to thank EDF-NNB GenCo for agreeing to the publication of this article. Finally, we thank three anonymous reviewers for their positive and constructive comments on an earlier version of this article.


  1. Abrahamson N, Birkhäuser P, Koller M, Mayer-Rosa D, Smit P, Sprecher C, Tinic S, Graf R (2002) PEGASOS—a comprehensive probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for nuclear power plants in Switzerland. In: 12th European conference on earthquake engineering, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernreuter D, Savy J, Mensing R, Chen J (1989) Seismic hazard characterization of 69 nuclear plant sites east of the Rocky Mountains. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  3. Bommer J (2010) Seismic hazard assessment for nuclear power plant sites in the UK: challenges and possibilities. Nucl Future 6(3):164–170Google Scholar
  4. Bommer J, Coppersmith K (2013) Lessons learned from application of the NUREG-2117 guidelines for SSHAC Level 3 probabilistic seismic hazard studies for nuclear sites. In: 22nd conference on structural mechanics in reactor technology (SMiRT-22), International Association for Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (IASMiRT), San Francisco, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Bommer J, Strasser F, Monelli D, Pagani M (2013) Quality assurance for logic-tree implementation in probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis for nuclear applications: a practical example. Seismol Res Lett 84(6):938–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bommer JJ, Coppersmith K, Coppersmith R, Hanson K, Mangongolo A, Neverling J, Rathje EM, Rodriguez-Marek A, Scherbaum F, Shelembe R, Stafford PJ, Strasser Strasser F O (2015) A SSHAC Level 3 probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for a new-build nuclear site in South Africa. Earthq Spectra 31(2):661–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Budnitz RJ, Apostolakis G, Boore DM, Clu LS, Coppersmith KJ, Cornell CA, Morris PA (1997) Recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: guidance on uncertainty and use of experts. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6372Google Scholar
  8. Coppersmith K, Bommer J (2012) Use of the SSHAC methodology within regulated environments: cost-effective application for seismic characterization at multiple sites. Nucl Eng Des 245:233–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coppersmith K, Bommer J, Bryce R, McDuffie S, Lisle G (2013). An application of the SSHAC Level 3 process to the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for nuclear facilities at the Hanford site, eastern Washington, USA. 22nd Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT-22), International Association for Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (IASMiRT), San Francisco, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. EPRI (1989) Probabilistic seismic hazard evaluations at nuclear power plant sites in the central and eastern United States: Resolution of the Charleston earthquake issue. Electric Power Research Institute, prepared by Risk Engineering Inc., Yankee Atomic Power Company and Woodward Clyde Consultants, EPRI report NP-6395-DGoogle Scholar
  11. EPRI (2013) EPRI 2004-2006 Ground-motion model (GMM). Review project 3002000717, final report, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  12. HSE (2009) New nuclear power stations generic design assessment: safety assessment in an international context. health and safety executive, Version 3Google Scholar
  13. Juckett M, Stamatakos J, Coppersmith K, Ake J, Bommer J (2016) Updating the SSHAC implementation guidance in NUREG-2117. DOE Natural Phanomena Hazards Technical Meeting, Southwest Research Institute, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionGoogle Scholar
  14. Musson RM (2014) UK seismic hazard assessments for strategic facilities: a short history. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata 55(1):165–173Google Scholar
  15. ONR (2014) Safety assessment principles for nuclear facilities. Office for Nuclear Regulation, Revision 0Google Scholar
  16. ONR. (2017a) External hazards. Office for nuclear regulation, nuclear safety technical assessment guide, NS-TAST-GD-013 Revision 6-DRAFTGoogle Scholar
  17. ONR (2017b) Seismic hazard. Office for nuclear regulation, nuclear safety technical assessment guide annex, NS-TAST-GD-013 Annex 1 Revision 1-DRAFTGoogle Scholar
  18. ONR Expert Panel on Natural Hazards (2017) Analysis of seismic hazards for nuclear sites. NS-TAST-GD-013 Annex 1 reference paper, expert panel report: GEN-SH-EP-2016-1 DRAFTGoogle Scholar
  19. Ordaz M, Martinelli F, Aguilar A, Arboleda J, Meletti C, D’Amico V (2015) Crisis2015 Ver. 1.0: Program for computing seismic hazard. Instituto de Ingenieria, UNAMGoogle Scholar
  20. Pagani M, Monelli D, Weatherill G, Danciu L, Crowley H, Silva V, Henshaw P, Butler L, Nastasi M, Panzeri L, Simionato M, Vigano D (2014) OpenQuake Engine: an open hazard (and risk) software for the global earthquake model. Seismol Res Lett 85(3):692–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Renault P (2013) Lessons learned from the seismic hazard assessment of NPPs in Switzerland. SMiRT22 - NGA-East Special Session, Retrieved 5 February 2016 from
  22. Renault P (2015) PEGASOS refinement project: a refined seismic hazard assessment for Swiss nuclear power plants. In: 14 D-A-CH conference—earthquakes and existing buildings, Zurich (In German)Google Scholar
  23. Salomone L (2015) A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis update review for two DOE sites and NGA-East project overview and status. Seismic Lessons-Learned Panel Meeting, 27 May, Link Technologies, IncGoogle Scholar
  24. SHWP (1988) Report on seismic hazard assessment, volume 3 M, a review of seismic hazard assessment methods and their adaptation for Britain. Seismic Hazard Working Party, Central Electricity Generating BoardGoogle Scholar
  25. SHWP (1991) Report on seismic hazard assessment, supplement to volume 3 M—seismic ground motion. Seismic Hazard Working Party, Central Electricity Generating BoardGoogle Scholar
  26. Thomas P, Wong I, Abrahamson N (2010) Verification of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis computer programs. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEER Report 2010/106Google Scholar
  27. Tromans IJ, Aldama-Bustos G, Douglas J, Lessi-Cheimariou A, Hunt S, Davi M, Musson RMW, Garrard G, Strasser F, Robertson C (2018) Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for a new-build nuclear power plant site in the UK. Bull Earthq Eng. Google Scholar
  28. USNRC (2007) A performance-based approach to define the site-specific earthquake ground motion. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.208Google Scholar
  29. USNRC (2012) Practical implementation guidelines for SSHAC level 3 and 4 hazard studies. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-2117, Rev. 1Google Scholar
  30. USNRC (2018) Updated implementation guidelines for SSHAC hazard studies. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-2213, in preparationGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guillermo Aldama-Bustos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Iain J. Tromans
    • 1
  • Fleur Strasser
    • 2
  • Graham Garrard
    • 3
  • Guy Green
    • 3
  • Liz Rivers
    • 3
  • John Douglas
    • 4
  • Roger M. W. Musson
    • 5
  • Simon Hunt
    • 3
  • Angeliki Lessi-Cheimariou
    • 1
  • Manuela Daví
    • 1
  • Colin Robertson
    • 6
  1. 1.Jacobs, Elms HouseLondonUK
  2. 2.Independent consultant / Jacobs, Elms HouseLondonUK
  3. 3.Jacobs, Burderop ParkSwindonUK
  4. 4.University of StrathclydeGlasgowUK
  5. 5.University of Edinburgh, School of GeosciencesEdinburghUK
  6. 6.NNB GenCoBristolUK

Personalised recommendations